Alfrem

Please refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. For instance you wrote, in [1], "-POV, buffoon!". Please restrict your comments in the edit summary to a description of what you have modified in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to seriously consider your current behavior. Posting bogus claims of vandalism ( Vandalism in progress) because some other editors dislike your edits, or find them idiosyncratic, is a real breach of etiquette. You might find it more profitable, and possibly get someone to agree with you if you actually engaged in a dialog rather than throwing around spurious vandalism claims. Saswann 12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, new entries on that page go at the top Saswann 12:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've recently made edits to Libertarianism that have been challenged and reverted, and the request has been made that you present evidence for your assertion. Please provide the references instead of just re-introducing your changes without comment, quacks and walks like vandalism otherwise. Chairboy 17:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

While you're looking up the axioms and ideologies, best keep in mind the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Rhobite 06:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism x 2

I've found more than half a dozen sources, Alfrem. You've found zero. Just to review, they are:

1. A professor teaching about different political philosophies including libertarianism
2. about.com
3. A libertarian web publication
4. The Los Angeles Times
5. another encyclopedia
6. a think tank
7. a book that describes the ideas of a libertarian philosopher on democracy, law, and constitutions (if that's not political philosophy, I don't know what is)

Additionally, I now submit the following sources, mostly professors:

1. Robert Nozick was a "libertarian political philosopher (according to a senior fellow of the liberal Brookings Institution, and also according to a University of California Philosophy Professor that clearly knows more about this than either of us)
2. Hans-Hermann Hoppe was a libertarian political philosopher as well (according to a distinguished economics professor)
3. "libertarian political philosophy... presents a powerful case for natural rights and private justice," according to another professor.

That's eleven sources to your zero. Please don't make your changes again without a pretense of finding sources. I've already informed you about Wikipedia's policies on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and on original research. If this continues, I'll seek action from administrators.

Dave (talk) 17:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Number 1. is speacking from "small government" and "Libertarian Party". You can't expect that I check this nonsense all again. I need only one reasoned evidience, when you have one. So which is one? --Alfrem 17:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which "number one" you're talking about, but they should all be sufficient. If you consider the fact that a libertarian philosopher wrote about constitutions to be "good enough", then #7 is the best. If you consider newspapers to be good enough, then #5 would work (it's an article from the Los Angeles Times reprinted word-for-word on another site). If you think that professors and think tank experts are authoritative, then any of the new sources (the second group of sources) should be good enough. Regardless, due to the policy on Original Research, any one of those sources should be enough unless you provide one of your own. Dave (talk) 18:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The nunber 7 is a liberal philosophy of classic liberalist Hayek. Your are not able to differ between libertarian and liberal. I don't will have longer time for you. bye. --Alfrem 19:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I already told you, Hayek's "liberalism" is the same as libertarianism in the United States. I even gave you a link. Here's a quote: "In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term 'libertarian' has been used instead." Since you obviously don't pay attention to the sources I provide, I won't burden you with any more. but if you continue to disrupt the Libertarianism article, I will report you for that and for original research. Dave (talk) 19:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

You are so silly! Hayek couldn't use his term "liberal" in America and used "libertarian" for "liberal" instead. And you mean that liberal would be the same. --Alfrem 19:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I would prefer not to have to file an RFC on your behaviour. Please stop reverting Libertarianism to remove footnotes and the wikilink to political philosophy, You have so far not given us any compelling reason why it is not a political philosophy, and quite a few people are asking you to stop reverting that page. If you continue this behaviour, you risk being seen as deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

User conduct RFC

Due to your constant reversion of Libertarianism and your unwillingness to provide evidence to back up your POV, I have placed evidence of your conduct on RFC. I have done this so that the community may review what has happened and to comment on what they see is happening. The Wikipedia community will be given a chance to make comment and suggestions as to whether you have been fair and reasonable, or whether you have been unfair, disruptive and displayed a willingnes to push your POV at the expense of all other points of view. I would recommend that you provide a response in the relevant section of this RFC. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 01:34 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism

I am asking you nicely to refrain from deleting content from the anarcho-capitalism article until you collect refrences that explain what it is you're doing. If for no other reason than the fact that you cannot explain it yourself to anyone's satisfaction.Saswann 30 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

David Friedman

You changed the David Friedman article to suggest that he was an anarchist rather than a libertarian. This is not true, please stop messing with articles about Libertarianism. Edward 2005-06-30 18:36:10 (UTC)

He's not an anarchist?! —Tamfang 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee request filed

I have filed an ArbCom request because of your behaviour on Libertarianism. I have tried to reason with you numerous times, to no avail. Please respond on the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Alfrem. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)

I have. Your last answer was "brick wall". --Alfrem 7 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

This does not bode well for you, and I will be adding this to the evidence page if the ArbCom accepts the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

evidence for what? --Alfrem 7 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

POV pushing and revert warring. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

The RFC page

The page is not "locked" to other contributors. Please do not revert again. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 23:54 (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 05:56 (UTC)

My undisguised intension is only NPOV. --Alfrem 8 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Bilge. Let me highlight the parts you skipped over, so you can't miss them. You undisguided intention is to continously attempt to impose your idiosyncratic definition, under the lawyeresque assumption that if you stick to bureaucratic rules that the bureaucracy is powerless to stop you.

Except that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and is free to collectively bend, alter, or interpret the RULES IT SETS FOR ITSELF. And it has explicitly stated -- in the above quote -- that endless reversions will not be tolerated. Was that clear, or do you need a larger typeface to read it? --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Oh, and since you seem so fond of rules-lawyering, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point regarding your kneejerk reversions. Or are Wikipedia rules something that only applies to other people? --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

NPOV is not Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. But "kneejerk" is your POV and obvious what you like. --Alfrem 9 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

I'm listing you for violating the three revert rule on Libertarianism and the politics and elections/democracy template, and so you will probably be blocked for 24 hours. I have also reported your behavior to the arbitration committee, asking them to block you until they reach a decision about what to do with you. Repeatedly reverting everything I do across multiple articles doesn't make you look very good. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

NPOV looks always good. But not your point of view. No evidence. --Alfrem 05:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...

... don't know quite how to point this out to you gently, but the following sources you provided on Talk:Libertarianism:

"Libertarians buy into the system to a still lesser degree. We need a distinction between political and non-political Libertarians. Political Libertarians seek to bring about freedom via political means to change the political system. They have bought into the system in that they employ political means.

Non-political Libertarians reject political means to bring about freedom. They tend to buy into the system to a lesser degree than political Libertarians, but they still tend to believe they can't be free unless the political system is changed. They may focus on educational activities such as distributing literature and writing letters to newspapers. They've bought into the system to the extent they believe they must obey the system and the system must be changed for them to be free." Frederick Mann - http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl50c.htm

and

"Libertarianism is typically formulated as a theory of the permissible use of force. This political libertarianism holds that the use of force is permissible just in case it violates no one's libertarian rights (e.g., is consensual or is necessary to prevent a rights violation). Here we will briefly note two other topics that libertarianism could be taken to address. One is moral permissibility in general. Libertarianism, that is, could be taken as giving a full moral theory of permissible action. This ethical libertarianism says that an action is permissible just in case it violates no one's libertarian rights. This is a much more radical doctrine than political libertarianism. For it denies that there are any impersonal duties and that there are any non-enforceable duties owed to others. Most political libertarians probably reject ethical libertarianism." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#5

actually mean that there are Libertarians who believe that it is a political philosophy. This directly contradicts your statements you have made several times that Libertarianism does not involve itself with politics at all.

I am trying to reconcile these two conflicting comments you have made. Would you care to explain further? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. You have made the generalization about _all_ Libertarians. When you aim to limited government, then it is political, but it is not _the_ libertarian philosophy. --Alfrem 07:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem has been accepted. There is a pending temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alfrem/Proposed_decision#Alfrem_banned_from_Libertarianism. Fred Bauder 13:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Temp injunction

The arbitration committee has issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting you from editing libertarianism pending the outcome of your arbitration case. →Raul654 20:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration commitee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem case →Raul654 22:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You are blocked for a period of 48 hours for violating the ban imposed on you against editing Libertarianism and its related articles [2]. If you would like to make more constructive edits, you are welcome to do so once the block expires. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)