Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: AaronS 00:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The anarchism article, the anarchism article talk page, and the anarchism template.

Who's involved?

A myriad of users, but many people have problems with User:Hogeye (talk).

What's going on?

Hogeye has disrupted the editing/discussion process, making personal attacks and ignoring various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Etiquette, etc.). He has been asked to change his behavior privately (on his talk page) but continues to erase any evidence of discussion by clearing the page. Both pages (anarchism and its template) are now protected from editing due to a revert war that he (and I and some others) were involved in. I've since read up on different policies and guidelines, and have attempted to change the tone by apologizing for any actions of bad faith that I've made in the past and asking him to adhere to the same policies and guidelines. I've stopped reversing his reverts per the three revert rule. He seems rather unrepentant. He's also been blocked before for similar reasons.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like for him to be civil and to cease making undiscussed reverts. I'd like for him to be polite and to try to engage in discourse with others without accusing them of bad faith. I'd like for him to listen to the complaints of his fellow users and take them seriously. I'd like for him to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Any way is fine.

Comments by others

Comment by The Ungovernable Force

As an editor of the anarchism page, I will attest to everything in the original complaint. Hogeye consistently violates guidelines and reverts important parts without discussion of any kind. The Ungovernable Force 02:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by RJII

I haven't been counting reverts or anything like that, but Hogeye engages in extensive dialogue on the Talk page. To claim that he's not discussing his edits is ludicrous. And, it's pretty well informed and intelligent discussion at that. He's a little hot-headed, but so are most of the people that engage in dialogue in that article. So, I'm dubious about why he's being singled out here. I don't think he's uncivil at all. Sure, he's extremely competitive, but there's nothing wrong with that. I hate to bring this up because he apologized for it, but Aaron, who started this case, accused *me* of dishonesty in the Talk page there. So it's really strange to see him accusing someone else of "bad faith." RJII 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

although ideologically I am on Aaron's side, I will admit he has made some rash comments (as have I probably). Everyone has. And while hogeye does discuss some of his edits, many he does not, even when a discussion on the exact same thing he changes is in progress. The Ungovernable Force 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I know that you may agree with Hogeye about many things (philosophically), but it at least seems clear to me that he has shown bad faith towards me and anybody else that he disagrees with on a number of occasions. I have apologized for whatever bad faith I have shown you on the one or two occasions that I have done it, but Hogeye doesn't seem to care about other people's sentiments. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel, and I'm concerned that it is damaging the quality of the article in question (insofar as civil and fruitful discussion is necessary). I don't want to suggest that Hogeye is a "bad" person; that's not what I'm aiming at at all. I just wish that he would be civil. I'm sure that you can understand that, and at least admit that I've made an honest effort at doing the same. --AaronS 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Hogeye

Oh, I though this would be about a dispute - the usual definitional dispute about anarchism. In short, some editors want to ignore the standard dictionary (encyclopedia, theorist)[1] definition of anarchism. Why? In most cases, to impose their sectarian anti-capitalist POV. Imagine someone trying to define "table" as whatever has been considered a table in the past. That would be an extremely poor definition. This is precisely what the anti-capitalist cartel does to try to justify censoring out pro-capitalist schools of anarchism. Hogeye 06:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, please try to be civil, describing a set of users as a cartel, usually a pejorative term is not contributing to a harmonious editing environment. I don't need to imagine anything, I'm sure if we follow policy we'll have this dispute resolved in no time! :) - FrancisTyers 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by FluteyFlakes88

As an editor of and contributor to Template:Anarchism I can verify these claims as regards Hogeye's participation on the template. Besides consistently engaging in more than half a dozen reverts a day he has also edited the template under the sockpuppet 70.178.26.242 and tried to bypass a block on the page using User:Danneskjold. Furthermore, he has gone beyond incorporating his viewpoint belligerently, but has also reverted completely other unrelated changes in the process, showing that he is simply sitting at a desk hitting revert, rather than trying to engage in an editorial dialectic. He has also, as ridiculous as this seems, done POV editing of the order of the english language. The best example is his relabeling of anarchist communism as 'anarcho-communism' to put it alphabetically second after anarcho-capitalism. This is pure childishness. This can be show by looking at the tags on the current protected (unfortunately his) version of the page. Furthermore, Hogeye consistently ignores debates on the talk page, and rarely discusses his position. On the few occasions he has, often on user's talk pages rather than the templates, he deliberatly misrepresents his opinion and his edits in his "discussions"[2]. Related to this, he has been removing users comments on his talk page suggesting to him to participate in discussion as well as warnings to refrain from reverting.

Once we've gotten past his belligerent and anti-social behavior on this template, his edits themselves go against the consensus of discussion (not even the near consensus since he hasn't participated). This has been misrepresented on both the protect request page and elsewhere as a revert war, when in fact consensus has been reached and defended by the whole community of editors (on this one issue) as far back as July, 2005. In the effort to keep the template short, relavent, and in line with Anarchism, we've elected against the inclusion of schools of thought - if they can be called that since some seem to be not actual movements but abstract concepts - that 1) don't fit a conventional anarchist definition 2) don't define themself as anarchist and 3) don't even include Template:Anarchism on their own page. The third criteria alone, seems to me to be an obvious reason for exclusion from the template. --FluteyFlakes88 07:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I am strongly oppossed to having anarcho-capitalism in the template, I have to correct you on one thing--the anarchism template is on the anarcho-capitalism page, it's just down a bit. The Ungovernable Force 07:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just double-checked, (should have done that before posting) and it is there, but it is actually quite far down. Look at the American Individualist Anarchism section. Then again, that one section of the article is about anarchism, and that's the only place the template is, so technically it could be argued that the anarchist template is not really on the page because of anarcho-capitalism's claim at anarchism, but because it developed from/was influenced by a form of anarchism. Either way, it is there, but anarcho-capitalism still should not be in the template. The Ungovernable Force 07:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason it is on that page is because of Hogeye's attempts at POVing Template:Anarchism. After I made the point a week ago that the template:Anarchism was not on multiple pages that were included in it, Hogeye went and added it to them, for example on Agorism[3]. This was also done by Hogeye on Anarcho-Capitalism on Dec. 21st[4], without any discussion of its inclusion with the rest of the page editors. This doesn't mean intrinsically that it shouldn't be there (although I think it shouldn't), but it does add a veil of artificiality to it. --FluteyFlakes88 07:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by HarryPotter

Whilst I do not agree with Hogeye philosophically, I do find the way he has been singled out for attack as symptomatic of how anarchists often try to resolve issues. As the wikipedia comes up as the second item on a Google search for anarchism, and as it has open editing it unfortunately attracts a host of people whose sole desire is to propagandise their viewpoints. Amongst this host there is a majority who do not want any reference to anarcho-capitalism in particular, or any critical comments in general. Having been swamped by these people, Hogeye has perhaps been somewhat curt in his dealings with other people, but I have found that other editors have treated my edits in just such a roughshod way. Therefore I think it would be wrong to impose any sanctions on Hogeye.

On a philosophical level I think the problem arises because the article states "Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and related social movements, which are as different as chalk and cheese. One functions in terms of Connotation and the other as denotation. Both at a phenomenological level and at logical, these different meanings cannot be simply reconciled, nevertheless ideologues love to do exactly this. I am sure that we would all have problems if only fascists edited the pages on fascism, or only communists edited the page on communism, yet there seem to be an active stream of anarchists who seem to think that only anarchists should edit the page on anarchism. This si of course linked to their individualistic ideology, whereby their emotional commitment to this abstraction gives them special authenticity in interpreting what it means and how it should be presented on such a popularv web site.

I have attempted to make a number of edits highlighting some of the short comings of so-called anarchism, e.g. Bakunin's anti-semitism, Proudhon's anti-semitism, nationalism and sexism, the fact that the IWW is not an anarcho-syndicalist union, but an industrial union etc. These have been purged in an attempt to mystify how historically anarchism - like every other political movementc - has failed to live up to its ideals.

I have also come across anarchists putting their @ in all sorts of in appropriate places, e.g. Situationism, Os Cangaceiros (who ended up so fed up with their local anarchists that they shot one of them dead), and other inappropriate places.

I consider the page as being overly long, and to the extent that it goes into detail of all the different schools, I would suggest that the page is kept quite short, but provides plenty of links so that interested readers can use it to access information. There is no reason to have long articles about anarchists, who clearly are quiet different from anarchism, particularly as there is a page with a long list of anarchists anyway. It is hard to see what use the references to so-called precursors of nineteenth century anarchism can play, aside from a POV subordination of them to anarchist ideology. Likewise, the 57 Varieties - or schools of anarchism can simply be listed. (Please excuse my use of irony here. Back in the seventies Anarchy Magazine published a graphic of tin can with a picture of Lenin on it (like Andy Warhol's graphics) depicting the plethora of marxist-leninist groups as the Heinz range of 57 Varieties of tinned food. Modern day anarchism has unfortunately inherited the mantle of sectarians squabbling over a political identity.)

However, perhaps what is the easiest thing to do - and maybe the wisest - is to just leave it be. Those with the intelligence, time and curiosity to ponder on the nature of the page will soon be drawn to the conclusion that the authoritarianism, sectarianism and obsession with abstract concepts adequately convey the rerasons why so few people want to embrace this ideology which is more held together by its rhetorical structures than by any political principles which some anarchists maintain are inherent within in. Harrypotter 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response

Hello there: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, and I'll be your mediator for now on in this dispute. I will write my initial evaluation of this matter within 2-3 days, and we'll take it from there. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Initial mediator suggestions

Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologise for the delay in performing an evaluation of this mediation; my personal workload has been rather heavy lately.

User:Hogeye - civility

Both on the talk page and here on the Mediation Cabal request page, the dispute does appear to centre around Hogeye. Many editors have accused him of bad faith and incivility; it does strike me that perhaps more amicable discussion may be able to take place if the parties looked at the matter from a more neutral perspective, and spoke to Hogeye in a more balanced manner. Likewise, I most respectfully ask Hogeye to please try to be as nice as possible to the editors involved here, and please don't use terms like "cartel" etc. to refer to editors (since such discussion is not going to make editors conducive towards working with you). Any editors who aren't prepared to be civil and relaxed about editing probably shouldn't be editing it, for the sake of both their own state of mind and that of other editors. By and large I think editors are taking a lot of this a bit too personally, and it might help if everyone stepped back a little bit.

Ideological attachment to article dispute

Often where articles are edited by advocates or opponents of a subject, the balanced frame of mind that we try to aim for on Wikipedia is somewhat lost and article editing becomes an argument over which point of view rather one of article content. Even if you've already read it before, I strongly suggest to editors that they re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (it is a well-written document) and try and compare their own actions to what is mentioned in it. When editing Wikipedia, it is always best to look at articles from a third-party perspective, not being concerned as to how "true" the contents or how well represented points of view are, but looking on it as a work of literature in terms of representing how different people feel about it. So long as everything is cited to a source, it doesn't matter whether or not things are valid in your opinion, since it is representing the point of view of the source, not the editor. Basically look at it from a point of citing sources, not from your perspective.

Substantative content dispute

Try as I might, I can't actually distil down exactly what it is which is disputed about this article - the edit history, and indeed the talk page as well, contains a disparate number of edit conflicts. What I suggest is that each party writes, in no more than one short sentence, what they think overall (at the least detailed level) is wrong with the article, and from that we can then work out a mutual solution to the problem. I have added a space below for doing this.

Article protection

I always think it is quite sad to see an article protected, because it shows that amicable discussion didn't work out. We need, collectively, to try to cultivate that spirit of collective tolerance and collaboration that Wikipedia works on - and that may involve possibly people not editing the article if they can't be sure they are looking at it from a neutral perspective. I propose that all parties make a mutual agreement not to edit the article until the proposition above is carried out, and then that means a collective strategem can be put together from which everyone can work.

Misc. comments

I would be most grateful for any input on the above from parties or indeed from outside editors viewing this evaluation. I thank all parties for their participation and hope that the above may be of some use. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What parties think is wrong with the article

The current article is pretty darn good; if the words "hierarchal organization, and systems of coercion" were deleted from the second sentence, it would be excellent! Hogeye 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As people use the term anarchism in different ways, perhaps we need a disambiguation page; e.g. Anarchism, political philosophy Anarchism, social movement and so diffuse people trying to control an ideologically loaded web page. Harrypotter 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Or Anarchism (anti-statist) and Anarchism (anti-capitalist). Hogeye 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but that seems slightly POV to me: it suggests that anti-capitalist anarchists are not anti-statist, or that their opposition to capitalism does not come from their anti-statism. --AaronS 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of Hogeye and RJII's edits, which deal mostly with the opening paragraph and the sections on anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism, strike anybody who is academically familiar with anarchism as odd, i.e. they need to be sourced, and those sources need to be reliable, per those guidelines; also, an encyclopaedia isn't the place for dictionary definitions -- anarchism musn't be defined without taking into account its historical and contemporary contexts and realities. --AaronS 22:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The main issue has been the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism as if it is one of many 'schools of thought' within anarchism, whereas most anarchists feel anarchism to be very much opposed to capitalism. (See the present anarchism discussion page for debate and sources.)
• in order to create a rationale for including anarcho-capitalism Hogeye and RJII push their definition of anarchism as purely 'anti-statism'. This ignores the historical and ongoing opposition of anarchists to capitalism, and anarchism's development within a broader socialist tradition.
• in order to create a pedigree for anarcho-capitalism Hogeye and RJII have introduced original research and badly sourced misrepresentations of earlier anarchist thinkers (mainly in sections on Proudhon, Stirner and American Individualism), making large chunks of the article inaccurate and/or unreadable.
• all this leads to an edit war which has been going on for months if not years.
• given the intractable nature of the dispute I believe the only solution is some kind of disambiguation which should: acknowledge anti-capitalism as the majority position; acknowledge anarcho-capitalism as an alternative position, though a highly controversial one; redirect interested readers to a separate page on anarcho-capitalism (rather than try and skew the main page to include it).Bengalski 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything majorly wrong with the article. I think there is something wrong with some POV'ers who are trying to censor/ostracize types of anarchism that they disagree with. Also, they're trying to define anarchism as only collectivist anarchists define it ("hierarchy" and such) --which doesn't apply to individualist anarchism. They just make up definitions of anarchism off the top of their heads, with complete neglect of sourced definitions. They only thing they seem to be going on is some of the various FAQ's going around written by collectivist anarchists. They want a very biased article. And, I hate to say this, but I think some of them are operating in bad faith. They won't accept sources, finding every nonsensical excuse they can to dismiss any source that doesn't agree with their POV. I want to be clear that I'm not generalizing though --there are some reasonable POV'ers who have garnered my respect and do recognize legitimate sources and I'm sure are acting in good faith. RJII 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism has to be defined by more than a dictionary definition, and as such, anti-capitalism should be considered a central aspect of most if not all anarchist thought, and any attempts to present "anarcho"-capitalism as a major component of historical or contemporary anarchist thought is POV. The Ungovernable Force 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism may not be a major part of 19th century anarchism, but it is a major part of contemporary anarchism, as evidenced by web hits, recent books, and such. I think anarcho-capitalism should be presented as the new up-and-coming form of anarchism, and the socialist schools as antiquated. Hogeye 06:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe anti-capitalist anarchism is in the street, not in Internet. I think anarcho-capitalism is a USA phenomenon, but I don't know if is very representative in the rest of world. I'm from a country with a rich anarchism tradition and I do not imagine to any historian relating anarchism with Rotbhard instead of Proudhon, Bakunin or Durruti and CNT. I don't know... Kevin Carson is a contemporary socialist anarchist.

Anon> "Maybe anti-capitalist anarchism is in the street, not in Internet."

Right. On Google, anarcho-capitalism gets 168,000 hits while anarcho-syndicalism gets only 135,000 hits. Anarcho-communism gets a mere 29,400 hits.

WRONG! anarcho-capitalism gives 167 000 hits (otoh, judging by the topics on the first side, many of which are critiques), anarcho-syndicalism gives 239 000 hits!! Anarcho-communism gives 48 000 hits. It must also be noted that anarchism gives 5 050 000 hits, and most social anarchist pages Ive seen do not emphasize that they are this or that type of anarhism. Also some most usually refferenced anarchist pages, like infoshop.org, explicitly say how anarcho-capitalism, along with fashist anarchism is pseudo-anarchism. --Aryah 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon> "I think anarcho-capitalism is a USA phenomenon."

I've met and/or corresponded with anarcho-capitalists from England, New Zealand, Peru, Costa Rica, and many other places. Movements such as Laissez Faire City attracted people from all over the world. It is not surprising that anarcho-socialists would not be familiar with anarcho-capitalist movements for two reasons: 1) ansocs tend to stick to their own web-sites and news sources, and 2) ancaps tend to associate with and target their education and publicity on libertarians (pro-capitalism minarchists who are close to their views) rather than socialists. Hogeye 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, if you could seriously suggest that "anarcho-capitalism should be presented as the new up-and-coming form of anarchism, and the socialist schools as antiquated", without apparently noticing the massive POV inherent in that, I sincerely doubt your ability to write a neutral article. By the way, can you name one anarcho-capitalist revolution or mass movement? I can think of more than a few anarcho-communist ones. Also, the reason why "anarcho-communism" registers so few Google hits is because most anarcho-communists call themselves simply "anarchists". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 11:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Three fundamental issues

Redux by mediator

Thank you AaronS, HarryPotter and Hogeye. Looking at the above, bearing the edit history of the article in mind, we would thus seem to be able to boil the above down to three fundamental issues:

1. Material relating to capitalism
2. Use of the term anarchism
3. Legitimacy of sources

Would people here agree? If so, here's the million-dollar question: For each one of the three, can you come up with a potential solution that you would be happy with? :-) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye

(2) first: The solution is for us to accept the prolifically-cited[5] standard definition of anarchism:

"The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished."

This would take care of (1), since no economic system consistent with statelessness is excluded.

As for (3), I'd need an example (say, from the intro) of what Aaron would like cited before I can comment. Hogeye 23:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a dictionary definition, Hogeye. Look at how Merriam-Webster defines Platonism: "the philosophy of Plato stressing especially that actual things are copies of transcendent ideas and that these ideas are the objects." Now, if I invent a philosophy that says that actual things are copies of transcendent ideas and that these ideas are the objects, am I a Platonist? That depends. Plato held various other beliefs, especially regarding things like justice and government. If I invented the abovementioned philosophy, but claimed that justice was a farce, would I be a Platonist? Not really. Your argument seems to be this: but the dictionary definition makes no mention of justice! My response: there is a reason why philosophers read books and not dictionaries. Also, it's not a good idea to cite a Wikiquote page that you're currently reverting without discussion. A key section that you have been deleting/altering:

• "Anarchist Benjamin Tucker once commented on the usefulness of concise definitions of anarchism. "The makers of dictionaries are dependent upon specialists for their definitions," he wrote. "A specialist's definition may be true or it may be erroneous. But its truth cannot be increased or its error diminished by its acceptance by the lexicographer. Each definition must stand on its own merits." [Instead of a Book, p. 369] Tucker wrote in the context of those seeking to deny anarchism its place within socialism, on the grounds that many dictionary definitions of socialism define it in reference to state ownerhsip -- a definition that anarchists, including Tucker, have contested: "the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [Ibid, p. 365] However, modern dictionaries also include community ownership under the definition of socialism --something Tucker opposes. For example, Merriam-Webster defines it as: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." --AaronS 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fluteyflakes88

What's wrong with the article is that its being used as a pulpit for a miniscule and irrelevent sect. Anarchism has never been defined simply as "no government", especially without even bothering to define what they mean by 'government'. Every major historical work on the history of anarchism (woodcock, nettlau, skirda) has outlined anarchism as more than an simply an opposition to 'government'. The only historical outline of anarchism to even touch on the purely anti-statist market libertarians (Dreaming the Impossible, Marshall?) concludes that they are indeed not anarchists in the first place. As defined in 'What Wikipedia Is Not', minor and largely irrelevent groups shouldn't be using this as a place to put prominence to their ideas that exist nowhere else. The problem with the article is thus that its definition of anarchism is based on a historically inaccurate one, and this has been done intentionally to give space to groups who share nothing in common. --FluteyFlakes88 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Demanding the impossible, if you are referring to the Peter Marshall book. Very comprehensive too I must say. - FrancisTyers 23:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AaronS

Material relating to (anarcho-)capitalism

I do not believe that anarcho-capitalism should be removed from the article. I think that anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned briefly in the individualist anarchism section, with a link to the rather long and robust anarcho-capitalism article. The mention should be something along the lines of "So-and-so writes that anarcho-capitalism developed out of American individualist anarchism and libertarianism..." --AaronS 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The Ungovernable Force 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I third that. - Nihila 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term anarchism

I strongly but respectfully disagree with Hogeye and RJII that the term anarchism should only be used in terms of anti-statism. I have several reasons for this:

• Historically and contemporarily, anarchism has been and still is today much more than mere anti-statism

Of course. But the core idea common to all forms of anarchism is anti-statism. After that, you can add green, or vegetarian, or Xtian, or commie, or cappie ... Hogeye 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You claim that my definition of anarchism is too narrow, but I claim that your definition of the term state is too narrow. That's where the real disagreement is. Merriam-Webster defines state as such, among other things: "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign." What is the anarcho-capitalist property owner but sovereign over his or her territory? Rothbard (the father of anarcho-capitalism) writes on page 170 of The Ethics of Liberty that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area territorial area." Three pages later, he writes that the anarcho-capitalist property owner "has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." --AaronS 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Beside leaving out the part about funded by legalized plunder in Rothbard's definition, the territorial area he referred to is regardless of just property. I.e. A State maintains an effective monopoly of force over property it doesn't own. BTW, Rothbard's definition is the standard (Max) Weberian definition conjoined the Oppenheimer's observation that the State is the organization of the political means (aka plunder.) Hogeye 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Many anarchists oppose capitalism not because they are socialists, but because they view property owners as de facto states
• The dictionary definitions that Hogeye and RJII point to so often also mention, most of the time, an opposition to all forms of authority and coercion

True, but different schools define "authority" in very different ways, ranging from "mere" anti-statism to any hierarchy no matter how consentual. Hogeye 00:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me an example of a school that argues against consensual hierarchy. --AaronS 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From the anarcho-communist Anarchist FAQ: "A.2.8 Is it possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy? No. We have seen that anarchists abhor authoritarianism. But if one is an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they embody the principle of authority." They oppose hierarchy without qualification. So presumably do the people who keep putting that in the intro. Hogeye 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Aside from broad dictionary definitions, which should be used with caution, RJII and Hogeye have not provided any reliable sources substantiating their claim that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism, and that anti-statism does not also mean anti-capitalism

Some of the sources we've cited that AaronS apparently doesn't consider reliable: Benjamin Tucker, Pierre Proudhon, Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, Victor Yarros, Henry Appleton, Emile Armand, George Woodcock, Alexander Berkman, Johann Most, William Bailie, Murray Rothbard, and Errico Malatesta. [6] Hogeye 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, we've already been over this. The anarchism of Proudhon, Goldman, Malatesta, Berkman, and Most was clearly anti-capitalist. A couple of the other people that you list are virtually unknown. Please do not force me to go all the way back into the archives and repost that which we've already discussed. And please stop citing a Wikiquote page that you have been incessantly reverting. --AaronS 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we've see your red herring before. We are discussing these theorist's definition of anarchism, not their belief system. The fact that they define anarchism inclusively despite their particular beliefs makes their endorsement of the broad definition even more noteworthy. Hogeye 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I've already said, read "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For" by Emma Goldman if you really think that none of these people described anarchism by the economic system as well. Goldman didn't say in the essay "Anarchism stands for anti-statism, and I also happen to be a socialist". She clearly says anarchism as a philosophy is opposed to private property. I'm not saying that essay is an unquestionable statement of what is and is not anarchism, but it does show that at least Goldman felt anti-capitalist economics was an important part of anarchist ideas. The Ungovernable Force 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I've given up on trying to work with you. You're only interested in pushing your point of view and in never losing an argument, regardless of the costs. I'm sorry, but I've been dealing with you for quite some time, and have given you the benefit of the doubt on a number of occasions. You, on the other hand, have consistently been hostile. If you aren't accusing those who disagree with you of taking part in a conspiracy, you are insulting them and accusing them of bad faith. Well, for the first time, I am accusing you of bad faith. You don't want compromise, you want your article the way you want it.

I'm removing myself from this editing process. I have better things to do with my time. Most of the time I have spent on the anarchism page has been in defense of my character. That's not why I'm here on Wikipedia. This isn't Usenet, this isn't Anti-State.com. This isn't about pushing political viewpoints. It's about accuracy. If that can't happen with this article, then I'm going to work on articles that are not dominated by two very stubborn people with their own personal agendas.

I understand that now I am calling your character into question, or at least it seems that way. I'm not. I believe that you feel, in all honesty, that you are correct and that I am wrong. I also do not question your intelligence or your desire for accuracy. I just happen to think that your view of what is accurate is tinged by your fervent support of anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-capitalist ideological myths. I'm done with this. --AaronS 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Etc. --AaronS 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy of sources

Sources that I do not view as legitimate in resolving the abovementioned problems:

• Single references (I think that multiple references are needed to satisfy the objections of so many editors)
• Partisan sources: these include anarcho-capitalist/right-wing authors, web sites, and think-tanks

So partisan mutualists like Proudhon and partisan socialists like Bakunin are not legitimate? Hogeye 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Reliable_sources to understand what I'm talking about. --AaronS 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Dictionaries: if all questions could be answered with a dictionary, there would be no need for books or encyclopaediae
• Uncited quotations
• Direct quotations without context

Sources that I do view as legitimate:

• Sources listed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, excepting those above
• Sources listed in WP:NOR, excepting those above
• Etc.--AaronS 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation over?

The mediation requestor, AaronS, has apparently bowed out of the anarchism article. (See message above Legimacy of sources.) Are we done now? Hogeye 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it. Let's pack up and go home. RJII 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not consider this over. The Ungovernable Force 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

More accurately, no matter what the result of the mediation you will continue your trolling of the article, as all other attempts at mediation of the article have shown. --FluteyFlakes88 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A POV and content dispute does not end when one editor leaves in frustration. This should be more an indication of Hogeye and RJII's refusal to accept any kind of compromise than any kind of acceptance of their position on AaronS' part. I know little about Hogeye, but RJII has often engaged in the tactic of enforcing his POV on an article by exhausting other editors; occasionally he has even caused editors to leave wikipedia in frustration (e.g. Firebug). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 11:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no evidence to prove that Firebug left Wikipedia because of me. You are out of line. Stop your personal attacks. It's best to stay out of something unless you have something constructive to contribute. RJII 15:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know I'm not frustrated? I could leave out of frustration as well, but I haven't. If I did, whose fault would that be? If others leave an argument first, it tells me either they don't believe in their argument strongly enough to continue supporting it or they were hoping the other person would give up sooner and became discouraged. If one person has more staying power than the other that's nothing to condemn them for. RJII 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment below gives me the impression that you are trying to exclude others from what you're doing.

It's best to stay out of something unless you have something constructive to contribute.

Canaen 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Update

This case has not been updated since March 31. I will be closing this case and moving it to the archives if no update is given and/or there are no objections. Cowman109^Talk 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Case closed

This case has been closed due to inactivity. Should mediation still be required, a new request for mediation should be filed. The listing of this case has been moved to the archives. Cowman109^Talk 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)