Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence

• Frequently accuses editors of "flawed logic", "poor logic", "poorly reasoned beliefs" etc: [2] [3] [4] [5]
• Petty namecalling: Called User:Electionworld "Electionwood" [6], User:Natalinasmpf "Nataliapumpkin" [7]
• December 4, 2005 - Personal attack: "Electionwood you are an Fing MORON! ... Have you heard of the word IRONIC? Have you heard of the term EMPERICAL EVIDENCE? You are a freaking idiot." [8]
• December 5, 2005 - Personal attack: "Then you insult my position by calling it propaganda, thus showing your lack of intelligence. Again, I hate to call names, and I rarely do it. I only save it for the people who disserve it the most! -Gibby" [9]
• December 11, 2005 - Personal attack: "Natalinasmpf is an immature communist brat from Singapore who keeps deleting this and my other sections from Wiki, she has violated the 3rev policies multiple times and gets away with. Has no logical arguementation skills, and no ability to defend her deltions." [10]
• January 11, 2006 - Personal attack: "I'm repeating again for your thick skull" [11]
• January 12, 2006 - Personal attack: "I hate the goddamn admins on wikipidia they are so fucking stupid!" [12]
• January 12, 2006 - Personal attack: "I'm here to make sure shit is factual and to stop leftist bully vandals like 172, Mattley, Nati, and Babubhatt from destroying factual information that destroys or contradicts their own poorly reasoned beliefs" [13]
• January 12, 2006 - Personal attack: "Calling them stupid leftist fuckers however is a personal attack...as much as I'd like to use that apt term, I have not." [14]
• January 12, 2006 - User:Quadell blocked KDRGibby for a 3RR violation. According to Quadell, KDRGibby responded with "abusive e-mails filled with personal attacks". [15]
• January 16, 2006 - Personal attack: "GIVE SPECIFIC REASONS ASSHOLE!" [16]
• January 18, 2006 - Edit summary: "most admins are socialst sobs" [17]
• January 18, 2006 - Personal attack: "You sound like a nationalist and perhaps a bit of a socialist...thats a national socialist by the way." [18]

• Block log: KDRGibby has been blocked four times for 3RR [19]
• First violation December 10, 2005: [20] [21] [22] [23]
• Second violation December 31, 2005: 13:50 14:06 14:10 14:20
• Third violation January 11, 2006: 14:06, January 11, 2006 00:15, January 12, 2006 01:25, January 12, 2006 12:12, January 12, 2006
• Fourth violation January 14, 2006: [24] [25] [26] [27]

KDRGibby maintains a "List of Wiki Bullies" at User talk:KDRGibby#List of Wiki Bullies. According to KDRGibby, "Not surprisingly most of these are suspected to be leftists/conservative (aka lovers of big government, socialism, communism, e'tatism, corpratism, tariffs, income taxes, FDR, the NEW DEAL etc etc etc) of some sort, thus they desire to eliminate any points by libertarians (me)or other editors with contradictory views."

• January 14, 2006 - Vandalized Economics of fascism to make a point. [28]
• December 11, 2005 - Removed large sections of Communism for no good reason. [29] [30] [31]

Time of writing is 09:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby constantly revert and edit wars, and misuses boiler templates.

• KDRGibby has been blocked four times for violating the 3RR rule [32]

• When a large group of editors agreed that the "response to criticism" section (as well as the article as a whole) needed to be weeded out for POV, and thus placed a boilerplate on the section, he constantly removed it:
  • 17:40 January 10, 2006 (UTC): [33]
  • 19:24 January 13, 2006 (UTC): [34]
  • 7:21 January 19, 2006 (UTC): [35]
  • 18:16 January 19, 2006 (UTC): [36]

KDRGibby constantly refuses to assume good faith about editors. If he gets into a disagreement with a user, rather than assuming in good faith they have valid and legitimate reasons for disputing content, many times he accuses such editors that they do not want content included or excluded because they want to censor the information or promote their own view.

• He started a user page on 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC) which stated "On Wikipedia, Patrick is up against a few historical revisionists in the article liberalism who insist that issues such as the failure of markets in the great depression are a factual given and should not be questioned. Upon adding an alternative explanation as given by Hayek and Friedman those posts are deleted and called "biased" an ironic accusation for anyone who understands what the word means." [37]
• A quick glance at revision 35453485 of his user page, posted on 21:54, January 17, 2005 (UTC) he states:
  • "Wikipedia is run and edited by alot of logically inconsistant stupid %$#@!*"
  • "Gibby battled hard against Rick Norwood and Electionwood to have small sections discussing other liberal views on totalitarianism and the great depression. For several days the revisionists refused to allow a dissenting view point, sincerly believing macroeconomic "liberal" povs were the only valid expressons."
  • "On Communism Gibby is up against (Natalinasmpf, Mattley, and 172) that can't come up with logically consistant reasons..."
  • All of these were from revision 35453485 as stated above. He continues to develop his user page, I cited a static revision just as an example.

• His comment on his user talk page at User talk:KDRGibby at 2:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) states: "I say you have a vested interest because you have failed in your logic to excuse the deletion of that minor subsection. My opinions on the subject are fact..." [38]
• If they are administrators, he accuses them of abuse of privileges, though they were only enforcing policy.
  • His user page again with the revision 35453485 mentioned above states: "It never fails to have friends who are administrators that way you can use them to block opposition or protect pages, with of course your own edit protected."
  • Shortly before removing a boiler plate in a revert war, he states in an edit summary of an edit dated 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC): "evidence of editor cabal with admin to protect then unprotect the article to get desired results protected. Deleted." [39]

• The communism talk page consisted of many vested interest accusations.
  • "and don't lie about your passions, you've got on your interests the Soviet Union, Russia, and George Keenan...I think thats a pattern! (Gibby 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC))" to user:172 who stated he was disinterested in the issue. [40]

• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby he stated in a comment dated 16:57 January 13, 2006 (UTC): "You all are just left leaning thugs who bully competition out of editing what you believe to be your territory!" [41]

In edit summaries and talk pages, he makes remarks about the intelligence or the character of the editors he is involved in a dispute with. This is evidently a ad hominem, which only serves to disrupt the community. Impolite in disputes.

• Blanket labels editors with a different political view, and treats them incivilly
  • On User talk:KDRGibby, 2:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) he states: "Natalinasmpf is an immature communist brat from Singapore who keeps deleting this and my other sections from Wiki, she has violated the 3rev policies multiple times and gets away with. Has no logical arguementation skills, and no ability to defend her deltions." [42]
  • On User talk:KDRGibby, at 18:44 January 16, 2006 (UTC) he states in an edit summary in his talk page, "(sheesh ask an innocent question of some communists and they get pissed off...seriously you guys, seriously". [43]
  • On User talk:KDRGibby, at 2:15 December 12, 2005 (UTC) he states: "And it is very aggrivating dealing with typical socialists and communists on here who are highly diseptive in the presentation of information. The fact that you cant even let a very small subsection exist...EVEN ON MY DISCUSSION page demonstrates how far communists go at destroying intellectual competition to make their theories appear legit....You rely on lies and distorted information to make your points, and when you can, like in the WIKI page, just delete anything you dont like!"
  • His edit summary on classical liberalism: "reverted to where socialist bs and copy edit from liberalism is removed." [44]
  • He accused me of bullying but erased my defense and explanation of my actions, calling them "lies". [45]

• Intentionally antagonising and hostile behaviour
  • On his very RFC he takes a hostile approach to our concerns: "These people have no intention of actually working with me or editing disputed content. They only want what I publish to be eliminated outright. That is the basis of every complaint on this page, as such, it should all be deleted as baseless hypocrisy." [46]
  • On the same RFC, he states "Their actions are nothing short of thuggish vandalism....THIS IS WHY I CALL YOU LOGICALLY INCONSISTANT ANT A HYPOCRITE!...You have no points, no ground, this is merely a tirade against an ideological competitor and it should be eliminated"
  • On talk:communism at 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC) he continued to beg the question and accuse others of logical inconsistency: "they are perfectly relevant here. You have failed to demonstrate why they are not." [47], but presents no evidence or elaboration for his comment. He then proceeds with a comment at 21:35 14 December 2005 (UTC) that states "I dont know how many times I have to keep repeating this, but its clear you dont get it". An edit at 8:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) states: "Editors have also failed to give examples as to how this is Original Research other than to throw out this complain. " [48] 3 minutes later, he adds, "Just cut the crap, allow it, and then actually make useful suggestions instead of being a PITA".
  • In his edit on Globalization and Its Discontents dated 8:21 19 December 2005 (UTC) the edit summary states: "give it a rest 172, its all factual".
  • These are not all policy violations, but continually being this rude and hostile can become disruptive to the community.

• Use of ad hominem

  Although Gibby does not use insults, he makes constant references to the editors' ideological interests when such references are unnecessary or irrelevant. This qualifies as an ad hominem, which may fit under a personal attack.

  • An example of this distinction is the edit summary of an edit of his in economics of fascism: "its not a personal attack to state that people are engaging in an ideological not content dispute...finishing here with MORON, would be" where he posts the comment "The disputing editors are likely more in love with the New Deal or economic intervention and do not want an association with fascism (Which they probably don't understand anyway" [49]
  • He used his edit summary of "Not an actual attack, learn the term please" to excuse his several ad hominem attacks against editors. [50]

• Actual insults

  Contrary to his claim, KDRGibby has actually posted actual insults in addition to ad hominems.

  • An edit summary of his states: "removing the proper tag according to complaints so the moronic revisionists can keep their stupid undefended tag...the babies!" [51]

KDRGibby has harassed several users.

• User:Quadell has verified that he was verified that KDRGibby harassed him over email for refusing to remove a block he imposed. [52]
• User:TrulyTory states he has been Wikistalked and harassed by KDRGibby several times (see his evidence section below). Some of these harassments include comments like these:
  • "So by Tory do you mean you love protectionism? and thus the exploitation of societies poorest people?" [53]
  • "Your definition of pragmatic to me, simply means that you wish to award friends and punish foes without caring for the consequence of the consumers as the whole of your society." [54]
  • "You sound like a nationalist and perhaps a bit of a socialist...thats a national socialist by the way. Stop reading Stiglitz, you are trying to create strawmen by calling me a fundamentalist. There is no such thing....Your fears are nationalistic, simplistic, and regressive....Its your type of nationalist self interested outlook that leads to exploitation, colonialism, imperialism, conflict, and war." [55]

• KDRGibby currently treats the dispute resolution process with contempt, showing that he does not wish to resolve the dispute at all. As of this posting, he has not responded to this arbitration request despite being informed about it. In fact, he removes the notice about it, saying it is bullying. [56]
  • revision 35453485 of his user page, current at this time of writing, states "When all else fails, blame them for not wanting to compromise and demand mediation or arbitration. Like tattle telling to a parent or a teacher the person who complains first gets the sympathy and thus usually wins."
  • Removes block notices from his talk page. While he had the final word on the matter it shows that he is in disharmony with the community and is trying to conceal the state of such disharmony. [57]

• • He shows contempt for the RFC process:
    • When responding to concerns raised by me, he resorted to a pejorative term, then proceeded to refactor my comment: [58]
    • He made an unnecessary reference to my ethnic background [59]
    • Rather than trying to defend himself in a civil manner, he proceeds to use hostility. I have cited the incivility and hostility section above.

• KDRGibby repeatedly Wikilawyers and tries to circumvent the 3RR rule through technicalities, and misunderstands the purpose of the rule:

• • His comment on User talk:KDRGibby at 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) states: "1. It wasnt 3 reverts, it was cut and paste. Cut and paste is not in your revert policy...I was not warned, a warning was added in after the fact." [60][reply]
  • His comment on User talk:KDRGibby at 2:07 12 December 2005 (UTC) states: "I have edited the communism page dozens of times and have had no trouble pasting my section back in. Furthermore, ITS NOT ON YOUR FREAKING RULE BOOK. PASTING IS NOT REVERTING. IF IT IS ADD IT! Words have meanings, my god! Learn them people!" [61]
  • His comment on User talk:KDRGibby at 2:15, December 2005 (UTC) states: "Pasting is not reverting. Pasting is pasting. Pasting is not mentioned in the revert page, defined in the revert page, mentioned in the violation page, or defined in the revert page." [62]
  • His comment on User talk:KDRGibby at 8:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC) states: "Editing the page to a condition not present before is also not a violation. Reverts are defined as edits that revert a page back to a previous condition. I have done no such thing, I have edited my additions each time to try and "appease" the critics by improving my additions. NOT A VIOLATION!" [63]
  • His comment on User talk:KDRGibby at 2:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) states: "not as defined in the rule book. if you think so, change the rule book." [64]

I had never heard of this person until he showed-up on my talk page to stalk me and challenge my edits on Conservatism and Liberalism as they related to historic tariff policies in various ideologies. I don't mind debate, but I do not like to be insulted. TrulyTory 13:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes drastic assertions and speculative attacks about personal beliefs, as in:

"You sound like a nationalist and perhaps a bit of a socialist...thats a national socialist by the way." [65]

More personal insults and attacks, rather than intelligent discourse:

"I also dont think you are really aware of how international competition really works...whether or not you actually worked for a fortune 100 company (mail room?). Who says that size of the company is what matters? Seriously." [66]

• After being warned KDRGibby removes the warning with "no tolerance for babies"[67]
• Responds to polite but firm requests to assume good faith with essentially "they started it"[68]
• Removes block notification with "Admins are so fucking stupid"[69]
• Responds to my 3RR explanation and this conversation ensues.
• KDRGibby then removes the conversation [70]wholesale, ignoreing opportunities provide specific evidence.

Please note. This evidence is submitted as an adminstrator and editor, not as a clerk--Tznkai 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Inserts blatant POV into articles, without even an attempt at citing it to a specific source. See [71], [72], [73]. All of this could also be considered original research. KDRGibby is using Wikipedia as a soapbox rather than an encyclopedia.

• Uncivil edit summaries: [74] ("reverted undiscussed wal-mart hating socialists rampage"), [75] ("replacing ignorant deletions...if criticisms are uncited then responses where intelligent people who understand actual definitions require no citation...since it is self explanitory..."), [76] ("maybe some foolish people will understand?"), [77] ("more evidence for those encapable of understanding self explanatory issues") I'm inclined to treat such behavior as vandalism.
• More: [78] ("id 83 can't be trusted...reverting to be safe." - this refers to an anonymous editor).

• Violated 3RR twice on Debates over Wal-Mart within two days. See [79] and [80]. He has also been blocked for 3RR on other occasions. His usual response to this is to accuse the blocking admins of personal bias against him.

KDRGibby has been using this article to insert his personal point of view into Wikipedia. This edit was quickly reverted by MisterHand (talk · contribs): [81]. Another attempt was reverted by Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs): [82]. KDRGibby then reverted back ([83]). Crotalus Horridus then removed several paragraphs of POV content ([84]). KDRGibby reverted this, calling it a "wal-mart hating socialists rampage" ([85]). Crotalus Horridus then reverted. KDRGibby reverted again ([86]). The revert war continued, with KDRGibby making comments like "if the damn admins wont stop editors from 4 reverts then they wont stop them from 5!!!! reverting this leftist vandalistic bullshit when this previous editor should already be blocked" : [87], [88], [89], [90]. Curps made the last revert of KDRGibby's edits when Crotalus Horridus had made three reverts: [91]. KDRGibby reverted him too. Instead of reverting, I then tried for a compromise. I don't know if this'll work, as the dispute appears to be on-going.

KDRGibby has made a series of personal attacks in the edit summaries on Che Guevara. In particular:

• retarded and moronic
• retarded communist monkey
• your moronic section

I've warned him that further such personal attacks in edit summaries will lead to escalating blocks; he seems unimpressed (and has removed the warnings from his talk page.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "I cannot help it if you two lack the intellectual capabilities to recognize this"
• "If stupid points of criticism are going to be made then counter arguements that point out the obvious should not be rejected."
• "The complaint is so rediculous and stupid that there is not even a source to cite that will even bother mentioning this obvious fact"
• "people making the complaints are so utterly rediculous and stupid that it is useless to point out the obvious because they wouldnt believe anyway"
• "It is a retarded complaint to make or even suggest."

• "It is not our fault if your hatred of wal-mart revolves around poorly thought out arguements."
• "if the damn admins wont stop editors from 4 reverts then they wont stop them from 5!!!! reverting this leftist vandalistic bullshit when this previous editor should already be blocked." [92]
• "it is stupid to demand a citation for something so blatantly obvious" [93]
• "its such an utterly stupid point of criticism" [94]
• "editors have a responsibility to not be complete morons. A citation is not even needed to say the sky is blue, but I'll add in something to quell this idiotic complaint" [95]

He has got himself blocked yet again [96], and removed the notification [97] with the grossly incivil hows this, Fuck you Alai, discussing shit with these people is impossible because they make unreasonable demands they know cannot be filled and if filled delete them anyway...so fuck you. William M. Connolley 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I may as well throw in Communists and Socialists are Stupid People...End of Story [98] and the associated text. Gibby isn't getting any better. William M. Connolley 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Edit war of Gift economy between KDRGibby and Natalinasmpf; beginning with this entry with a total of 36 changes largely between KDRGibby and Natalinasmpf at the time of this posting. Bo-Lingua 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby refuses to be cooperative, and, when "cornered" will resort to name calling, accusations and petty mudslinging; s/he seems to take all question relating to anything s/he adds very, very personally. [99] Bo-Lingua 07:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby's submission on Parecon consisted of a paraphrase of Friedman's general critique of any market alternatives. It contains no specific reference to Parecon and there is no evidence that Friedman has ever read Parecon. From the outset KDRG demonstrated his ignorance of parecon by maintaining that it advocates the elimination of prices, a claim which is obviously false to anyone who has read a fair sample of the material. My point is not to outlaw criticism but rather to ensure that what is included in the article is informed and topical, and that general criticism can be demonstrated to be sustainable at lower levels of abstraction (at the level of specifics), otherwise we are dealing with straw man fallacies and consequently compromising the quality of the article. If KDRG's version of the article is upheld then it would seem to set a standard for diffuse smearing rather pointed and specific critique. An analogous move might have me moving in on the article for Austrian economics by paraphrasing a Marxist critic of capitalism who was nevertheless unaware of the specific features of Austrian political economy, and adding roughly 30% to its content. It would set a very bad precedent. Anyway I can, and would be happy, to expand on any of the more technical matters if necessary. Thanks for your consideration. BernardL 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a crucial piece of evidence, but, for what its worth: KDRGibby seems to have become aware of the Economy of the Iroquois through the Gift economy article. He added to the Economy of the Iroquois listing in the see also section he added "though it is questioned if a barter economy accuratly represents what is discribed as a gift economy."[100] He did not back this with any reference or debate. He then went to the Iroquois article and removed the intro reference to the Iroquois gift reference and replaced it with text saying they had a barter economy. [101] He declared that the Iroquois gift economy aspects were original research in his edit summary without further explanation. Iroquois gift-giving in trade is cited and discussed extensively in this featured article. Further edits ensued. More discussion followed at User talk:KDRGibby and Talk:Gift economy. Basically, the incident provides evidence that KDRGibby is trying to make Wikipedia conform to his belief system and that he can be very stubborn when he is trying to achieve this goal.--Bkwillwm 07:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]