Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alfrem

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: 11:28, 29 June 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

(Alfrem | 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.

Quote: "The page is not "locked" to other contributors. Please do not revert again. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)"

Do you like it when I misplace my comments here? Please do not revert again. --Alfrem 8 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)

You are only making it worse for yourself... - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)

I ? --Alfrem 8 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)

Description

Alfrem constantly removes the words and wikilink "political philosophy" from Libertarianism. When he demanded evidence, this was provided in the form of a footnote: we reference the Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta and the opinion of Don Franzen, who wrote a review of "Neither Left Nor Right" in the Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk.

Several editors have asked him to provide evidence that Libertarianism is not a political philosophy, however each time Alfrem has apparently dodged the question. When I pointed out to him that we have sourced this fact, he replied that we have not provided evidence! The foonote is clear, however. Alfrem is well aware of the footnote, because he keeps removing it.

I put to the community that Alfrem's behaviour should have been accepted the first time he removed the phrase, this is only fair. However, many of us have left messages on his talk page asking for sources to back up what he is saying, and we have debated this with him considerably on the talk page, to no avail. Every time that Alfrem removes the wikilink to political philosophy, one of us has to put it back again, and this is highly disruptive to Wikipedia.

I would also like to raise the concern that Alfrem, when he starts to lose an argument, starts to call others "trolls". This is a personal attack, and ad hominem besides. Alfrem seems to have also expressed a desire "win" his POV by constantly reverting. He stated on the talk page that "Your edit war don't will get any end. --Alfrem 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

03:56, 22 June 2005
Alfrem removes political philosophy and changes it to philosophy. I reverted this because the only edit summary is "-POV"
17:53, 22 June 2005.
Alfrem again removes political philosophy and changes it to philosophy with the edit summary "-POV"

Note: in the interest of fairness, Alfrem did comment on the talk page detailing why he removed the term. Time posted is 13:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
23:05, 22 June 2005
Alfrem removes term again.
22:53, 23 June 2005
Alfrem reverts, removing term again
01:52, 24 June 2005
Happens again.
Ta bu shi da yu adds a footnote - somewhere in those edits, I added a footnote to source our references to political philosophy.
16:31, 24 June 2005
Term removed again by Alfrem.
16:50, 24 June 2005
Term removed again, this time Alfrem states that "Libertarianism is a philosophy which is completely based on one axiom - the non-aggression principle."
19:20, 25 June 2005
Alfrem removes the footnote that sources the term political philosophy!
04:41, 26 June 2005
Alfrem removes footnote sourcing political philosophy again. Edit summary: "no useless fotenote please, see discussion".
02:42, 27 June 2005
Removes footnote again: edit summary "Notes and references - -POV"
02:47, 27 June 2005
Alfrem removes "political philosophy" again, replaces it with "Libertarianism is a anti-political philosophy". {{ref}} template is not removed, this still sources it as a political philosophy! This is disruptive: we look ridiculous because of it. Also, no sources are provided by Alfrem.
09:18, 27 June 2005
Alfrem removes term "political philosophy" again
09:19, 27 June 2005
Alfrem removes reference to political philosophy. No edit summary given.
09:20, 27 June 2005
Alfrem removes {{ref}} tag.
19:21, 28 June 2005
Alfrem remove the footnote again
19:23, 28 June 2005
Alfrem removes the political philosophy term again.

Talk page

The following in Talk:Libertarianism#footnotes concerns me, as it shows clear intent to win an argument through a revert war:
@Dave

21:08, 25 Jun 2005 Harry491 (I've seen the discussion. This is my third revert. You've used 3 as well. I've seen from your talk page that you're aware of the rule. I would discourage removing the footnote until tomorrow.)

Your edit war don't will get any end. --Alfrem 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence from Harry491 (Dave)

I'm not sure this is the right place for this. I'm a user involved in the dispute that supports TBSDY. If this is in the wrong place, go ahead and move it. I've never done a RFC before.

Here, Alfrem threatens to list people who disagree with him as vandals.

Here, Alfrem suggests that there is no source that would be sufficient to convince him.

On the related page for Non-aggression principle, he produces this edit, which as far as I can tell does nothing to the text, but put "idiot" in the edit summary as a personal attack against me.

Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 02:09 (UTC)

This is the correct place. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:12 (UTC)

One more thing: Alfrem's contributions page suggests that the user's contributions consist almost entirely of edit wars on libertarianism-related pages. There are a few exceptions, including this edit to San Francisco Bay, but they're hard to come by. This may indicate that he is a net drain on the project. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Cite sources
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: Alfrem constantly removes our sources for the assertion that Libertarianism is a political philosophy, in fact he has added controversial material into the article but not provided any sources to back up those edits.
Corollary: Wikipedia:No original research
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: When Alfrem wrote that "Libertarianism is a philosophy which is completely based on one axiom - the non-aggression principle.", this appears to be original research because no sources were provided to back this assertion.
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: Alfrem has not provided verfiable sources to back up his claim that Libertarianism is not a political philosophy
Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: By constantly reverting the article, even though many people oppose the change and quickly revert those changes, Alfrem is disrupting Wikipedia to make his point that Libertarianim is not a political philosophy
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: Alfrem, by removing all other references to sources that state that Libertarianism is a political philosophy is trying to push his POV on Wikipedia that Libertarianism is not a political philosophy.
Wikipedia:Revert
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: The policy clearly says that "What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified." Most of Alfrem's edits do not have clear edit summaries.
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Explanation from Ta bu shi da yu: Alfrem, when apparently losing an argument to User:Harry491, called him a "troll", when clearly Harry491 is not a troll. Such ad hominem attacks are unacceptable on Wikipedia, and are designed to have the argument degenerate into name calling (thus the one making the personal attack "wins" the argument because the substance of the argument is lost over said name-calling).

Note: He also called me an "idiot", and my arguments "bullshit" and "silly." Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:47 (UTC)

So what? When it is true. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 12:50 (UTC)

Do it again, I'll block you so fast your eyes will spin. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Ta bu shu da yu talk page request. I asked Alfrem to stop reverting Libertarianism and provide a more compelling reason why we should believe that it is not a political philosophy.
Failure Alfrem's response (on his talk page) is:
No, you must give the evidience. Your POV! You make the same politcal nonsense against me. 1:"a few people" --Alfrem 00:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Libertarianism#political_philosophy After Alfrem posted a comment on the talk page, several people pointed out that Libertarianism satisfies all the criteria of the political philosophy article. All to no avail: Alfrem refused to budge, even in the light of many relevant facts.
Talk:Libertarianism#footnotes
Alfrem wrote that the footnotes I provided:
Is nonsense as evidience. Rothbards libertarian theory advocated not a government limited. Maybe this error was a product of his membership of the LP. And the MSN Encatra (sic) is not checkable. --Alfrem 09:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem states that MSN Encarta is not checkable! However, the farce continues in the following conversation:
Alfrem, what WOULD be valid evidence that libertarianism is a political philosophy? What evidence would convince you to stop this? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:35, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Maybe there is no one. Is this possible in your eyes? --Alfrem 16:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alfrem, what source would convince you? If Noam Chomsky, your high school philosophy teacher and God Himself all came down and said "Shut up. Of course libertarianism is a political philosophy," would you accept it? Or are you merely trying to be difficult? The fact that you're making few arguments and citing no sources means that your actions (removing footnotes, in this case) are original research at best and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at worst. Please stop. Dave (talk) 18:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Your footnote is bullshit. I don't accept an populistic assertion of an MSN Encarta or your useless classic liberalism theory. You can forget this. And Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism. Troll. --Alfrem 18:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can't even IMAGINE a possible piece of evidence that would convince you then it seems obvious that with the clear consensus, barring you, toward calling it a political philosophy, we should end our obviously fruitless efforts at persuasion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:02, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
I need only one checkable evidience. But neither a newspaper-assertion nor a relation of liberal philosphy. --Alfrem 19:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Drop this double standard. You repeatedly tried to use a Geocities site called "Jacob's libertarian press" in an article. How is that any better than a newspaper article? You're simply picking and choosing references to suit your pet theory. Rhobite 19:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. I used it as draft. That's all. --Alfrem 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Assuming I correctly interpret "used it as a draft" then anything you produced from it would presumably be copyvio. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:32, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Check it presumably, if you want presumably. --Alfrem 06:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

@Dave

21:08, 25 Jun 2005 Harry491 (I've seen the discussion. This is my third revert. You've used 3 as well. I've seen from your talk page that you're aware of the rule. I would discourage removing the footnote until tomorrow.)

Your edit war don't will get any end. --Alfrem 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additional evidence from Harry491 (Dave)

If this is the wrong place for this, I'll move it. I've never done an RFC before.

After Alfrem tells me to "Find a source saying [Libertarianism is] political or go away", I point out the following on his talk page with this response:

- I had already given him seven sources including a professor, about.com, the LA Times, a libertarian web publication, an encyclopedia, and a book.
- I showed him 4 more sources including a think tank senior fellow and three more professors.
- I warned him about disrupting wikipedia and original research.

When Alfrem complained that one of my sources was about a "liberal" philosopher, not a "libertarian" one, I showed him a source that showed that the distinction didn't matter in this case (the philosopher was from Europe, where they used the term "liberal" for "libertarian" at the time).[1]. He called my arguments "silly"[2] and did not address the issue.

Regardless, eleven sources (plus the Britannica, which TBSDY found, shows that Alfrem clearly is uninterested in evidence. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 01:21 (UTC)
Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 01:43 (UTC)
Rhobite June 29, 2005 02:02 (UTC)
Cadr 3 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

*Dan* June 29, 2005 02:04 (UTC)
Nat Kraus e 29 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)
Chairboy 29 June 2005 06:04 (UTC)
Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 07:13 (UTC)
Malathion 30 June 2005 01:01 (UTC)
Saswann 30 June 2005 13:39 (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.

The point here is: What is POV?

The article claims in the first sentence: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy".

So, all people shall believe that the attribute is high gear. I don't believe this on the philosophy. You can say this about the (little crazy) political libertarian movement but not about the philosophy. The Libertarian philosophy is at first an ethic theory with the non-aggression principle - but no political theory.

Even on the Libertarian Party (U.S) membership form, one must sign a pledge to a variation of the non-aggression principle stated as follows:

"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

As a Libertarian wrote: "The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism." So, how can people claim even in a generalized manner "Libertarianism is a political philosophy"? This is POV.

You can prove political philosophy. The presuppositions of political philosophy are not given. Politics is the question of making public rules for the whole community - so for the public good of laws. It is not the intension of libertarian philosophy to make rules public.

So one user tried to hold the claim by a footnote:

^ Don Franzen, Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk, review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." (Review on libertarianism.org). MSN Encarta's entry on Libertarianism defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both references retrieved June 24, 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June, 2005)

So, Franzen comes as advocate of "a government limited". This is not accordable with the non-aggression principle because: Why should all people or all libertarians agree to this public rule? So POV. The MSN Encarta and other lexica comes with assertions and they are not checkable. No evidence. Only POV.

You can hold it for yourself that libertarianism must be political. Many silly or political people believe that, too. But that doesn't mean that libertarianism must be understood as a political philosphy for everybody.

--Alfrem 29 June 2005 09:19 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

Deleted comments

Comments deleted by Alfrem have been placed on the discussion page Saswann 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Alfrem is now vandalizing the above line, see history. This is an unfortunate development. - Chairboy 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

Guy, can you read?

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.

Here is no space for your personal attacks. I will revert this tomorrow. --Alfrem 7 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR: The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and legalistic game-playing won't protect you from the consequences of your undisguised intentions and actions. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

The problem is not that you're adding to this section, it's that you're modifying other peoples comments. Please leave Saswann's comments intact and feel free to add your own response to keep the integrity of the dialogue intact. Chairboy 7 July 2005 18:37 (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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

This user has been conducting the same sort of behavior, to a lesser degree on the Anarcho-capitalism article. While some minor edits seemed to assuage him at first, he seems to be intent on slashing large sections of the article based on his belief that anarcho-capitalism is not a libertarian philosophy. I wish I could say why he believes this, but he hasn't been able to provide any citations or refrences, just his own personal assertions. When asked to source his arguments about a particular philosopher, the most comprehensible response he's been able to give is "Ask Him" [3] which I think counts as original research. He's also made at least one bogus accusation of vadalism against another user, which he subsequently deleted. [4]

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

Saswann 30 June 2005 13:52 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
Chairboy 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Discussion

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