Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Contents

[edit] Locus of dispute

As this dispute revolves around what the criteria are for including a definition of capitalism, that article, its page history, and Talk:Capitalism and its page history are expected to contain most evidence which relates to this controversy. Definitions of capitalism may also be relevant.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Fred Bauder

[edit] Nov 26, 2004

  • RJII created account and made his first edits.
  • 23:30
    • RJII makes his first edit to Capitalism (His edit did not concern the definition of capitalism in the introduction to the article, but questions whether any contemporary economy could be considered capitalist under a strict definition.) [2]
    • RJII then makes several copyedits to his new material until at:
  • 23:50 User:Stirling Newberry removed most of it with the comment, "Re doing section on Economic growth, it reads like a randroid wrote it." [3].
  • 23:59
    • RJII reverts [4].

[edit] Nov 27, 2005

  • After several more copyedits by RJII at
  • 09:37
    • Stirling Newberry rewrote the section, noting that while there were fringe groups who disagreed there was a generally accepted definition [5], commenting, "The caveat is badly written, and over represents what is a distinctly minority position."
  • 09:48
    • RJII again reverted, with the comment, "Merriam-Webster definition of capitalism is, by default, generally accepted." [6] but did not add any material based on Merriam-Webster's definition.
  • 09:57
    • RJII continued copyediting his section, adding the phrase, "(standard dictionaries represent the common definition by default)" [7], but no material from a dictionary definition.
  • 10:09
    • RJII adds a comment regarding whether Marx ever defined "capitalism" [8]

[edit] Nov 28, 2004

  • 00:34
    • User:Rhobite removes RJII's paragraph and substitutes a re-written section [9]
  • 00:59
    • RJII makes his first edit to the introductory definition, adding the requirement of a "free market" [10]
  • 01:05
    • RJII again restores his section [11]
  • A few copyedits, then some vandalism which resulted in the loss of the clause regarding a "free market" which RJII reinserted [12].

[edit] Nov 30, 2004

  • 18:02
  • 21:54
    • RJII restores without comment [14]
  • 22:02
    • After an edit by RJII whch shortened the page, Jpgordon reverts back to his version removing RJII's clause [15].

[edit] Dec 1, 2004

  • 12:47
  • 16:45
    • User:Slrubenstein revises the introductory definition and removes RJII's clause regarding "free market" [17]
  • 17:43
    • Stirling Newberry removes RJII's section with the comment, "Removing excessive coverage of a minority position." [18].
  • 18:52
    • Stirling Newberry removes RJII's sentence regarding Marx with the remark, "Marxed used the word Kapitalischen - capitalism, in 1867 whose vandalizing the page?" [19].
  • 18:56
    • Stirling Newberry removes other language regarding use of "capitalism" by Marx, [20]
  • 19:03
    • Stirling Newberry rewrites the introductory definition [21]

[edit] Dec 2, 2004

  • 09:10
    • Editing as 66.32.156.175 RJII restores his sentence regarding Marx's use of "capitalism" [22].
  • 09:16
  • 09:32
    • Stirling Newberry again removes RFII's sentence regarding Marx's use of "capitalism" [24].
  • 18:29
    • RJII restores his section [25].
  • 19:01
    • Jpgordon reverts [26].
  • 19:20
    • RJII restores [27] with the comment, "This section isn't about what the role of government SHOULD be, but what it is."
  • 19:20
    • RJII removes language regarding a generally accepted definition of capitalism [28].
  • 19:31
    • User:Rhobite removes RJII's section with the comment, "revert. Please stop replacing this paragraph" [29]
  • 19:39
    • Stirling Newberry reverts to another version with the comment, "Reverting Badly written POV again. You want an edit war, you have one." [30].
  • 21:18
    • RJII restores his section [31]
  • 21:55
    • Rhobite removes RFII's section and restores Sterling Newberry's version with the comment, "Stirling's circular reasoning is not ideal, but the rest is much better than RJII's version. Again, please don't address the reader and don't use dicdefs." [32]

[edit] Dec 3, 2004

  • 09:37
  • 09:44
    • Rhobite reverts [34]
  • 09:45
    • Stirling Newberry accidently reverts to the wrong version, with the comment, "Reverting, again. Badly written POV is badly written POV." [35].
  • 09:58
    • After a copyedit by RJII, Sterling Newberry reverts to the correct version [36]

[edit] Dec 4, 2005

  • 18:32
    • RJII restores the section (although it may be modified somewhat) [37]
  • A series of copyedits to the section by RJII follows.

[edit] Dec 5, 2005

  • 11:59
    • Rhobite attempts a rewrite of RJII's section with the comment, "rewrite, integrating points from both versions. "lib right" version did use circular reasoning. other ver addressed the reader and had pov issues." [38]
  • 12:31
    • Stirling Newberry continues the rewrite [39]
  • 14:19
    • RJII seems to accept the rewrite, making only minor copyedits [40]
  • 14:38
    • Slrubenstein rewrites the introductory definition [41]

[edit] Evidence presented by Slrubenstein

NOTE: Although I do believe that RJII has acted in an extremely uncivil way towards me (and continues to do so in his own presentation of evidence), my primary concern is that he is adding material that is inaccurate, at times unverifiable, and often violates our NPOV policy. To be clear, my problem is not with his particular point of view. I do not know whether he is an "objectivist" or not, and I do not care as I have no problem with including objectivist views in the article. But his insistance on devising his own definition of capitalism for the introduction necessarily excludes many other diverse definitions or descriptions of capitalism. Ironically, it is his very claim that his definition is the "typical, mainstream" definition that violates our NPOV policy. "Capitalism" as both a word and as a system to which that word refers is a highly contentious topic. A good encyclopedia article must give an account of the various debates and points of view. The very claim that one definition is "typical" or "mainstream" only serves to privilege one point of view, by ignoring the existence and importance of other points of view.

[edit] March 9 2005

  • 3:10
    • RJII writes on talk page (emphasis added): "Still it would not be consistent with the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production. Why not just add that definition in there? If you have one then you need to put this one in also or you disenfranchise a significant segment of people who have a different conception of definition/description/conception of capitalism. What are you afraid of? People are going to see the truth about the exploitative nature of capitalism?" [42]

[edit] March 14, 2005

  • 15:07
    • RJII writes on talk page (emphasis added): "Actually just one of those characteristics can make an economy capitalist. That condition is the private ownership of capital. I've tried to make the point here before. There is a common definition of capitalism that only denotes the private ownership of capital ..it's sometimes called the Marxist definition. In Marxism a capitalist is someone who owns capital, and capitalism is that state of affairs --free market, etc. doesn't even enter the picture. A few people here can't seem to get it that through their heads and insist on this horrible introduction."
  • 15:21
    • Slrubenstein challenges this definition and asks for source: "RJII continues to be a POV warrior thinking that his view is the only view (he says it is "sometimes called the marxist definition" but this is just clear evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not the Marxist definitions, and RJII refuses to Wikipedia: Cite sources — who calls this the marxist definition?)...." [43]

[edit] March 15 2005

  • 17:37
    • RJII adds "Marxist" definition to article -- explicitly claims Marx as his source, but provides no specific citation [44]

NOTE: Below, RJII views this evidence as refuting my claim that he doesn't profide sources. This evidence is primarily evidence that RJII's "marxist" definition of capitalism was not just placed by RJII in the talk pages, but in the article itself.

Nevertheless, this is not really evidence of RJII's providing sources because he made this up. In other words, although he claims the source of this definition if Marx, he has never provided specific evidence (the name of the book, the page number) that Marx defined capitalism this way.

[edit] March 18 2005

  • 19:18
    • Ultramarine asks for an appropriate definition: "Again, please give an reference for this Marxist definition. Please note that the OED defintion do not refer to an economic system." [45]
  • 19:24
    • RJII provides OED as a source: "It's not an economic system. It's just the private ownership of capital. When Marx talks about "capitalists" he's not talking about people that favor capitalism ( the economic system), but simply, to individuals who own capital. Likewise, "capitalism" in this sense is an extension of that, and is often used in that sense. It is the private ownership of capital (not an economic system). As far as a source that actually explicity defines it, I gave you one ..the well-respected Oxford English Dictionary." [46]
  • 19:52
    • RJII disparages research that Slrubenstein did [47]
  • 20:25
    • RJII defends OED as source for Marx: "The Oxford English Dictionary is good enough. It's a well-respected NPOV source. You'll find that with dictionaries, that they all don't list all the alternative meanings. That doesn't mean that the alternative meanings aren't real or they're wrong. M-W doens't give the meaning that the OED gives, and the OED doesn't supply the meaning that the M-W supplies. That doesn't mean they are conflicting, but that they're two different uses of the word. They're both right. One describes a system, and the other just describes the condition of owning capital." [48]
  • 20:33
    • Ultramarine asks for an appropriate source: "Can you find some other dictionaries than OED that have this not economic system definition? To show that this usage is not obsolete." [49]
  • 20:40
    • RJII stalls: "What other major dictionaries are out there? There are only a few major ones and the OED is one of them. I'm not going to go looking in inconsequential dictionaries." [50]
  • 22:21
    • Ultramarine again asks for source [51]
  • 22:23
    • RJII says Marx never defined capitalism [52]
  • 22:29
    • Ultramarine again asks for a source [53]
  • 22:34
    • RJII states that OED "has a definition" [54]
  • 22:38
    • Ultramarine explains that OED is not a source for how marxists define capitalism [55]
  • 22:42
    • RJII states that the OED provides "the common" definition, states that since the Marxist definition is "uncommon," it does not need a source [56]
  • 22:44
    • Ultramarine again asks for a source [57]
  • 22:47
    • RJII gets abusive towards Ultramarine [58]
  • 22:52
    • Ultramarine asks RJII to read our policy [59]
  • 23:14
    • RJII asks Ultramarine to do the research for him [60]
  • 23:16
    • Ultramarine again asks RJII for a source [61]
  • 23:24
    • RJII says that he never provided a "marxist definition" so he doesn't have to provide a source [62]
  • 23:31
    • Ultramarine provides an example from the discussion of where RJII provided a "Marxist definition" [63]
  • 23:32
    • RJII says he does not have to provide sources for anything he writes in the talk page [64]

[edit] March 19 2005

  • 17:32
    • Slrubenstein: "RJII continues to misrepresent the Marxist view. As I have explained countless times, Marx did not define capitalism in terms of the private ownership oif capital. RJII is simply making this up. He has shown no evidence of real research (where exactly does Marx define capitalism this way?) Far more important to Marx and marxists than "private ownership of capital" is their claim that capitalism is historically specific."[65]
  • 17:45
    • RJII is abusive: "What have I been telling you all along? Apparently you can't read. Marx never uses the word "capitalism." He never defines "capitalism." He uses the word "capitalist." And by capitalist he means someone who owns capital. "Capitalism" is an extension of this usage --the private ownership of capital. This usage is of the term is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary --the most respected dictionary in the world. How many times does such a simple thing have to be explained to you? Jesus Christ." [66]
  • 19:07
    • Slrubenstein: "What you write here is disingenuous. Marx may not have used the word "capitalism" but he does refer to "the bourgeois economic system," "the bourgeois relations of production," and "the capitalist mode of production," phrases that are synonymous with "capitalism." And he does define these terms. And when he does define the capitalist mode of production, he does not define it as "the private ownership of capital." How many times does such a simple thing have to be explained to you? If you want to provide the OED definition, fine, call it the OED definition. But if you want Marx's definition of "capitalism" (capitalist mode of production" read Marx, not the OED. How many times do I have to repeat this? You must do real research."[67]
  • 19:15
    • RJII claims he never presented a "Marxist" definition of capitalism: "Marx does not define the word "capitalism" --just as Adam Smith doesn't. I don't have to do research for a damned thing that I haven't posted in the article. I never posted anything in the article that was labeled as a Marxist definition. You're out of line." [68]
  • 19:23
    • Slrubenstein tells RJII that he actually did: "I am quoting you right here: "...the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production." So yes, you obviously have posted something that you yourself labeled a "Marxist definition." The problem is, your Marxist definition is wrong." [69]
  • 19:41
    • RJII calls Slrubenstein a liar: "You're a liar. That was taken from the Talk page. That was never posted to the article. Again, I find over and over you to be a reprehensible disingenuous individual who is a complete waste of time to have a discussion with. So, this concludes my wasting my time talking to you. I forget that I had come to that conclusion before." [70]
  • 19:56
    • Slrubenstein responds: "I am not a liar -- it is telling that when confronted with facts you retreat into personal insults. You have posted this definition in the article, and here on the talk pages -- and talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, and explanations for chantes to the article -- you have claimed that this is a marxist definition. Yes, the quote was taken from the talk page -- but so what? It is the "talk page" of the "Capitalism" article!!.....Moreover, in this edit summary [71] you explicitly provided "Marx" as a source for your definition, "private ownership of capital." [72]

[edit] March 23 2005

This day provides numerous examples of POV warrioring. Specifically, RJII deletes or adds the word "dubious" to various elements of marxist definitions (mostly, the marxist claim that capitalism is a historically specific system).

  • 17:15
    • RJII adds "disputed" [73]
  • 29:00
    • RJII deletes elements central to marxist analysis of capitalism [74]
  • 19:12
    • RJII adds that most view capitalism as an economic system -- both Marx and Weber (definitely not a marxist; most view him in opposition to marx) view capitalism as a cultural and social system [75]
  • 19:17
    • Adds dubious label again [76]
  • 19:26
    • Adds dubious label again [77]
  • 19:36
    • adds dubious label again [78]
  • 21:42
    • deletes material [79]

Most of the above edits involve the same claim, in different form. An editor adds material, RJII adds "(dubious)" next to it. An editor deletesa the "dubious," RJII deletes the whole passage. And it goes on and on. In spirit RJII has violates the 3RR, but it is not obvious because he oscilates between adding "dubious" and deleting. Certainly he has violated the spirit of the rule.

Moreover, the above edits provide a perfect example of RJII's absolute intolerance for the views of anyone other than himself.

[edit] March 27 2005

  • 22:59
    • Personal attack ("obsessive, immature behavior") [80]

[edit] March 29 2005

  • 20:26
    • Personal attack (RJII accuses me of dishonesty and suggests that I have little left of my character)) [81]

[edit] April 1 2005

  • 16:58
    • Personal attack. [82] RJII first distorts my claim -- I provide evidence on March 15 that RJII added a definition to the article and in the edit summary identified the sources as Marx. RJII argues that this undermines my claim that he does not provide sources. But this is evidence that RJII's "marxist" definition of capitalism was not just placed by RJII in the talk pages, but in the article itself. It is not evidence that RJII provides a source, because he simply fabricated his source. He does not provide a book title or page number, has never provided one, and can't since Marx never said this. Making up a source is not the same as providing a source.
As a personal attack, RJII calls me pathetic.
  • 20:52
Personal attack [83]

[edit] A Note About Compromise

Some have suggested that this RfA is being brought against RJII by POV warriors who refuse to compromise with RJII. This claim is not born out by the facts.

Here is the introduction of the article at February 18, before RJII started changing it:

Capitalism generally refers to
  • a belief in the advantages of such practices.

RJII's criticism of this introduction involved the pollowing demands: that it not juse bullet points; that capitalism be defined as a system; that the introduction include a definition; that the definition include private ownership of capital.

Here is the first paragraph as of April 5, 2005:

Capitalism — both the word and the system to which it refers — is an object of contention, and definitions disagree (see definitions of capitalism). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which land and capital are privately owned, economic decisions are a private matter rather than being subject to centralized government control, and production is guided and income gained largely through the operation of a free or relatively-free market. Some label the dominant economic systems in the Western world as capitalism while others regard them as mixed economies --a hybrid of capitalist and statist characteristcs.

As is evident, all of RJII's main demands have been incorporated into the introduction: it no longer takes the form of bullet points; it is characterized as a system; there is a definition; the definition includes private ownership of capital. These do not, in my opinion, constitute improvements let alone substantial improvements (the definition is still POV). But it does prove that that Slrubenstein, Ultramarine, and SlimVirgin have indeed compromised on all of RJII's main demands. It is RJII who has rejected every claim by Slrubenstein, Ultramarine, and SlimVirgin, with absolutely no indication of a willingness to compromise.

Silverback and Luis Rib accuse Ultramarine and I, and perhaps others, of being left wing POV warriors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The February 18 version of the introduction is neutral, and I have consistently argued for NPOV -- an approach that would accomodate both left wing and right wing approaches (and, in cases where it is impossible to accomodate both — as is the case with a definition – simply state that there is no agreement. It has been RJII, Silverback, and Luis Rib (to varying degrees) who have forced a right-wing bias on the article by rejecting left-wing views (again, this has ocurred to varying degrees and both Silverback and Luis Rib have accommodated different views at one time or another; RJII has not). In fact,RJII pushed a non-Marxist definition as "Marxist", with the effect that a non-specialist would believe that different views are presented, when in fact they are not.

It seems that RJII considers any attempt to include multiple points of view as "POV warrioring." And his notion of NPOV means providing only his point of view.

Below, he suggests that I have now accepted his contributions because I have "backed off." I have backed off because I have better things to do than to have virtually every change I make reverted, and to be subject to RJII's verbal abuse.

[edit] Evidence presented by Ultramarine

[edit] March 9 2005

  • 15:54
    • Personal attack [84]

[edit] March 14 2005

  • 17:44
    • Personal attack [85]

[edit] March 15 2005

  • 16:01
    • Personal attack [87]

[edit] March 18 2005

[edit] March 19 2005

  • 17:42
    • Slrubenstein points out that RJII refuses to represent views from well-known scholars that opposes his own view. [89].
  • 18:17
    • RJII responds with "Blah, blah". [90]
  • 19:28
    • Personal attack [91]

[edit] March 21 2005

  • 17:17
    • Ultramarine points out that "Dictionaries are secondary sources. No refers to MW as an original reference regarding for example a mathematical definition. The writers of dictionaries have not done original research, they collect original research and are thus secondary sources. If you do not believe me, copy the MW defintion regarding "race" or "intelligence" and state in the appropriate articles that this is the true and final definition for these terms." [92]
  • 17:58
    • RJII responds with "I don't care whether you want to call dictionaries original or secondary sources. Regardless, it makes sense to use them to find what what the typical uses of words are." [93]
  • 19:11
    • Edit warring: see nothing wrong with edit warring or eternal conflict [94]

[edit] March 22 2005

  • 16:41
    • Edit warring: "edit warring is fun" [95]
  • 21:53
    • Violates NPOV by refusing to acknowledge reputable sources like Encyclopedia Britannica that do not support his view. [96]

[edit] March 23 2005

  • 16:35
    • Another example of refusing to accept Encyclopedia Britannica as a reputable source that contradict his views. He seems to be arguing that Wikipedia should state what he views as popular opinion rather than using the most reputable sources. [97]
  • 16:43
    • Ultramarine replies by pointing out that Encyclopedia Britannica is an excellent source quoted in Supreme Court rulings. [98]
  • 21:28
    • Another refusal of Encyclopedia Britannica as a reputable source that contradicts his views. Again seems to argue that Wikipedia should state what he views as the popular opinion rather than using the most reputable sources. [99]
  • 20:28
    • Edit warring: "By the way, I plan on going through every single sentence of this biased article. At this rate, I estimate I'll be here for the next 25 years." [100]
  • 20:36
    • Edit warring: "Feel free. You will be laughed at. I have every right to judge every single sentence and word of this article and I will. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 25 years. I have nothing better to do and enjoy the relaxation it gives me." [101]

[edit] March 28 2005

[edit] March 29 2005

  • 19:48
    • Ultramarine asks if RJII "think that it is better to cite dictionaries than academic research as evidence for the right defintion of mathematical terms and theorems? Or for the correct definition of intelligence, race, and time?" [103]
  • 19:56
    • RJII responds with a general refusal of academic research as a source in favor of dictionaries. [104]
  • 20:02
    • Che y Marijuana argues against turning Wikipedia into a popularity contest citing dictionaries. [105]
  • 20:08
    • RJII responds with another refusal of academic research as a source in favor of dictionaries. [106]. He seems also to be arguing that Wikipedia should state what he views as public opinion rather than the spread the findings of science.

[edit] March 30 2005

  • 15:56
    • RJII violates NPOV by deleting the link to definitions of capitalism. He instead creates a new definition for capitalism. [107] The following discussion on the talk page illustrates RJII discussion style and violation of NPOV by refusal to consider sources with views contradicting his own. He seems also again to be arguing that Wikipedia should state what he views as public opinion rather than spread the findings of science.
  • 17:29
  • 17:41
  • 17:22
  • 17:29
  • 17:33
    • Ultramarine replies: [112]
  • 17:50
  • 18:06
  • 19:51

[edit] April 1 2005

[edit] April 3 2005

Recently a few editors have noted on this evidence page that RJII now seems to be more constructive influence. I agree with this but note that this started only after the arbitration case opened. I still note his past record of policy violations, including extensive personal attacks, and am uncertain if he will revert to his past behavior when the case is finished. Ultramarine 14:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

On March 24, RJII violated 3RR by repeatedly deleting that in a capitalist economy "most" of the means of production are privately owned, or "predominantly" or "mostly" privately owned, though he was offered the Encyclopaedia Britannica as the source. This states that capitalism is "an economic system ... in which most of the means of production are privately owned ..." (my emphasis). [118]

[edit] March 23

  • 03:37
    • He first deleted the phrase "most of." [119]
  • 17:07

[edit] March 24

[edit] Evidence presented by RJII

Slrubenstein says in his evidence presentation above that at "20:25" "RJII defends OED as source for Marx"

This is a false statement. RJII referred to the OED as a source for a definition of capitalism. He noted in Talk (not in the article) that that happened to be a usage that is sometimes referred to as the basic Marxist definition. Never was the OED referred to as a source for Marx. RJII is well aware that Marx would be a source for Marx --not the OED. RJII did not cite a source for the claim that the definition he posted was the Marxist definition because he never posted a claim in the article that it was the Marxist definition. RJII simply cited the source for the definition he posted in the article. RJII not only cites his source several times in Talk, but here he cites his source in the comment line for the edit: [124] All this has been made clear to Slrubenstein on many occasions, and considering such, it leads one to the conclusion that he is intentionally making false claims --lying. RJII 19:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On a separate, unrelated matter, Ultramarine falsley tries to put forth the impression that RJII dismisses the Encyclopedia Britannica as a credible source. However, RJII has stated the contrary several times. For example, "But the intro is presenting how capitalism is "typically" defined. Sure, EB is a great source. But apparently, it's an atypical definition. We have to narrow it down the typical definition or there's going to be major problems with everyone fighting over what is the "correct" definition. See? RJII 16:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)"[125] or "I did not say EB is enough in itself. EB is a good source, but the definition of capitalism contained in it is not typical as most do not say "most of the means of production." If it is preferable to have the definition represent the typical mainstream definition then why not do that so we can have a quality intro? Is your POV getting in the way? RJII 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)" [126] RJII made the point over and over that the EB is a good source, but that to have a typical definition, more than one good source would have to be referenced --one good source does not justify a claim of typicality. Lately, Ultramarine says that RJII won't accept anything but dictionaries as sources then gives a link as evidence of that when RJII says plainly "Look at all the "academic researchers that you want"" and "use any source you wish" [127] in that very link! RJII also say to him in here in this other quote that he don't single out dictionary definitions as the only source: [128] And this isn't the end of Ultramarine's bizarre and confused antics --he creates an article called definitions of capitalism that consists overwhelmingly of dictionary definitions and insists a reference is made to it from the capitalism article; if he doesn't consider dictionaries an important source then why did he do this? Who can figure out what's going on in Ultramarine's head? His accusations defy all rationality, are dishonest, not to mention irrelevant. RJII 19:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

on 4/7 Ultrmarine says "Recently a few editors have noted on this evidence page that RJII now seems to be more constructive influence. I agree with this but note that this started only after the arbitration case opened." This is a lie. RJII has always been extremely constructive since since his first edit through today.RJII has been consistent. This is more dishonesty from Ultramarine and is not a surprise. Ultramarine and Slrubenstein are partners in crime out to harass and traduce RJII. They see him as an intellectual threat and persist in a senseless, dishonest, confused quest to ban him from Wikipedia for bringing in new insight and challenging the status quo. It's really pitiful. RJII 21:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, like Ultramarine, says something about RJII not accepting EB as a source, even though RJII explicitly says that he does to him on several occasions. )[129] [)[130][[131] Is it really a difficult thing to understand? The Encyclopedia Britannica is a good source for a definition, but if you are going to say it represents the "typical" definition then you need to be able to compare it to other definitions to verify that it is indeed typical. If the definition in EB says something that is not in any of the other good sources, then that portion of the definition is obviously not representative of typicality. RJII has been ready and willing to accept the EB as a source, but that there needs to be more than one source referenced to make a claim about what the "typical" definition of capitalism is. It's unreal how SlimVirgin cannot understand this logic when explained repeatedly and insists that RJII won't accept EB as a source. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that he's just not able to understand the somewhat sophisticated logic and his claim does not rise to the obvious level of dishonesty of Ultramarine. RJII 04:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Slrubenstien and Ultramarine are liars who are out to damage RJII as an immature act of revenge for his disrupting the status quo. Any "personal attack" that was alledged to come from RJII pales in comparison to these lies and intentional misrepresentations, which were publicly stated in the Talk page of the Capitalism article, to damage RJII. They bring a frivolous, nebulous, insubstantial, and dishonest case before the Arbitration Committee. Their behavior is contemptible. My client is outraged. RJII 19:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Call for Fred Bauder's removal from the case "Arbitrator, Fred Bauder's, questioning to RJII on whether he has an "Objectivist POV" on the statement page takes the character of a witchhunt or McCarthy interrogation to detect secret Objectivists (See under "Questions to RJII by arbitrators" here: [132]). 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)

[edit] Slrubenstein admits RJII cited sources

Quoted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RJII

"Dave, above, is wrong to say "Slrubenstein has conceded that the definition was only labeled "Marxist" in the talk page." I have never conceded this. In fact, I provide evidence that when RJII added the definition to the article, he wrote in the edit summary that Marx was his source. This is clearly beyond a talk-page discussion. David's claim is groundless. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"He wrote in the edit summary that Marx was his source." Ok, then what's the problem? I cited a source. I also cited Thackaray. And here I put in the definition again and cited the OED: [133] If you don't like the sources, too bad. Three sources were cited. Youre case is discombobulated. First you say I don't cite a source, then you say I do. One of those sources, explicitly defines capitalism ..the OED. If you have nothing better to do then file a bogus arbitration over something so frivolous to harass a felow editor, I feel sorry for you. It's really pathetic. RJII 16:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slrubenstein notes substantial contributions by RJII

Finally, Slrubenstein says above: "As is evident, all of RJII's main demands have been incorporated into the introduction: it no longer takes the form of bullet points; it is characterized as a system; there is a definition; the definition includes private ownership of capital." Now if that's not another major contribution to the article by RJII, I don't know what is (though it still needs work). The Intro was attrocious when RJII first set his mind to improving it. He told Slrubenstien inititially, much to his consternation and resistance, that "there are going to be some changes." He did not lie. RJII 20:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(note) He attempts to use this as evidence that he compromises, but it is only in the last day or so that he and Ultramarine have begun backing off. Also, after I made the above response, he modified his statement to say that RJII did not make a substantial contribution when he realized what he had admitted (talk about shady) [134]. He also modified it to say that the definition is "still POV." Well, what is he compromising then --the integrity of the definition? That kind of "compromise" is useless --certainly not something to be admired. This is all just another example of Slrubenstein's discombobulated, irrational, and dishonest attack. RJII 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supplemental evidence here: [135]

[edit] Evidence presented by Silverback

What we have here is an ordinary POV edit war, where RJII has been outnumbered by the three of the evidence presenters here who have also participated on the Capitalism page: slrubinstein, Ultramarine and Slimvirgin. When I first encountered the war, I thought RJII was being a bull headed about minor issues, but I now think that was a reaction on his part against a weaponized NOR invocation by opposing POV warriors. They will demand citations for reasonable explanatory language, that takes the form of summaries or descriptions. They do this even without being able to point out any particular phrase or point, which they have a suspicion may be wrong or think is unreasonable. This weaponizing of the NOR objection, is a perversion of its intent as expressed by Jimbo Wales, which was merely to have a way to exclude an individual's crackpot theories, e.g., crackpot physics theories from getting into wikipedia. It wasn't intended to prevent good composition of descriptions, explanations, or summaries.

Furthermore, this subset of evidence presenters and POV warriors have failed to demonstrate good faith. There is no indication that RJII is denying them their say, but they are denying him and others the basic courtesy of summarizing the subject before getting into the counterpoints and criticism. Look at how they are fighting for the article to begin:

  • Capitalism — both the word and the system to which it refers — is an object of contention, and definitions disagree (see definitions of capitalism).

With 4 or 5 introductory paragraphs, there is plenty of room to accomodate an overview of controversial perspectives, without encumbering the first paragraph. It should be easy to separate elements intrinsic to capitalism, such as private property and markets, without immediately alleging non-intrinsic, but perhaps empirical characteristics, such as exploitation or commoditization of labor, inequality of income distribution, etc.

This arb case probably represents a good opportunity to make a statement which deweaponizes NOR objections, and sets standards of courtesy which allow at least a paragraph of article introduction and summary before the criticisms set in. A science article would probably be a less better opportunity, but as politicized social issues go, capitalism at least has an accepted establishment academic body, with microeconomics studies at just about every liberal arts university.--Silverback 06:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by Zen-master

I agree with Silverback's analysis for the most part. I think RJII has been slightly more hot headed than Silverback describes (3RR violations can not be tolerated as I've learned) but I agree the 2 other users involved in the content/edit war are unwilling to compromise even an inch, and they definitely don't debate in good faith. As Silverback points out, if there is an article titled Definitions of capitalism why isn't a synopsis of that used in the intro paragraphs of the Capitalism article?? I went onto the Capitalism article's talk page and no one seeming willing to summarize exactly what the content dispute was over (definitions disputes should actually be easy to resolve, since, unless a definition is completely archaic they all should be included briefly). This lack of debate or focus on the essence of the content dispute seems, to me at least, like an attempt to perpetuate the perception that RJII is a troublemaker, when in fact he may be pointing out valid POV issues with an article. zen master T 06:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by Luis Rib

I completely agree with the two previous editors. Having been involved in the edit war on Capitalism, it is my opinion that the arbitration case against RJII is too harsh a measure, especially considering that those that are filing it have engaged in similar behaviour. In particular, I don't think that RJII has tried to push for a POV version of the article. The dispute on the intro was convoluted to say the least, and while RJII might sometimes have been overenthusiastic about a certain version, he did engage in talk and listened to arguments and evidence presented by others. Also, RJII's contribution was instrumental insofar as it raised important issues on factuality and left-wing POV biases, which were afterwards discussed on the talk page. I was personally able to work well with the three editors engaged in this arbitration case, and in my opinion they just all got a bit over-excited. For an example of a section where RJII, Ultramarine and myself have collaborated very well this afternoon, see the Free market subsection on Capitalism. Luis rib 22:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)