User talk:Your honor

Re: Indiv. anarchism

Yes, that's exactly the point. It is already in the article that some people use individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism interchangeably. Mentioning it as a synonym in the first sentence implies that they are one and the same, which is untrue; they are closely related and overlapping but different ideologies. It is also unnecessary to include more than one example of other terms used in the introductory sentence, and using one specific one that is also used to describe a different political philosophy is misleading to the reader. It is already stated in the article, in the appropriate section and with explanation, that individualist anarchism can be used to simply mean anarcho-capitalism; there is no need whatsoever to insert it, without explanation, in the lead, as if the two terms were simple synonyms like anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism are. -Switch ^t 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that individualist anarchism "can also refer to something else". The point is that for most of the term's history, individualist anarchism was contrary to capitalism. Most of the famous individualist anarchists - Stirner, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, Heywood, Stephen Pearl Andrews and Armand - were not capitalists, or anarcho-capitalists. Individualist anarchism has a long history, and is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism. I've been lenient - I have conceded, for the purpose of certain arguments on Wikipedia anyway, that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of anarchism - but you are being unreasonable. Individualist anarchism refers to a broad array of beliefs, of which anarcho-capitalism, if it is included at all, is recent, mainly American and marginal to anarchists. Including it as a synonym in the introduction is misleading, and when it is already included later on it is POV-pushing.

I would also like to remind you to please sign your posts using four tildes (~). -Switch ^t 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV pushing at all. There is a philosophy which goes by different names. "Individualist anarchism" is a very common term for that philosophy described by the "anarcho-capitalism" article. If you look around at other Wikipedia articles, included in the first sentence are the "aka" terms. I think I have a solution to your worries that someone might think "individualist anarchism" always refers to Rothbard's philosophy. I'll just add a footnote saying that not all individualist anarchists agree with the philosophy of Rothbard or the others discussed in the article. Your honor 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued reverts to Anarcho-capitalism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Rydra Wong 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Munson

Please do not use articles or article talk pages for commentary about the subject of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel 05:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

Because Wikipedia rules prohibit this, especially regarding unflattering commentary about living persons. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Gamaliel 17:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Will Beback · † · 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC) PS: this is a stock warning. Please don't engage in revert warring as it may lead to your account getting blocked. -Will Beback · † · 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. See WP:POINT. Your edits to Chuck Munson appear intended to make a point about another article. -Will Beback · † · 23:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well your analysis is wrong. It's not to make a point about another article. I don't believe that the guy is recognized as an anarchist by the scholarly community. Your honor 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what prompted your concern? You don't seem to have had an interest in the topic before you got into a dispute with Chuck0. -Will Beback · † · 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know a Chuck Munson article existed. Now that I've come across it by chance I'm concerned that it may contain a lot of misinformation. That's about it. I think it's pretty common on Wikipedia that if it's said that someone is an anarchist then it needs to be cited from a reliable source. Your honor 23:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't that common. What is common is accepting the New York Times as a reliable source. -Will Beback · † · 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just a news reporter rather than a scholar of anarchism. The reporter has no qualifications on the subject. Look over the policy on sourcing. Your honor 00:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy on sourcing? -Will Beback · † · 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy against original research. Your honor 21:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does quoting the NY Times violate WP:OR? That doesn't make sense. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order for it not to be original research, things need to be cited. And they need to be cited with reliable sources. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons it says "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." We can't use a newspaper as a source for him being an anarchist. We can use his own writings as a source for him saying that he's an anarchist, but not for a source that he actually is one. In other words we can use his own writings as a primary source but not a secondary one. So we have to say "self-described anarchist." Your honor 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting edit history. Whose sock puppet are you, please? Jonathunder 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to change the subject to avoid going by Wikipedia policy. Your honor 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This account, which appears to be used purely to troll anarchy articles and attack one user in particular, has been blocked. Role accounts are not permitted. Have a nice day. Jonathunder 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see about that. You're violating policy by blocking my account. You're just trying to get around Wikipedia policy against original research by forcibly getting rid of someone trying to enforce the policy. Your honor

Who is it you claim I am "attacking"? You should provide some evidence of that. And this is not a "role account" whatever that is. This is my account. If this is how Wikipedia works...if all one has to do is block somebody who requests that sourcing policy be followed, then what good is Wikipedia? No wonder it's such a terrible resource full of misinformation and uncited dubious assertions. Your honor 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. I was wondering when somebody would notice that this account is acting like a sockpuppet. The so-called "anarcho-capitalists" on Wikipedia have a history of creating sockpuppets, see the talk pages for the main Anarchism article. They are engaged in a huge campaign of original research that uses Wikipedia to establish that this handful of people is a big movement within anarchism. This user demonstrates sockpuppet behavior in that they attacked me for editing an entry on anarchism and then attacking me personally. BTW, this user has been trying to argue that only scholarly sources should be used as supporting references in articles. This position represents a blind faith in the accuracy of scholarly and published sources, which is kind of odd given that this user has argued in favor of anonymous authorship of Wikipedia articles. Sockpuppet. Chuck0 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no sockpuppet here. And you don't understand Wikipedia policy. It's not about what you or I think is true. It's about verifiability. Things have to be sourced. Your honor 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

Your honor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not do anything wrong. I was blocked by one "Jonathunder" for insisting that information in Chuck Munson article be cited by a reliable source. He apparently doesn't like that there are rules against original research, and standards for reliable sources, on Wikipedia and his trying to get rid of me so that policy won't have to be followed. That is a violation of policy in itself. Please unblock me as soon as possible. If this is how Wikipedia works...if all one has to do is block somebody who requests that sourcing policy be followed, then what good is Wikipedia? No wonder it's such a terrible resource full of misinformation and uncited dubious assertions.

Decline reason:

Dispute seems to be over whether it is proper to call 'Chuck Munson' an 'anarchist' or not. Those supporting use of the term cite The New York Times and Munson himself. User 'Your honor' describes these citations as 'original research'. The latter is clearly an incorrect statement of our sourcing policies. The argument that only 'scholars of anarchy' can be cited in identifying someone as an 'anarchist' is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. If the label of 'anarchist' is disputed the proper course would be to cite reliable sources to that effect... not remove the properly sourced use of the term. An indefinite block for such would be unwarranted if the user were merely mistaken about standard practice and willing to learn, but 'Your honor' has not appeared willing to consider this. --CBD 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons it says "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." What was being cited was a newspaper. It says plainly in the policy that that is not sufficient. I didn't remove the claim that he was an "anarchist." I was merely adding "self-described" in front of it since there was no reliable sources. Maybe there is some policy that I'm not seeing but if so I'm merely mistaken. No one has shown me any policy to the contrary though. The response was just to block me for life. It doesn't make sense that I would be blocked for life without any kind of due process by a single operator over a dispute about sourcing. If anyone is given the benefit of the doubt it should be me for insisting that information be properly sourced. Isn't that what Wikipedia is trying to do...do be more reliable? I figured I was helping out. How can Wikipedia be considered anything serious if people can be blocked like this for requesting sources? What kind of joke is Wikipedia? Your honor 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way my brother is a valued contributor to articles on mathematics with a graduate degree in the subject. He's brilliant. You've got him blocked for life too because he edits from this same location and he's pissed off. Your honor 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times is not a self-published newspaper. You Honor was not blocked for a source dispute, he was blocked, as CBD explained, for refusing to abide by community standards. The user was warned repeatedly that he was being disruptive but didn't alter his behavior. -Will Beback · † · 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times is indeed self-published by the New York Times, but anyway that does not say "self-published newspapers". That wouldn't make sense. It just says "newspapers". So you call requesting sources "disruptive"? Sure it upsets some people who would rather just throw uncited information in articles. If upsetting those who want to do "original research" is what you are calling "disruptive" then I'm guilty as charged. But that doesn't warrant a block. It warrants praise. But hey, if a single operator can ban me eternally without due process it only goes to show why Wikipedia is just an unreliable encyclopedia that can't be trusted. Apparently some see Wikipedia as more like a "toy" to play with and ban people and get off on a petty power trip, while other such as myself actually try to improve the reliability of the encyclopedia. Your honor 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the above "Will Beback" was involved in the dispute over sourcing in the Chuck Munson page so he's not an objective observer. He was one of the main antagonists against my requests for sources. He's saying I violated "community standards" now. I have no idea what he's talking about. Your honor 16:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your understanding of Wikipedia policy is simply incorrect. You above effectively claim that Wikipedia does not accept newspapers as sources. This is clearly not true. Wikipedia accepts citations from all major newspapers... just not little "self published" newspapers which don't meet the reliable sources policy. Parsing the commas to exclude 'self published' from 'newspapers' and/or arguing that The New York Times is 'self published', as you did above, are extreme examples of 'Wikilawyering'... attempting to interpret or parse the policies to mean something other than is obviously intended. Actions like this are what makes it difficult to believe that you are simply making a good faith mistake. If you really thought that newspaper citations were not allowed how would you explain the millions of them currently in use? --CBD 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that there is more stringent standard of sourcing reliabilty for "Biographies of living persons". It is my "good faith" belief that that when it says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons it that "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)" that that simply means that newspapers are not a legitimate source. I don't understand how a newspaper reporter could make the judgement as to whether someone is or isn't an anarchist. All the reporter does is report that the person he's interviewing is a self-described anarchist. I've observed other articles where extensive sourcing has been required to be able to say that the person is a "real" anarchist. The policy against using newspapers as a source, which is what I understand the policy to say, makes sense to me. Why should I be eternally banned from Wikipedia for saying these things? Your honor 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you interpret the policy to say that websites are not reliable sources? Ever?

As for sourcing regarding claims by the individual; in general, if someone describes themself as anything, that is fine for Wikipedia's standards; when the person in question - like, say, Murray Rothbard, the man I assume you were referring to earlier - aligns themself with an ideology but explicitly supports something the ideology has always actively opposed (like anarchism and capitalism) people are bound to dispute their claim. Chuck, on the other hand, is not supporting the existence of the state or anything of the sort, so this is an entirely different case. ~Switch ^t 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you take "unless written by the subject" to mean? He describes himself as an anarchist in his own works, so according to that policy it's acceptable. ~Switch ^t 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abouts websites, yes, it looks to me like they're not permitted as sources. And yes he says he's an anarchist and yes I agree that that is permitted as a source, but not as a secondary source. Do you understand the difference between using a citation as a primary source and as a secondary source? If it is used as a primary source, then that is using his words to show what he says rather than to say that what he says is the truth. That is, using his writings as a primary source saying he was an anarchist would be for the article to say "he describes himself as an anarchist". To use it as a secondary source would be for the writers of the article to assert that what he says is true ..that he actually is an anarchist. I dispute that he is recognized as an anarchist by the academic community, so that is why I was requesting a legitimate source that can be used as a secondary source for him being an anarchist. Your honor 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they really don't want to let me back in Wikipedia, whatever. It's not like a huge loss or anything. There's lots better things to do. It's just strange that I can be banned the rest of my life from editing Wikipedia for requesting sources, by one user. If this is the way Wikipedia is run, you guys can have it. Have fun wasting your time on something that is obviously going nowhere fast. Wikipedia is a joke.Your honor 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is difficult to justify unblocking you when you seem to be arguing that the activity which got you blocked in the first place was 'correct'... and thus presumably that you would do it again. I agree that an indefinite block is overkill for a mistake... except that you don't seem to be saying you would do anything differently if unblocked. The New York Times is generally accepted as a valid/reliable 'secondary source' by Wikipedia. That is simply a fact. Arguing that it shouldn't be is like arguing that water shouldn't be wet... regardless of whether you are somehow 'fundamentally right' or not it isn't going to change the reality. Again, as I said before, if you feel that he is not considered an anarchist by "the academic community" then the proper course would be to cite reliable sources from the academic community saying that. Display evidence that there is an actual dispute about his status as an 'anarchist'... because failing that, citing the man himself and the NYT is perfectly valid and accepted referencing on Wikipedia (and indeed, most anywhere else). --CBD 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you reconcile that with the fact that the policy says newspapers aren't a reliable source for Biographies of Living Persons. It looks to me like "self-published" just applies to books. But if it's supposed to apply to newspapers as well in that sentence then fine. If that's the case then the sentence should be made clearer that it's talking about self-published newspapers which are published by the person that the article is about. This all moot anyway, because a scholarly source has been provided in the Chuck Munson article discussion page a short while ago. That's all I was asking for. Your honor 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad. The intent of the policy really is 'self published books', 'self published newspapers', 'self published et cetera'... rather than 'self published books', 'all newspapers', et cetera. Maybe changing it around to 'books, newspapers, et cetera which have been self published' would be clearer. In any case, I have removed the block. Please in the future try to look around at how policies are actually applied rather than arguing based on what you read it to say... the fact that newspapers are cited in biographies of living persons all the time would lead to the conclusion that this is allowed. Policy is meant to reflect practice... not the other way around. --CBD 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate that but I doubt I'll be editing anymore. I don't feel comfortable with people having this kind of arbitrary power over me. I think Wikipedia will remain nothing more than a toy for kids to play with to pretend they have real power and real jobs. So long. Your honor 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But at least my brother can go back to editing mathematics articles now from this location though his account. I'll try to pursuade him not to waste his time on this farce though. Your honor 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point

the reason that you got blocked sucks unfortunateley i cannot do anything--Unblockablevandilizer 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a request on the blocking admin's talk page for a comment. If later it looks like the admin is being completely unreasonable, I will try to attract other admins to here. Eli Falk 12:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Have a happy new year...both of you guys. Your honor 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]