Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on March 23, 2005

Case Closed on 22:03, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Challenging definition and requesting citation of source of definition

[edit] Defending definition

[edit] Location of original pleadings

Due to the confusing nature of the pleadings they have been placed on the talk page of this article. When you set forth your statement below DO NOT put any comment into the space reserved for other parties. Write your statement in the area reserved for you.

[edit] Statement by Slrubenstein

I have two main complaints. First, that RJII has violated the NOR policy. He has pushed a "marxist" definition of capitalism that is simply not a Marxist definition of capitalism. When asked for a source, he has refused, on numerous occasions, to provide a source thus violating our Verifiability and Cite Sources policies. I want to stress the importance of these policies in this matter. "Capitalism" is not only an abstract idea (or ideas) linked to a concrete way (or ways) of life — it is one that many of people have criticized and defended intellectually, and according to many was at the root of both the Cold War and various proxy wars. It is inevitable that there will be many very different definitions of capitalism, depending on point of view. It is also inevitable that there are even arguments over what definition goes with what point of view. In such a confusing situation, accuracy demands verifiability and serious research.

As far as I can tell, the only research RJII has done with regard to this article is to look the word "capitalism" up in the dictionary. Every time that he makes an accurate claim and provides a source, the source is something another editor provided earlier in the discussion. To me, this further illustrates a real disdain for research. Indeed, he has disparaged serious research as "grunt work" (which further suggests to me that he sees Wikipedia as a place to provide his own "original" research, meaning his own personal views on capitalism, and is an POV warrior. ([1])

Second, he has refused to compromise on any point, has consistently reverted the work of others, and has thus been a generally disruptive chararacter wasting good editor's time and in no way improving the article.

I can't find any example of anything constructive this person has done on this article. He seems interested only in pushing his POV and otherwise being disruptive. And this has gone on for ages. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ultramarine

RJII has written this "footnote pointing out the definition of capitalism used by the anarchocapitalists" on anarcho-capitalism.

"It is important in understanding anarcho-capitalism that the definition of "capitalism" to which is referred by the school of thought is one that refers to a free market. For example, Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." This differs from some other definitions that make no mention of a "free market" but instead refer to the private ownership of the means of production." [2] [3]

He has then tried to make these the official definitions of capitalism in the introduction of the Capitalism article. [4][5][6] [7] [8] He has violated NPOV by refusing to accept alternative definitions from sources like Encyclopedia Britannica or prominent theorists. As shown by Slrubenstein, he has also violated the Cite Sources policy by insisting on a "Marxist" definition that he refuses to provide sources for. He has also engaged in personal attacks and stated a preference for eternal edit warring which he sees as his right to continue in the capitalism article for "24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 25 years". Ultramarine 11:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from the arbitrators to Ultramarine

  • Do you have diff for the quote, "24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 25 years" Fred Bauder 13:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • [9]. This was in response to my comment [10] on an earlier statement [11] by RJII. I have cited these and the following diffs regarding edit wars by RJII [12][13] on the evidence page Ultramarine 14:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

Clarification: The second of the two definitions in RJII's footnote to anarcho-capitalism is the definition that he without sources argue is the "Marxist" definition. See his edit summaries here: [14] [15]. Ultramarine 15:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by RJII

I have never posted anything in the Capitalism article that said something was a Marxist definition. Slrubenstein is very confused. I posted, in the article, a definition of "capitalism" that I stated in "Talk" (not in the article) was sometimes referred to as the basic Marxist definiton of capitalism. The definition I posted in the article was "the private ownership of capital" (sometimes with a slight variation in wording). And, contrary to Slrubenstein's statement, I did provide a source. The source I provided was the Oxford English Dictionary. It defines capitalism as :"the condition of posessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists." This is all clear from reading the attached discussion page here. I reiterate that I did not post, in the article, that this was the Marxist definition of capitalism. The mention by me that it is sometimes called the basic Marxist definition was simply an explanation in Talk that there is another usage of the term besides being a description of an economic system; and, that that usage simply referred to the private ownership of capital --in the same way that when Marx refers to a "capitalist," he's referring to someone who owns capital. The Oxford English Dictionary is arguably the world's most respected dictionary and I felt that source sufficient to note this other usage of the term "capitalism" in the article. Again, this is all clear to see if one reads the attached discussion page. It's difficult to understand what Slrubenstein's position is but all I am able to gather is that apparently he believes everything said in Talk must be sourced.

In response to statement from Ultramarine: I don't know why Ultramarine thinks that the anarcho-capitalism article is relevant, and it is odd that he mentions it[. He condemns me for pointing out that when anarcho-capitalists say they favor capitalism, they are referring to the system defined as occuring in a "free market," and gave the definition from Merriam-Webster as an example. He says above that "he has then tried to make these the official definitions of capitalism in the introduction of the Capitalism article," which is nothing short of bizarre, since he is the one who posts this Merriam-Webster definition word-for-word to the Capitalism article [16], which I immediately protested [17] --not that what he's saying is relevant to anything, but it is indicative of what kind of mentality we are dealing with. These is the reasoning a very confused individual. Then he says that I won't accept the Encyclopedia as a source when I have said to the contrary in Talk that it was a "good source" (see the current Talk page for evidence of this as well as the official Evidence page). Finally, he says that I "argue" in a post to the Capitalism article, that the definition I provide is the "Marxist" definition. I see no such argument or claim in the post he references: [18] ..just a "See Marxism". This all leads one to wonder on what beverage does Ultramarine imbibe as he comes up with this stuff? Or perhaps his obsessive desire to damage and harass RJII overwhelms his ability to think straight? You be the judge.

In, conclusion, this barrage of claims from these two guys is simply bizarre. Furthermore, they appear to stand guard on the article, doing many edits and reverts "24/7" causing and contributing to edit warring. I note that both of these individuals have been blocked within the last few weeks for violating the 3RR while editing the article. (I also was blocked for the 3RR when it was discovered I violated it when I reported one of them.). I have been trying to chip away at the Intro of the article to get some changes in and they insist on battling to keep the status quo and preventing ideas of others from coming in. It is my opinion that this arbitration case is just an extension of their obsessive immature behavior.

(As far as my comments about enjoying edit wars and debate, I admit it --I love it. Intellectual conflict is stimulating. Is that a crime? And yes, I am in the process of going over the article with a fine-toothed comb from top to bottom.)

P.S. Regardless, I'm not aware of any written Wikipedia policy that says someone has to provide a source when asked. So, the claim by the plaintiff may be prima facie irrelevant. (I say this while still confirming that I did indeed cite a source for my post, out of courtesy, in the article when asked)

Note from RJII: I may be on location for the next few months without access to a computer, so you may have to try me in absentia. If necessary, my roomate/attorney will handle the case. I'll let you know if that happens. RJII 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response to statement from Slrubenstein:

[edit] Questions to RJII by arbitrators

Please respond to each question individually.

No --I take a NPOV. All I've been trying to do is get the intro to supply what the "typical" or "mainstream" definition of capitalism is, and to have it labeled as such, rather than labeling it as "THE" or the "correct" definition. And, have insisted that the best way to do this is to consult the popular widely-disseminated reference sources.

    • Your reponse seems to be untrue as I have been examining your edits. While your recent edits do focus on placing a typical dictionary definition in the introduction, viewed a whole, you seem to take a point of view throughout your editing of the article capitalism, although it is a bit difficult to simply characterize. Would you please explain what that point of view is and explain why you have presented false information in the response to this question. It is evident that your editing efforts extend far beyond requesting a simple dictionary definition. Fred Bauder 13:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe I have answered falsely. I know I haven't answered dishonestly. Perhaps I don't understand the question. My intent is to edit articles in an NPOV manner. I really haven't had the slighest interest in taking an "Objectivist point of view" --I certainly wouldn't be qualified in doing that as I have only tangential knowledge of it. My interest is more in presenting an honest POV. It may be that some things I believe to be important information correspond to a POV? I'm not sure. The question is difficult for me to answer, and I'm not sure I understand it. My intent is to "take" an NPOV "with respect to editing." And, yes, I have worked on other things besides the definition of capitalism, but I thought that's what we were talking about. RJII 15:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, please give any examples where you have added substantive content to the article. Fred Bauder 13:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The "substantive content" I've contributed is I'm responsible for the creation of the section "Which Economies are Capitalist?". I did not create the title of the section, but I wrote much of the material before the section existed (in the secition called "Characteristics of Capitalist Economies"), prompting someone else to separate the content into a whole new section (editing in began November and continuing for about two months. Verifiable by anyone that wants to consult the record). For example, in that section as it stands now, I conceived and wrote pretty much all of the first paragraph, conceived and wrote all of the second paragraph, did not conceive but wrote much of the third paragraph ( and just recently put in a Noam Chomsky quote there), did not conceive but wrote most or all of the fourth paragraph, and conceived and wrote the entire sixth paragraph. That section would not be there otherwise, and is a result of much conflict initiated by me. I felt it was important that this issue was addressed. In the section titled "Unpredictable/unapproved direction of capitalist economies," In response to a problem posted by another user DrThompson, in Talk, that he was having with some material I just recently contributed substantive content to this section: [19]I've written other things, but that is all I can think of off the top of my head. RJII 15:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Have you with respect to any material which you have placed in capitalism failed to identify the source of the material? Fred Bauder 13:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

If "failed to identify" means not providing a source for a post in the article when requested, then to my knowledge, no. If it's not providing a source for something I said in Talk, then yes --I'm not aware of any such policy.

    • If so, please identify all such instances and now give the source of the material? Fred Bauder 13:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

N/A

  • Do you concede that the Objectivist perspective, while significant, deserves at most a paragraph in the article capitalism as a fairly obscure minority viewpoint? Fred Bauder 13:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It certainly shouldn't be in the Intro. Again, the typical mainstream definition of capitalism should be in the intro and indicated as such.

With all due respect, Bauder is out of line here. RJII's POV, whatever that may or may not be is irrelevant. This is tantamount to an ad hominem. His questioning to RJII on whether he has an "Objectivist POV" take the character of a witchhunt or McCarthy interrogation to detect secret Objectivists. This should not even be relevant. I'd like to make a motion for Fred Bauder's recusal from the case on the basis of this clear show of prejudice. RJII 18:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no grounds for recusal. Prejudice would be bad feeling toward you before examination of your edits. Bad feeling which arises from examination of your edits is more like karma or if you will, justice. Fred Bauder 22:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Since Fred Bauder sees no ground for recusal, a clarification is in order: Fred Bauder's line of questioning above leaves a reasonable person to believe that he has a personal bias against Objectivists or Objectivism. And, given that he suspects RJII as being an adherent of Objectivism (as is obvious by the questioning), it is quite reasonable, also, to suspect that he also has a bias, or prejudice, against RJII as a result. If there is not an actual prejudice, there is certainly appears to be prejudice or bias. Based on this I reiterate my call for Fred Bauder to do the honorable and proper thing and recuse himself from this case. RJII 08:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/2/0/0)

  • Reject. We don't deal with content disputes. Ambi 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject; content dispute. -- Grunt   ҈  23:53, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Accept - We would not be ruling on content itself per se but instead enforcing our content policies. If we refuse to to enforce those policies then they are meaningless and we have given up on our primary mission ; to create an encyclopedia. --mav 01:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept to consider whether the policy cite sources has been followed. There has been a long discussion on mailing list regarding this matter and I encouraged slrubenstein to use the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. Fred Bauder 17:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 21:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept as per Fred - David Gerard 21:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Neutralitytalk 02:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Nohat 03:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

No decision was reached in this case - the original dispute appeared to have long been resolved (an article "definitions of capitalism" was created and linked from the opening paragraph of capitalism) and healthy amounts of interaction were occuring between the disputants (see e.g. recent edit history on capitalism and recent discussions at its talk page.)