User talk:Xerographica/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Now

Please. Do not stop. Ignore "editors". And keep doing what you're doing. So long as you're not being paid for wages, we can assume you're acting under good faith. Knock em out, kid.71.12.74.67 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarianism, you may be blocked from editing. mark nutley (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's review...first I shared my thoughts on the talk page. After waiting an appropriate amount of time I then edited the page accordingly. You, however, did not share your thoughts. Rather, you just undid my edits for no apparent reason. In my opinion such behavior warrants blocking. Please consider this a warning. --Xerographica (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets review further shall we, IP removes massive amount of content, no edit summary [1] Your second edit ever removed the same content, tell me did you garner a consensus for it`s removal? Because i look here [2] and do not see your contributions on the talk page before content removal. mark nutley (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You recognize that I'm the same person as the IP address...so why wouldn't you look to see what my IP address had contributed on the talk page? Never mind, we got off on the wrong foot. Here's the deal...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're an objective, intelligent admin and you can give me the benefit of the doubt that my intentions are to improve the page on Libertarianism.
To answer your question...yes I did achieve consensus. Admittedly though, only with the people who are actual Libertarians. The other people on the talk page are Anarcho-Capitalists (Rothbard). For the past few years the Anarcho-Capitalists have had free reign on the Libertarianism page and they've given undue weight to the negligible connection that modern Libertarianism had with Anarcho-Capitalism...and by extension...Anarchism itself.
It's easy to distinguish Anarcho-Capitalism from Libertarianism by looking at how each ideology views the state. Anarcho-Capitalists want to get rid of the state while Libertarians do not. Libertarianism is basically a revival of Classical Liberalism which recognizes the essential role of the state. To say that some Libertarians want to get rid of the state while others do not is completely false. Libertarians only want to put the state on a strict diet while Anarcho-Capitalists want to abolish it.
Practically speaking...the page on Anarcho-Capitalism effectively describes their ideology while the page on Libertarianism is a confusing contradictory mess. Very minority views have been given undue weight and the result is a discredit to Wikipedia and to Libertarianism. If you search for my IP address on the talk page you'll notice that at first I was just pissed off but then made an honest effort to understand the issue from their perspective and offer some reasonable solutions.
If we remove all those "forms" of Libertarianism then it will be readily apparent that only unintelligible junk will remain. Not only that but it's completely redundant and a waste of space to include a synopsis of each form as they all have their own main pages. As with any readable wikipedia article...the different "forms" should be organically included as links within the text where appropriate. Until then they should be listed in the See Also section or on the disambiguation page. --Xerographica (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually i had not realized you were the IP until afterwards when i checked your contribution history, so sorry about that. Your edits were in good faith and i should have taken more care before reverting you. Happy editing mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Which IP address was Xerographica? Just want to keep track. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at his contribution history mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Because anon IPS become attributed to the User name? Otherwise I don't know how to track back to an IP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
He edited as an ip then created an account. That is what shows up in the IP edit history, sorry i should have been clearer. You won`t see his IP looking at this account history mark nutley (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, so you mean every edit he did as an IP has now been changed to this User name in the histories? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

effective persuasion

Xero, I'm generally in agreement with your main objective at Libertarianism (to narrow the scope of the article), but I must say your methods are highly counter-productive. For example, instead of answering my simple question -- have you looked at the citations listed in the section above this one? -- you went off on a rant. What is the purpose here?

Moving on... I presume that your answer to my question, is yes, yet you wrote: "You want to keep the phrase "Forms of Libertarianism" as your justification for talking about them on this page. However, there is absolutely no evidence that supports referring to them as such...or else you would have provided it.". No evidence? Really? What about those citations I asked you about? Those were in the article at the time you made your "absolutely no evidence" assertion. To be persuasive, I suggest we refrain from making arguments based on obviously false assumptions.

Wikipedia works by building consensus. You will not be effective in building consensus supportive of your position if you take actions that are blatantly contrary to consensus, ignore questions and go off on rants, and make arguments based on blatantly false assertions. In short: think more, type less. We will get there. Logic and reason is on our side. Be patient. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I totally stand corrected that there is no evidence to support calling some of those ideologies "Forms of libertarianism". Is there sufficient evidence to support calling each and every one of the originally included ideologies "Forms of libertarianism"? If there is, why don't any of the main pages of those ideologies mention that they are "Forms of libertarianism"? Who knows...the point, for the millionth time, is not the available evidence...the point is relevant evidence. Trying to compare sources on orange (the fruit) and orange (the color) is a complete waste of time...so I was surprised that you even bothered...and surprised that you would expect me to look through it. When we're talking about different topics it's illogical to discuss sources.
The primary objective is to narrow the scope. By changing the wording from "Forms of Libertarianism" to "Related ideologies" the goal was to highlight just how unrelated the ideologies actually are. When I hear the word "Form" I think of something that has the same basic characteristics but a different shape. A cookie in different shapes is still a cookie. When I hear the word "related" I wonder how the two things are related. Just because two people share the same last name doesn't necessarily mean that they are related. Just because people are related by marriage or adoption doesn't necessarily mean that that they share any of the same characteristics as the family they married/adopted into.
Think more, type less? The opposition clearly understood the impact of changing the wording...how come you didn't? By using the word "related" we might have been able to engage in "DNA testing" in order to narrow the scope of the article. If you would have thought it out more I wouldn't have had to type this much explanation. --Xerographica (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. In short, the problem with the phrase "Forms of libertarianism" is that it presupposes a rare usage of the term "libertarianism", in which the term is defined so broadly and loosely that it hardly means anything. Instead of pointing this out on the talk page (I think it's too early), I want to first focus on agreeing on some common ground. Patience... --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you chose to exlude 3 from the list of points with which you agreed. Can you reconsider (after all, we have sources for exactly that), or at least provide an explanation for your disagreement as requested? I worded these points very carefully, please read them accordingly when deciding whether you agree or not. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism move?

I'm thinking perhaps the best solution at Libertarianism is not to change the existing article, but to move it to a new, more suitable title, and moving another article, or the dab page, to Libertarianism. What do you think of that? Before formally requesting a move at WP:RM, are two main issues to resolve:

  1. Where to move the current article.
  2. What to move to Libertarianism? Is there a primary topic? If so, what is it?

Any suggestions for either?

Not sure about (1). Forms of Libertarianism?

For (2), we could merge Classical Liberalism, Minarchism, and Right-libertarianism, and move that merged article to Libertarianism. If we did that, then we should first propose a merge of those articles, then propose the move involving Libertarianism.

What do you think?

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an acceptable solution. However, rather than merge Classical Liberalism I would just include a summary section of the topic on the Libertarianism page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that moving Classical Liberalism to Libertarianism is not a good idea because there are substantial differences.

But I don't know what you mean by "include a summary section of the topic on the Libertarianism page". What topic? What Libertarianism page? There won't be one if we move the current page to something else, per (1) above.

How about:

  1. Merge from Right-libertarianism to Minarchism
  2. LibertarianismForms of Libertarianism
  3. MinarchismLibertarianism
? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that would work. What I meant was that (3) could have a section discussing how Libertarianism has its roots in Classical Liberalism. --Xerographica (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism.

I'd be glad to mediate, though I probably won't be available much if at all until Thursday; would that be an issue? · Andonic Contact 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thursday is not an issue. Thank you for offering to take up our case. --Xerographica (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Ayn Rand

Errant's request for WP:RS is bizarre. We've provided a virtual screen-full of WP:RS for the claim that Ayn Rand is one of the most (if not the most) influential and recognisable Libertarianism philosophers. If we added any more we could (read:would) be accused of spamming/advertising/promotion. And yet, Errant (tmorton166) insists on more WP:RS.

We're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't. BlueRobe (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm making no claim either way on inclusion - in fact I am deliberately taking zero stance on the content. But I was making a point about sources; Xerographica said If I provide reliable sources stating that she's the most well known libertarian or had the greatest influence on libertarianism...in terms of proportion to prominence...how much coverage would she warrant in this article?, which is sound and solid reasoning, I was pointing out that rather than promise sources Xerographica should provide those sources so that the discussion could progress - hypothetical discussions don't work as well --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that it's trying to cover more than one mutually exclusive ideology. The ideal solution would be to remove unrelated and anarchist ideologies - left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism - from the article. However, as a compromise we had agreed to inclusion but asked that coverage of the various viewpoints/ideologies be based on proportion of prominence. As you can tell from numerous reliable sources, Ayn Rand was easily the most influential libertarian. In other words, her viewpoint on libertarianism is very widely held. However, because she was strongly against anarchism, the "equal coverage" proponents reject the idea of giving her additional coverage in the article.
Based on their refusal to provide coverage based on proportion of prominence...I can only conclude that the only long-term solution would be to completely remove unrelated ideologies from the article. Unrelated ideologies are extremely easy to identify because they advocate abolishing the government. --Xerographica (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on talk page

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Libertarianism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, stop spamming that message at everyone you disagree with. BlueRobe (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I received a somewhat similar baseless message. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Scope of Government-Liberal Spectrum.jpg

To try and facilitate visualization of the debate in terms of the scope of government, I created a bell curve diagram. For those of you that tend to get original research confused with critical thinking...this diagram is a good example of actual original research. As such it is not intended for use as a reliable source. For those not familiar with bell curves it might help to read up on them.

Conservatism almost wasn't included because, unlike the other ideologies, it is not socially liberal. If I hadn't included conservatism then moderate liberalism would have met progressive libertarianism in the middle of the graph. In theory we should be able to say left-libertarianism rather than progressive libertarianism but left-libertarianism is associated with libertarian socialism which is a type of anarchism. So without conservatism in the graph...to the immediate right of center would have been progressive libertarianism followed by moderate libertarianism followed by right libertarianism followed by anarcho-capitalism.

To get an idea of where to draw the line for this article it might help to see where everybody thinks the lines should be drawn. To participate in this survey you count the tick marks and indicate the range for any of the relevant ideologies. The tick marks range from -40 on the left to 40 on the right. The middle line (the mean) represents the current scope of government. Don't worry about the arrows indicating the responsibilities of government...we'll just imagine that they would conform to wherever you draw the lines.

For reference...

  • From 0 to 10 represents 34% of the population
  • From 10 to 20 represents 14% of the population
  • From 20 to 30 represents 2% of the population
  • From 30 to 40 represents .1% of the population

Here's where I would draw the lines...

  • Conservatism: 0 to 20
  • Progressive libertarianism: 0 to 10
  • Moderate libertarianism: 10 to 20
  • Right libertarianism: 20 to 32
  • Anarcho-capitalism: 32 to 33

If anybody who has excel wants to play around with the graph feel free to give me your e-mail address and I'll send you the file. --Xerographica (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit) Decided to add liberal spectrum version for reference. --Xerographica (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of cool effort! But I have to question putting all of things onto a single axis. And, is the question exclusion, or is it really undue weight? North8000 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The greater the inclusiveness the more of a challenge undue weight becomes. However, this is just a survey to see where we all stand on this particular tenet. Participants can overlap the ideologies as much as they like. As you can see...I myself overlapped conservatism and libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I love the first graph. I do share North8000's concerns about a linear spectrum. Folk language gets all confused about left-wing and right-wing, leading some people to put Libertarianism AND Nazism together on the extreme right wing, which is clearly absurd. On a linear left-right spectrum, Nazism is an extremely left-wing ideology. Ironic, eh? Personally, my experience of the term "right-wing" has been: right-wing = anything the journalist doesn't like. Regardless, excellent work, Xerographica. BlueRobe (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I love the first graph too, but I am disappointed that so many libertarian commentators follow the academic mainstream and completely ignore government control over money. Could you please add another arrow at the bottom, but above Defense/Courts and to the right of 'Infrastructure' - basically starting where the vertical dotted line is on the right side of the green libertarian bar - with the comment 'Government control/support of money/banking'. If you add this additional row to the graph I can then download it and use it for my blog - with the credit to you of course. Great work X, if WP hadn't been taken over by leftist zealots this would probably be in the mainpage now. Summarizing information accurately is not OR. But these idiots can't think beyond their favorite leftist academic textbook, which is why there's not one sentence of elegant, clear writing on the mainpage. The mainpage reads like the confused progeny of zealot Marx and inbred-idiot Keynes. Which is not as weird as it sounds, if you knew about their personal lives...SummerOfOurDiscontent (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Milton Friedman was the main libertarian that I can think of that significantly addressed the monetary issue...Monetarism. In the list of prominent libertarians' viewpoints on the scope of government none of them included money or banks...Friedrich Hayek specifically excluded issuing money. So your recommendation of where the arrow should be placed seems reasonable and I modified the graphs accordingly. Yeah, this article is more like a montage of completely different and mutually exclusive political ideologies than an article on libertarianism as a cohesive political ideology. --Xerographica (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Detailed Explanation

North8000, broadly speaking, libertarians are described as socially liberal and economically conservative. Libertarians agree with the liberals in terms of social liberties and agree with the conservatives in terms of decreasing the scope of the government. None of the debate on the talk page has concerned the social liberties aspect of libertarianism so there's no real need to address that spectrum.

Regarding your second point...somehow I'm not effectively communicating that participants could draw the lines wherever they wanted. For example, here's how an anarcho-capitalist could draw the lines...

  • Libertarianism: 10 to 33
  • Right libertarianism: 15 to 33
  • Anarcho-capitalism: 30 to 33

...or like this...

  • Libertarianism: 15 to 33
  • Right libertarianism: 20 to 33
  • Anarcho-capitalism: 25 to 33

...or like this...

  • Libertarianism: 23 to 33
  • Right libertarianism: 23 to 33
  • Anarcho-capitalism: 23 to 33

This survey is basically a request for comments...but with comments that are quantifiable. Let me know if it still doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to try another approach. --Xerographica (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Above Section From Talk Page

The above section was germane and an attempt at forward progress on an article that has been a 5 year failure, and it's removal was improper. I would have put it back in for you except that I think that it is quite confusing and so I have a hard time seeing it go to fruition. Maybe you would agree to leave it out? North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well...it doesn't exactly set good precedent for Jrtayloriv and BigK HeX to feel like they can arbitrarily remove any discussion that they feel is contrary to their opinions. Which part did you find confusing? --Xerographica (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, IMHO it looks like trying to display a 2 dimensional (or more) question as a one dimensional (plus results) graph, making it not make enough sense. Also it's not clear what somebody is supposed to do. But to keep it in perspective. more importantly, thank you for trying to move this out of it's 5 year failure. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback but can you offer some specifics? The area under the curve represents the population of the United States. The center line represents the size of our current government. People to the left of center want more government and people to the right of center want less government. The tick marks would allow editors to specify where they think one ideology starts and ends. If you define libertarianism as wanting less government then you would say that libertarianism starts at 0 and ends at 40. If you say that libertarianism is minimal government then you would say that it starts at 20 and ends at 30. If editors don't know where an ideology starts and ends then we have no guidelines for inclusion or exclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess I would consider the top two problems to be: 1. the incorrectness of trying to define Liberalism and Conservatism on that scale. The stereotypical set of beliefs for each of those wants bigger government in some sreas, and smaller government in others. Maybe on the average, stereotypical conservatives are a little more for smaller government, but they also want bigger government in some areas (defense, "law and order" issues, laws prohibiting certain behaviors). Second, I think that it is clear, that there are some people (not me), philosophers etc. who clearly consider themselves to be Libertarians who want zero / no government. Your poll would seemingly be deciding a possible outcome of saying that these people (who are at the far end of your spectrum and most likely to get excluded) are not Libertarians. I think that that would be contrary to reality. So, if you will excuse my directness, in the unlikely event that your poll has an outcome, it would be an outcome that is contrary to reality and also would not fly in the article. Respectfully, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are my replies to your points. --Xerographica (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I replaced and closed the talk page section - that would have been a better approach I think. Regardless this is now the third time I have seen you post similar material; I appreciate you have put a lot of thought into your suggestions but no sources were presented in them, no policy notation's etc. and they all end with a discussion of your own view on the scope of the article - again not backed by sources. I encourage you to pick up and work with sources to promote your view on the scope of the article - for that reason I closed those two talk page sections. Sources are the be all and end all' of this. I hope you take this message in the way it is intended :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't post enough sources here...scope of government? Or should I just link to that section every time I post? Or maybe those libertarians are not prominent enough? Or maybe somebody else posted more sources supporting another definition? If so, how many sources did they post? If I do need more sources...can you give me a rough estimate how many more sources you'll require before you'll appreciate that the article is trying to cover completely different ideologies? --Xerographica (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think you do need to bring in specific sources to each point you are making. This is not about number of sources, it is about using them correctly to present your point. I have had trouble keeping up with what you are trying to post/say & this may be partly because of the lack of sources. The big section of quotes you posted is useful but had two problems; firstly there was no simple conclusion, it was just lots of quotes. Secondly there were few links - so it is hard to verify sources. Then in other sections you presented an argument without using any of the sources you had posted. It is very hard to link these up without you doing it :) before you'll appreciate that the article is trying to cover completely different ideologies? I'm irrelevant, I take no stance on the scope of the article - however I'm trying to help you make your point in a way that is easy to follow and within guidelines of how to do this --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 01:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The conclusion was very simple. Here are the keywords from the sources...
harm, protect, courts, limit, protector, justice, limited, protection, defense, justice, protect, law, armed force, protect, law, Defend, justice, minimal, protection, courts, defense, limited, security
If you once more read over the sources in the "Libertarians on the Scope of Government" section and look for those keywords...then the pattern will reveal itself. The role of the state should be limited to protecting its citizens from harm. In other words...the freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. If I punched you...the police would arrest me, I would stand trial and go to jail if convicted. Same thing on the national level. After 9/11 I served in Afghanistan for a year with the Army. Even though the role of government should be limited...the role it should be limited to is extremely important.
There was no need to include links because all the libertarians agreed that the state was essential. The lone voice of dissent was Rothbard. Unlike all the other libertarians, his "method" involved abolishing the state. From his perspective voluntary organizations or private companies could match the state in terms of levels of protection. However, studies into the free-rider effect have since conclusively proven that levels would not even be remotely comparable. In any case though...the state was so essential to so many prominent libertarians that it is a defining tenet of libertarianism. If you remove the state from the definition then you'll have a fundamentally different political ideology...which is why we refer to Rothbard's ideology as anarcho-capitalism. --Xerographica (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Xerographica -- I just wanted to point out that the removal had nothing to do with being "contrary to my opinions". I did think it was uninformative and poorly reasoned, but that's not why I removed it. I removed it because it was pure original research, and was a blatant violation of talk page guidelines. If you'd like to understand why this post, and your previous such posts have been removed (and why any future ones will be removed), please take a look at WP:OR and WP:TPG. This will save you time and stress not only at Libertarianism, but at any other contested article you decide to work on. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Xerographica posted, "As far as I can tell, the content was not in violation of the Talk Page Guidelines..."The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." But on the off-chance that I'm misinterpreting the specific exceptions I'll leave it off...but I would appreciate hearing exactly which guideline it sufficiently violated to warrant removal."

It was removed as WP:OR. There is a small amount of leniency on your personal user talk page, but the article talk pages are most definitely an inappropriate place to post your personal philosophical musings, per WP:NOT#FORUM. As for the talk page guidelines, my opinion was that your post fell into the "Behavior that is not acceptable => 'Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic'", and I removed it as described under "Editing comments => Others' comments => Refactoring for relevance".

Generally, there's a decent amount of tolerance for WP:OR on article talk pages, such that removal is somewhat uncommon. A gentle reminder usually does the trick, but pointing out blatant WP:OR has had little effect for at least 2 months and worse, editors continue to cheer and follow-up the original research; less leniency seems warranted. Frankly, the insane level of WP:OR seen on the Libertarianism talk page in the last two months ranks up there with one of the worst editorial obstructions that I've seen on Wikipedia in 2 years. BigK HeX (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv and BigK HeX, nowhere did I say or even hint that my original research should be added to the article on libertarianism. In fact, I specified that it was not a reliable source. Neither was it a forum post nor was it soapbox. My post had direct applicability to improving the article. The original research was a survey designed to encourage editors to quantify their definitions of libertarianism. Rather than take the survey you two felt it would be in your best interests to remove it from the discussion page. Such cheap tactics are pathetic. --Xerographica (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
As I stated above, please see WP:TPG, which states:
Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material ...
You provided your personal point of view, rather than reliable sources.
Also (again) you might want to take a look at WP:NOTAFORUM...
Nobody claimed that you were trying that you were trying to directly add this original research into the article. You are completely missing (or consciously avoiding) the point. The point was that you are arguing on a talk page and using original research to back your arguments rather than reliable sources; you have been warned about this repeatedly, and continue to do it. Your lengthy personal opinions are not helpful, and are in violation of Wikipedia talk page guidelines. Posts that have no substance other than your personal opinion will likely be removed, no matter how "applicable to improving the article" you think it is, or how "pathetic" or "cheap" you think removing them is. Again, if you'd like to understand why, take a look at WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv, your passionate intolerance for another person's intelligent opinion is duly noted. Now, sod-off. BlueRobe (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no requirement that one must provide citations in order to say something on a talk page. Second, someone deleting someone else's talk page comments due to them personally alleging violtion of a vague "not a forum" guideline is way way out of line. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
North8000, Jrtayloriv and Carol have this bizarre (and erroneous) idea that talk pages are only for listing citations. Talking with them in the real world must be like talking with robots. BlueRobe (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued erroneous quotation & application Of WP policies and guidelines in the article and to the above moved material

A blatant and often repeated instance of this is people mistakenly saying that WP:NOR applies to talk pages. WP:NOR explicitly states that it is a a policy for ARTICLE content. WP:NOR does NOT apply to talk pages. This is Wikipedia 101. This article is one of the few places where several people do not seem to realize this.

Another blatant violation of talk page guidelines is to not modify, delete or move other peoples posts. The guideline makes some very specific and limited exception to this, and somebody else's real, imagined or arguable assertion that a post violates wp:not a forum or violates a non-existent rule of wp:nor-for-talk pages in NOT one of these exceptions. So the removals or moving of other people posts that have been occurring are a serious violation of talk page guidelines.

Please stop. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM: In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. ... Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence. But, per WP:TPG, you are not allowed to remove material for an alleged violation of wp:notaforum. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please stop posting general questions about libertarianism. They are unhelpful. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this article is not lack of reliable sources. The problem is that we are trying to write an article without first establishing which, if any, are the defining tenets of libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. We don't decide what are the "defining tenets" of libertarianism. We determine how high-quality reliable sources define it, and neutrally report that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If you can't "determine" the difference between "establishing" and "deciding" then it's a given that you're not qualified to determine the difference between libertarianism and unrelated ideologies. Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are being discussed at ANI and may respond here. TFD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Libertarianism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you accused me of personally attacking other editors...but didn't bother to point out specific instances...guess I'll just go down the list to try and guess what you are referring to. Let's see...
  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or... Nope
  • Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views...Nope
  • Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material...Nope
  • Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence....Nope
  • Threats, including, but not limited to...Nope
Before you accuse other editors of personal attacks...it might help to actually read what constitutes a personal attack. --Xerographica (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"certain editors lack critical thinking skills" certainly sounds like a personal attack to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that I did not specify any editors it could hardly be considered personal. Also, I indicated exactly how critical thinking skills were directly relevant to the content. Additionally, the ANI was not even submitted for a personal attack..."I have reported this abuse of the talk page to ANI". So, given that you did not regard my post as an "abuse of the talk page" and that the editor did not not report me for personally attacking anybody...I'd say that neither accusation warranted a warning. If anything, for wasting your time and my own, you might want to warn the editor who submitted the incident that, in the future, he should only submit clearly identifiable incidents. Xerographica (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Critical Thinking

  1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
  2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
  3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
  4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Xerographica (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Improving This Article

According to WP:NOT#FORUM, talk pages are for discussing how to resolve problems with articles. The problem with this article is that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. To solve this problem, we first need to identify which editors fall into this category. Therefore, all the editors of this article should answer the following questions...

  1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
  2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
  3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
  4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Here are my answers...

  1. No - social liberalism is a defining tenet of libertarianism
  2. No - minimal government is a defining tenet of libertarianism
  3. No - minimal government is a defining tenet of libertarianism
  4. No - anti-capitalism is a defining tenet of anarchism

--Xerographica (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. No - Social conservatism is not Libertarian in any way, shape or form.
  2. No - Liberals want big government, which Libertarianism opposes.
  3. No - The principles of Libertarianism and Anarchism differ wildly.
  4. Yes - Anarcho-capitalists support the elimination of the state to 'protect' property rights.

--Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
    No. Social conservatism violates the Non-aggression principle and is therefore not libertarianism.
  2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
    No. Liberal big government violates the Non-aggression principle and is therefore not libertarianism.
  3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
    Yes. Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians that believe that any government, even a minimalist government, violates the Non-aggression principle. This belief is what distinguishes anarchist libertarians (a.k.a Anarcho-capitalists) from minarchist libertarians.
  4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?
    Yes. Support of unfettered free trade (capitalism) is what distinguishes anarcho-capitalists from other anarchists, as the name suggests, though how non A-C anarchists would prevent capitalism from naturally evolving, without a government to inhibit free trade, is beyond me.

Hope this helps someone somehow. It does seem only loosely related to article content. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think that these questions are only "loosely related to article content"...maybe it might help to read the following Cato report...The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama. According to your survey response...libertarianism ranges from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism. Therefore, anybody like Adam Smith who wanted the government to provide basic infrastructure would be considered a modern liberal rather than a libertarian. Xerographica (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not premised on the editorial reading of RS. Long adequately covers these issues, and could be supplemented with a variety of US minarchist and anarcho-capitalist writers, as well as that German author identified above by me. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, "anti-capitalism is a defining tenet of anarchism"? You wanna source that? It's gotta be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen in a long time. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
All editors responding to this thread are wasting other editors' time. The talk page is about the article not about what individual editors believe. TFD (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD, clearly, Xerographica, Toa Nidhiki05 and Born2cycle are making good faith attempts to help the editorial community achieve consensus by resolving some of the fundamental misunderstandings that plague the perspectives of many of the editors. If you weren't so hell-bent on sabotaging the Libertarianism article in accordance with your own political agenda, and attacking anyone who challenges you, you would be able to see consensus-building when it is staring you in the face. BlueRobe (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We do not form consensus by discussing among ourselves our own personal opinions and ignoring reliable sources. When you were earning your six academic degrees did you ever come across a professor who asked for a source for any of your statements of fact? I have reported this abuse of the talk page to ANI and you may discuss the matter here. TFD (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD, you have no idea what my personal opinions on libertarianism are. What I've posted on the talk page has always reflected what I've read in reliable sources. If you've ever doubted that then all you had to do was ask me to cite my sources. --Xerographica (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States

I'd like to draw your attention to the condition of this article. Compare with Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States and Republicanism in the United States. Could you please dedicate your talents to improving this article? Yworo (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The condition of this article would be much improved if you dedicated your time to any of these articles...
Xerographica (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Xero..... I don't think that the above by Yworo was written to you. It was just pasted in verbatim into multiple talk pages, including mine. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Political Ideology Interconnectedness

BigK HeX deleted this from the libertarianism talk page so putting it here for now...

Here’s another diagram...the "Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram". This diagram, while based on reliable sources, is original research and is not intended for use in this article. The goal of the diagram is to help us clarify the topic of this article by providing a visual representation of the degrees of separation between the various ideologies.

You can see that libertarian socialism is as distantly related to libertarianism as possible. The reason that the word "libertarian" ended up with "socialism" is because Chomsky uses the words "libertarian" and "anarchism" synonymously. Therefore, a more appropriate name for his ideology would be anarcho-socialism.

The current topic of this page is "ideologies intimately related to libertarianism". But if anarcho-socialism and libertarianism are intimately related then for this article to be cohesive we would also have to discuss socialism, liberalism, anarchism and conservatism.

My vote is that we only discuss libertarianism as defined by numerous reliable sources...scope of government. We can clarify this at the top of the article with a disambiguation sentence that includes links to anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism. Xerographica (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice diagram!
I'm still trying to figure out one thing. To me it seems that anarchism is the extreme version of one of the tenets held by many Libertarians and Libertarian philosophies. I assume I'm somehow wrong on this. Your diagram (and the discussions in general) seem to say no, it is a disparate tenet.
Finally, please feel free to delete this for being non-germane but I can't help myself, here's my super-technicl RS analysis on anarchism: "We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." -- Alan Bennett North8000 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't the anarcho-capitialism bubble entirely within the anarchism bubble? That is, do you believe there are anarcho-capitalists who are not anarchists? Where? Who?

This is important because you show (properly) overlap between libertarianism and A-C - but if A-C is entirely anarchist then there is libertarianism overlap into anarchism. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In the diagram, overlap only identifies the primary tenet that two ideologies share. You are the combination of traits from your father and traits from your mother...but you are neither your father nor your mother. Anarcho-socialism (libertarian socialism) is a combination of anarchism (no government) and socialism (public ownership of the means of production)...but it is neither anarchism nor socialism. Anarcho-capitalism is a combination of anarchism (no government) and capitalism (private ownership of the means of production)...but it is neither anarchism nor any of the other three main ideologies (libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism) that also share capitalism.
If you look on the article on Anarchism and capitalism...there are only two people referenced in the pro-capitalism section...Murray Rothbard and David Friedman...both of whom are anarcho-capitalists. If you read this excellent article Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy...Rothbard is listed as the only libertarian that wants to abolish government. If you're going to say that anarcho-capitalism should be entirely within anarchism...then logically it must fit entirely within libertarianism as well. Of course, at that point we would be saying that libertarianism is anarchism. With the same logic applied to anarcho-socialism we would be saying that socialism is anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You said that the file "Was created to help the user win an argument on a Talk page". However, in the file description I wrote..."Diagram to facilitate discussion on the libertarianism talk page". Well...it was deleted from the libertarianism talk page but it has facilitated discussion on my talk page...as can be clearly seen above...Political Ideology Interconnectedness. Libertarianism is a complex topic and there's nothing wrong with editors creating diagrams to help facilitate discussion. --Xerographica (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hrs

Exporting the behavior you were already being warned about to Talk:Night watchman state [3] was an inappropriate response to the warnings.

I have blocked you from editing for 48 hrs.

Please change the way that you engage in discussion and debate and editing on Wikipedia. Again - what you're doing is not OK here. If you keep it up, the blocks will come again, and for longer, and eventually permanently.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Xerographica (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I have been blocked for WP:DE...which is somewhat true. The libertarianism page is overrun with anarchists who are pushing their tiny minority view onto the article...giving undue weight to anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism (libertarian socialism). The problem is that uninvolved editors do not realize the proper weight those ideologies should have within the article on libertarianism.

At first I tried to edit the article but all my edits were quickly reverted by the anarchists. Because of their disruptive editing I haven't been able to edit the article at all. However, on the talk page, I've been sharing reliable sources that clearly indicate what the majority of libertarians believe. I don't force the anarchists to respond to my comments...and I haven't reverted any of their edits to the libertarianism article...yet they accuse me of disruptive "editing".

As evidence of my good faith...I was the one who submitted the article for informal mediation. However, the anarchists quickly gave undue weight to their viewpoint... Libertarianism Cabal Case and recently one of the anarchists drove off a potential mediator.

This block is a result of the anarchists' disruptive editing...not my own. It's not readily apparent at first glance...which is why my appeal will most likely not be successful. But it's worth my time to appeal the block even if there's just a slim chance that an editor will take the time to throughly review the history of the article on libertarianism which will clearly reveal the undue weight that the anarchists have given to their very tiny minority viewpoints. --Xerographica (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I stopped reading at the second sentence. WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Oppose unblock as this editor continues to label editors he sees as opponents as "anarchists" simply because they support the Libertarianism article being a broad overview article which includes the usage of the term to refer to certain forms of anarchism. No editors that I know of have self-identified as anarchists, so the label is here being used as an ad hominem personal attack and as such mis-characterizes what is actually going on at the article and its talk page. Despite being asked to provide explicit sources rather than implicitly interpreting sources, this editor has supplied no global demographic sources to support what weights should be given to the various sub-areas of libertarianism. Until such sources are supplied, there is no basis for determining what weight each section is due making any undue weight arguments unfounded. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources explicitly indicate that libertarians do not want to abolish the government. Yet, anarchist ideologies are given undue weight in the article on libertarianism. If not a single editor is an anarchist...then they must all believe in the necessity of government. It's rather strange that pro-government editors would give undue weight to anarchist ideologies. You'd think it would be the other way around. --Xerographica (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You are making a logical error here. Those quotes only establish that each individual writer only wants to limit government. None of the sources speak for all libertarians and none explicitly say that no libertarians want to abolish government. Even if one did, if other sources say some libertarians do want to abolish government, that information has to be included in the article. That's why nobody took that list of cherry-picked quotes seriously. Yworo (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Your error is not grasping the weight those writers hold within libertarianism. Failing to grasp their weight means that you give WP:UNDUE weight to very minority views. Coverage that viewpoints receive in an article should be in "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". What's interesting is that, in my list of quotes, I included a section where I made an obvious point to establish the prominence of those writers within libertarianism. So given that "nobody" took the quotes seriously it either indicates that nobody takes the NPOV policy seriously or that nobody regards those libertarians as truly prominent. Thanks for helping to re-establish the heart of the debate. --Xerographica (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never opposed balancing the subject by weight. I only insist that weights be determined by global demographic survey data, which I've asked for repeatedly. Anything else boils down to either original research or personal opinion about those weights. These things are normally done based on the political demographics or distribution of adherence to the various views. Yworo (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The reliable sources I shared firmly established who the most prominent libertarians are. You did not take those reliable sources seriously. Therefore, you do not take balancing the subject by weight seriously. What in the world would "global demographic survey data" reflect other than what the most prominent and influential libertarians have expounded? That being said, if you had taken my quotes seriously you would have noticed the survey data that I included. I also shared similar data in my section on Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal where your only contribution to the topic was, "That's not an answer." --Xerographica (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course I didn't take them seriously. They are cherry-picked quotes picked to support your own opinion; the method itself is an invalid method for determining weight amounting to original research. We determine weight by number of adherents, not by "what the most prominent and influential libertarians have expounded". Those type of sources are only valid for supporting, I'm sure you guessed it, "what the most prominent and influential libertarians have expounded". You don't seem to realize that Wikipedia rules require the sources to explicitly say what you are attempting to support. What the demographic data would supply is the specific percentage proportions of the various views within libertarianism. Why don't you read what original research is? We do not allow any synthesis of sources for any purpose. You must find sources which don't require interpretation. If you can find sources that explicitly say what the balance is between various forms of libertarianism, we can use them. Nothing else will do, no matter how "logical" it seems to you. I take balancing the article completely seriously, which is why I can't accept your theories based on poorly conceived and executed original research. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you take balance so seriously then maybe you should try actually reading what Wikipedia policy says on the subject, "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Whether you like it or not...my quotes, which come from reliable sources, identify the most prominent and influential libertarians. Those are the libertarians that should receive the most coverage in this article. That Long, and not John Stuart Mill, is given coverage in the introduction of this article is a clear indication that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. --Xerographica (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if you are right about that, and I don't think you are, when it says "reliable sources" it means current academic sources. It doesn't mean quotes from primary sources. If you were serious, you'd see how much coverage by percentage each variant receives compared to the total content about libertarianism in such modern sources as:
  • G. A. Cohen, Gerald Allan Cohen. Self-ownership, freedom, and equality, pp. 118-119. Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0521477514.
  • Thomas Christiano, John Philip Christman. Contemporary debates in political philosophy, pp. 138-145. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. ISBN 1405133228
  • Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3, pp. 1562-1563. Taylor & Francis US, 2001. ISBN 0415936756
  • Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jeffrey Paul. Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, pp. 190-192. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0521703050
  • Ronald Hamowy. The encyclopedia of libertarianism, pp. 246, 288. SAGE, 2008. ISBN 1412965802
  • Mark Bevir. Encyclopedia of Political Theory, p. 811. SAGE, 2010. ISBN 1412958652
  • Edward Craig. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy: Genealogy to Iqbal, Volume 4, p. 618, Taylor & Francis, 1998. ISBN 0415073103
  • G. W. Smith. Liberalism: Rights, property and markets, p. 4. Taylor & Francis, 2002. ISBN 0415223598
  • Norman P. Barry. On classical liberalism and libertarianism, p. 42. Macmillan, 1986. ISBN 0333325915
which go into libertarianism in depth, and don't give short shrift to left-libertarianism. Since you cherry-picked your quotes rather than really looking into the proportional coverage in reliable sources, my criticism of your methods stills stands. In any case, if you look into it more deeply, I think you'll find that religious and political topics do take into account relative populations of adherents if the data is available. Yworo (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's my response...cherry picking. --Xerographica (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Xerographica on many points about problems with the Libertarianism article, but want him to understand that his behavior is unacceptable. He, like someone else who was recently banned for a month, is of no help in actually improving the article when he employs tactics that are clearly against policy.

Xero, I suggest you spend your time reviewing the sources currently being used to allegedly show that libertarian socialism is a variant of libertarianism, and finding more (besides Widerquest) that show that it is separate ideology (which at least the article now states). As to the idea that anarchy is not part of libertarianism, that notion is definitely supported by reliable sources, so I think that ship sailed long before WP even started. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which of my tactics or behavior was against policy? Have I ever deleted any comments that I disagreed with? Have I not always supported my position with reliable sources?
Regarding the content...you're getting bogged down in labels and losing focus of tenets. Chomsky and others have used "libertarianism" to refer to "anarchism". So when "libertarianism" means "anarchism" then it could be said that libertarian socialism is the offspring of libertarianism and socialism. Here we use libertarianism to mean something completely different which is why it's more appropriate to think of libertarian socialism as anarcho-socialism.
This short youtube video of Chomsky discussing the topic is somewhat helpful...Chomsky on Libertarianism. Because of Chomsky and others we can't rely on labels...we have to rely on identifying tenets in order to discern which political ideology is being discussed. This is why I created a checklist to help editors focus on tenets rather than labels...reliable vs relevant sources. It's why I created the diagram.
As Chomsky himself said at the end of his presentation..."when terms have lost their meaning it because impossible to talk". So much needless debate and argument on the libertarianism page stems directly from focusing solely on labels. You can't win the labels game because we're all right and wrong. To sort out the mess we have to focus solely on tenets and allow the disambiguation page to do its job. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Support UNblock From what I can see the "offenses" were providing ideas and information civilly in talk pages in an effort to assist in working out the issues in the 5 year failure of an article. Possibly some flaws, but certainly not a blocking offense. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: the immediate trigger for the block was not the prior behavior; it was going to yet another, new page, and expanding the behavior, immediately after having been warned to stop or slow down the behavior.
What happened prior to the last set of warnings was ultimately irrelevant. Escalating the behavior, rather than de-escalating or working to get a consensus that the behavior was OK (change the consensus that led to warnings) is an unacceptable response to administrator warnings. If we cite policy and interpret it and tell you that you're over the line and need to stop, you need to stop. Going and making it worse by adding in more pages to the set of pages involved in an incident, after those warnings, is going to get you blocked by pretty much any administrator who notices the behavior.
This is in no way a final ruling or any such thing, on the discussion tactics in question. I personally doubt that Xerographica will convince a consensus of editors that what he's doing is ok - but you are free to continue working to change minds on that point, once the block expires.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
At the top of the Night watchman state article it says..."This article needs additional citations for verification." So I copy and pasted my relevant collection of citations into the discussion section. Unlike the anarchists...I didn't force them into the article. I didn't delete anybody else's comments. I didn't revert anybody's edit. I didn't modify anybody's comment...unlike BigK HeX who removed this section from within my citations comment...
Interesting that libertarianism isn't mentioned in the lead of this article and the word minarchism isn't used even once in any of these quotes. Well...tenets trump labels.
All I did was share some relevant citations. People aren't forced to read the citations. How this behavior is disruptive or unacceptable is beyond me.
As North8000 verified...I'm just sharing information. Sure, it's easy for you and other editors to see how that makes me a trouble maker, but the challenge for you is to figure out why BigK HeX would want to remove the above section from my comment. It's wikipedia policy that each distinct definition of a term have it's own article...it's why there are disambiguation pages. BigK HeX knows this and it's contrary to the stance he's held all along. So if you think you're enforcing wikipedia policy by blocking me you really aren't. You're indirectly helping BigK HeX and other editors violate wikipedia policy. --Xerographica (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I don't understand your argument. But I disagree with your conclusion.
One can always introduce new information to inform debate. But sometimes, introducing more information to inform debate is a cover activity under which you're attempting to do something else. I, and others, have concluded that you're really doing something else.
Again - the thing you're trying to do here is promote an agenda using Wikipedia as a venue. That's not OK.
Again - Expanding the problem to other pages after you were told that you had a problem and that you needed to stop, is not OK either.
I don't know that I can change your mind on this. But I can assure you that if you don't at least listen to the criticisms here and moderate your behavior, your tenure on Wikipedia will be over shortly. We are not just an encyclopedia anyone can edit - we're an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. Everyone together means getting along. It does not mean passive agreement with others' opinions - but it does mean cooperating with them and not insulting or berating or deluging them with fake "information". Such activities are fundamentally disrespectful of those around you. They are editors, too, and deserve as much respect and cooperation as you expect to receive yourself.
If you will cooperate going forwards your block will expire shortly and you can resume editing and nobody will care or remember in six months. If you won't then you won't be here. It's up to you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If I understand Xerographica's point correctly (that Anarchism is completely separate from Libertarianism) then I disagree with him/her. However this "behavior" that Xerographica was "propagating" is civilly providing information and references germane to the discussion for the improvement of the articles. Either there is something I missed, or I feel like I have here just jumped down a rabbit hole here of an alternate universe that is detached from normal Wikipedia standards and behavioral norms. . North8000 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
He outright said at one point that "certain editors lack critical thinking skills" - a blockable personal attack, and there's widespread consensus among uninvolved administrators who reviewed on ANI that his activities all add up to soapboxing.
He was not civilly providing information and resources. He has been beating people over the head with them.
I read the talk page history for everything involved, I didn't just respond to the ANI thread. I believe there's a real and serious problem here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have reviewed this very thoroughly, then I stand corrected. If you are going mostly by an attacker's distillation, then not. Either way, I wish all the best. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If you had a biography on here and you noticed that in the article you were referred to as a fascist...then what would your agenda be? The only reason I'm here is because the article equated libertarianism with anarchism. Look at the article on Minarchism. Half of the article is dedicated to criticism. Doesn't that strike you as strange? It doesn't strike me as strange because I know that Carolmooredc is a huge proponent of Rothbard and she gives him undue weight in every article she can. The article on libertarianism doesn't even have a criticism section because Carolmooredc equates libertarianism to anarcho-capitalism...which is Rothbard's ideology.
Regarding "certain editors lack critical thinking skills". This is out of context. BigK HeX had just arbitrarily closed my previous section. If that doesn't clearly indicate a lack of critical thinking skills than I do not know what does. "Cooperation" isn't deleting or closing comments just because you disagree with what somebody has to say. Deleting comments is "fundamentally disrespectful" and I'd prefer to deal with "fake information" any day. Also, if you're going to accuse my information of being fake then I think it would be respectful of you to at least offer some justification for the accusation. --Xerographica (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if you honestly believe someone's behavior clearly indicates a lack of critical thinking skills, it's still a blockable offense to say so. In comments on article talk pages, focus on article content; not on editors, their behavior, or psychological inadequacies. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that editors' behaviors or psychological inadequacies have no direct relation to article content? The present and past state of the article indicates otherwise. A lack of critical thinking skills is why certain editors fail to recognize the fundamental difference between "libertarianism" being used to mean anarchism and "libertarianism" being used to mean a pro-capitalist and pro-minimal government ideology. They think that an ideology can simultaneously be pro-capitalist/anti-capitalist and pro-minimal government/pro-anarchist. The reliable sources clearly indicate that there are two mutually exclusive meanings...yet, rather than disambiguate...certain editors want to combine both meanings under the same term in the same article. --Xerographica (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you're not allowed to bring up the topic, it's a moot point, isn't it? Why continue in this vein? Yworo (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, I'm not saying anything at all about whether editors' behaviors or psychological inadequacies are related to article content, much less whether it's direct or indirect. I'm saying it's not allowed to discuss that relationship, whatever it is, on article talk pages. Focus on content, not on issues that are related or even directly related to article content, but about which you're not allowed to comment on article talk pages. And, of course, assume good faith. It's not easy, but it's mandatory. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Several months ago you made a perfect analogy using "orange" the color and "orange" the fruit...Evolution of the article...which certain editors disputed. With the same idea as your analogy...I recently I drew them a diagram...which certain editors want to delete. In between we've offered dozens of reliable sources indicating that we're dealing with very different meanings. How many more reliable sources and logical arguments do we have to provide before you'll admit that the problem boils down to certain editors?
You say it's mandatory not to discuss any connections between editors and content...but according to wikipedia policy..."...pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack...". Without a doubt there's a conflict of interest that's blocking the implementation of a long term solution based on the realization that we're dealing with distinctly different definitions. Addressing that conflict of interest is the only way we're going to fix this article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest refers to a very specific set of scenarios on Wikipedia. Writing about oneself, writing about a company or other group with which one is associated, typically a profit-making entity. Writing a Wikipedia article for pay. What it does not refer to is a user having a particular bias with respect to a topic. In particular, none of the editors involved in the libertarianism article have any conflict of interest. Carol's case was taken to the COI noticeboard and the consensus was that she does not have a conflict of interest. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My orange example was a reference to what was actually being done in Wikipedia. My argument was all about content, and how WP does things. Your idea was pure WP:OR - it made no reference to how WP does anything. Very different.

Unless you can point to edit behavior that is inappropriate, and to which non-involved admins will agree is inappropriate, "the problem boils down to certain editors" is practically moot.

Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, but it's better to deal with that on that user's talk page and other places if it can't be resolved in user talk, not on the article talk page (except maybe posting a notification about such discussion elsewhere).

If some conflict of interest is truly "without a doubt", then you should be able to make a case that is compelling to uninvolved admins in the appropriate forums. But please don't do anything like that on the article talk page, or you'll be blocked again, for a longer period. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My diagram wasn't meant to illustrate how wikipedia does things. Clearly there's a disconnect between how wikipedia organizes articles on political ideologies and how the political ideologies themselves are organized. My diagram merely reflected my viewpoint just like your orange analogy reflected your viewpoint. If I disagreed with your orange analogy I wouldn't delete it yet you're perfectly fine with other editors wanting to delete my diagram. For some reason you feel that deleting viewpoints is more acceptable behavior than saying that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. Even though I strongly disagree with your viewpoint I would never even consider deleting your statement. --Xerographica (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your diagram was not meant to illustrate how wikipedia does things, nor was it meant to illustrate anything that is supposed to be illustrated on an article talk page. That's the problem.

My orange analogy reflected my viewpoint, and that's why I used it, to be sure, but that's not why it was appropriate to discuss it. It was appropriate to discuss it because it also illustrated how wikipedia does things. That's what made it relevant in comparison to your diagram which had no purpose except to illustrate your irrelevant (nothing personal) viewpoint.

Surely you recognize and appreciate the distinction, yes? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is assuming that I just pulled that diagram out of my butt. The diagram is based on numerous reliable sources. It illustrates the absurdity of saying that two ideologies having a tenet in common automatically makes them the same ideology. Just because liberalism and libertarianism both have social liberalism in common does not mean that they are the same ideology. Just because conservatism and libertarianism both have economic conservatism in common does not mean that they are the same ideology. Just because anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism and anarchism all want to abolish government does not mean that they are the same ideology. Nothing personal...but in the past you've failed to understand relevance and this situation is no different. --Xerographica (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that's WP:SYNTH. Besides, shared tenets may or may not be due to being variants of a shared ideologies. You can't determine this stuff objectively because it's a subjective matter. Classification of biological entities is hard enough and full of gray areas and disagreements. Classification of nebulously defined socio-political concepts is way less precise. If you have concrete definitions in mind for each term, it's easier, but we can't arbitrarily create those definitions; we have to go by what reliable sources say those terms mean, not what makes it easier for us.

In contrast to what your diagram tries to say, we have a reliable source (currently quoted in the intro) that explicitly states that left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism are separate ideologies from the better known right-libertarianism. There are other sources that say they are variants. Right or wrong, that's what they say, and we're obligated to pass that on to our readers, unless they're really obscure minority viewpoints, or taken out of context, or something. That's where we need to focus, not on conjuring up diagrams based on what some cherry-picked sources say. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not synth or subjective...I'm not the one who created the definitions. You never once objected to any of the concrete definitions included in my diagram. Congratulations on having the article state that left-libertarianism and anarcho-socialism are separate ideologies. However, the standard still has not been reached given that you still used the term "right-libertarianism" to refer to libertarianism. They are completely separate ideologies yet lumping them together in the same article does nothing but blur the lines between them.
Cherry picked sources? All the prominent libertarians agreed that the government is necessary to protect people from harm. I didn't cherry pick the prominent libertarians. When I first started editing the article nearly half of the sources had the word "anarchism" in their title. That was because Carolmooredc had cherry picked the sources and it was obvious because the article did not reflect what the prominent libertarians said on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

Was it not clear from the prior discussions that expanding this out to a lot more pages was inappropriate behavior and would result in you being blocked? Doing it to six more pages was extremely unwise: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

You are now blocked from editing for 1 week. Again: Don't do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's like you don't even bother to read the policies that you are supposedly enforcing. You just blocked me for one week for seeking community input. You're engaging in the very behavior that you are accusing me of. --Xerographica (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you believe that that's what you're doing with this. But, as I said earlier and have repeated, the methods and techniques you are using are seen by others, including myself, as poorly disguised advocacy.
And that's not ok.
You don't get to just assert "Oh, I don't care what everyone else thinks about what I'm doing, it's just seeking community input and I can do it wherever and whenever I want". If it's disruptive, and we tell you it is, and there's consensus on that, then you need to stop doing that.
The limits of what you can do have been laid out. If you keep pushing past them and baldly asserting you have a perfect right to do that, you're going to get blocked. If you do it repeatedly, the blocks will eventually become permanent.
If you are just unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy, please find another site to advocate from, and stop trying to do it here. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
By "others" you mean the involved editors. What country do you live in where justice is decided based on the opinions of those involved in the dispute? Do you not comprehend that I was the one who initially sought informal mediation for the libertarianism article? It's absurd to block me for seeking community input on a controversial topic.
"Poorly disguised advocacy"? My advocacy is completely transparent. The article gives undue weight to anarchism and the only long term solution is to disambiguate the various meanings of the word "libertarianism". Rather than lend a hand to help with the solution you've blocked me twice and permitted other editors to delete comments that WERE NOT in violation of the talk page guidelines. --Xerographica (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the same argument you made before the first block, which was rejected. And after the first block, which was rejected. And between the first block expiring and now, which was rejected.
The first block was multiply reviewed, including review on the administrators noticeboard. There was no support for your position. Nothing has changed; you're doing the same thing again. I don't know why you thought the outcome would be different.
This is not the right, or an acceptable, way to interact with Wikipedia. Either you understand that and work in a collaborative manner going forwards, or you will be permanently blocked if you keep it up.
I understand that you feel it's unfair, but this is policy. It's been reviewed. You have to comply. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a huge disparity between wikipedia policy and admin policy. My behavior has always been well within wikipedia policy...but clearly it falls outside admin policy. Can you please link me to where the admin policies are written down so that I can study them? --Xerographica (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Your behavior has not "always been well within Wikipedia policy". The fact that you still believe this is a problem in itself. Numerous experienced editors have repeatedly tried to help you understand how your behavior is inappropriate, but you refuse to listen. If you want to look through the administrative policies, you could start at Wikipedia:Administrators. But I promise you that this will do you no good. What would be better is to go back over your previous interactions with other editors, and start taking notes on what they were saying to you; perhaps actually reading the policies that were presented to you would be a good idea (you could start with WP:TPG and WP:NOT). If you had done this, you would understand why arguing your personal opinions on talk pages is not appropriate, especially on controversial articles, where numerous other problems already exist. I can almost guarantee you that until you have read and understood Wikipedia policy on misuse of talk pages, and acknowledged that your behavior was inappropriate, that you will remain blocked. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Are my "personal opinions" based on reliable sources? --Xerographica (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)