Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Che y Marijuana

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:44, 8 Apr 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Che y Marijuana | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

This user is an avowed left-anarchist skewing the articles Anarchism, Individualist anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, Template:Anarchism sidebar, etc. to his POV. (posted by User:Philwelch)

Absolutely. Che y, along with long-termer User:Kevehs, is part of a group of leftwing anarchists who edit almost exclusively articles relating to their political POV and attempt to maintain a stranglehold on those pages. Although, I have to say that Che y is a bit more civil than some others. - Nat Krause 07:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4],
5. A set of edits from Che y on March 24, introducing his POV into the anarcho-capitalism article: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]
6. [11]
7. [12]
8. [13]
9. Here, Che y removes a very brief reference to anarcho-capitalism at the end of the text of anarchism, on the grounds that, for some reason, it cannot be both disambiguated and mentioned in the text
10. Here and here: removal of links from see also sections
11. Responds to a new disambiguation page by tagging it for speedy delete, then changes his mind.
12. These edits ([14] and [15]) are debatable on their merits, but they clearly serve his POV.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Template talk:Anarchism
2. Talk:Anarchism
3. Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Nat Krause 12:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

It is my belief that the ancaps themselves are being pandered to, to the detriment of the facts and historical reality. The idea that despite the fact that all the historical figures of anarchism were also anti-capitalist, we are now discussing having a "left anarchism" page and an "anarcho-capitalism" page as though they were two major divisions is rediculous. How a movement, based mostly on the net and rejected by the movement that inspired the Spanish Revolution, May 1968 and Seattle, is now redefining anarchism to be what they wish, I have no idea. It is not NPOV to give the ancaps the right to define the entire movement. It is pandering.

I removed references that stated "some" anarchists didn't consider ancaps to be anarchists at all, because looking at the history of anarchism and anarchist thinkers, it has been a defining feature of the movement to oppose capitalism. Thus it is enough to say "anarchists" don't consider ancaps to be anarchists.

As for the disambiguation, it is not necessary, as there aren't enough people who would mistake anarchism for ancapism to justify it, unless we are here to raise ancaps to mainstream status against all historical evidence to the contrary. I had a knee-jerk reaction to speedy it, as it seemed to be useless. I then rethought it, and decided it wasn't a case of straight delete, and needed to be discussed despite my own reaction to it, how does that counts as a strike against me?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
2. :) — Helpful Dave 00:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Kev 05:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. --harrismw 06:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears I acted too soon, and since I have moderated my stance to one that Che does not appear to actively oppose, I no longer have a grievance with him, nor do I believe he is violating policy. My apologies to all involved. Philwelch 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Anyone who has even the faintest familiarity with the history of anarchism -- going back to William Godwin, The Diggers, or even earlier examples -- will know that it is fundamentally and exclusively a socialist, progressive, anti-capitalist project. The anarchism described in the Anarchism article isn't "left-anarchism", is anarchism, period. Che y Marijuana is absolutely correct to resist all efforts to skew the article otherwise. Anarcho-capitalism is not a flavor or schism of anarchism proper; it is a different philosophy which has no basis in classical anarchism, and Che is correct to reject it being listed under "schools of anarchism". That "anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" have the Greek root anarch in their names is about the only meaningful thing the two have in common. Che is also correct to reject the disambiguation page; the only thing that would be appropriate in this situation is a See also on the Anarchism page pointing to Anarcho-capitalism.

Regarding the edits listed above, there isn't a single one in which demonstrates the least inappropriate behaviour on the part of Che, hence this RfC is misguided and frivolous. That there is a dispute is clear, but it is over content, not behaviour.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Viajero 10:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. :) — Helpful Dave 00:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. I do think removing a POV dispute tag is inappropriate, but otherwise I'm in general agreement with the above. RadicalSubversiv E 08:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. El_C 08:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.