Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC).

(RJII | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Description

RJII has engaged in personal attacks and extensive POV pushing. In fact, his edits to Wikipedia appear designed primarily to further his libertarian political views. He has also refused to cite sources for controversial statements that he considers to be "self-evident". In sum, he has little interest in the business of making a collaborative encyclopedia; instead, he chooses to fight real-world political wars using Wikipedia as a tool.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Accuses User:Slrubenstein of lying and concludes: "So, blow it out your ***." [1]
Later in that same exchange: "Talk to the hand." [2]
When I politely ask him to refrain from personal attacks [3], he responds: "He had it coming." [4]
He was previously warned of NPA by User:fvw. [5] His response: "Listen you $^%*($$%$!!" [6]
POV pushing and failure to cite sources: Without citation, he inserts a ridiculous statement comparing New Deal murals to the art of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. [7] He reinserts it after I removed it for lack of citation.
Failure to cite sources: RJII insists on inserting the following statement in United States Postal Service: "However there is a possibility that a private alternatives to the USPS monopoly on normal letter delivery could be profitable and net tax contributors". [8] He uses incivil edit summaries and refuses to cite a source, even though this is an area of potential political dispute. In doing so, he violates WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. He then opposed my RFA specifically because I asked him to follow Wikipedia policy on citing sources.
More uncivil edit summaries: "apparently you have a pretty pathetic library then" [9]
More uncivil edit summaries: "pathetic description of feudalism" [10]
Refers to User:172 as "Problem Wikipedian #172" [11] because of disagreements over whether an article should be redirected or not. He also accuses me of "vandalism" for wanting to redirect it. [12] (Three editors have done redirects so far, and RJII is the only one who has had a desire to revert them.)
Gross incivility: "learn to speak english or go to another language encyclopedia" [13]
In response to this RfC, RJII has stated on User:Firebug's Talk page: "Ok, now it's time to start an RFC against you. Plenty of information out there to collect. I had better get busy." [14]
Being very uncivil while conversing with User:Kevehs (who amongst others has been put off wikipedia by RJII) >> "It must suck to be you. RJII 05:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)" source - Talk:Left_anarchism#Collectivist_vs_Communist_anarchists; RJII also has a tremendous problem with context, accuracy, NPOV, bias revisionism, and getting around consensus and collaboration by creating non-notable articles.
Have repeatedly asked him to keep civil, but he never does. Recent example: "Give sources to Aaron at your own risk. He finds some twisted way to dismiss every one. Or, if he does find one acceptable, he demands another to back it up, ad infinitum. It's fruitless and ridulcous." [15]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or should I place myself under the co-signers? 172 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
max rspct 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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

I don't assume bad faith on the part of the signatories above. I assert bad faith as a result of my knowledge and experience with the above individuals. RJII 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:) :) :) Hey kids! Here's your chance to vent against big bad RJII because he didn't let you get your way! Someone this competitive should not be allowed on Wikipedia! Don't miss your chance to vent out all your frustration! Scour Wikpedia for "personal attacks" and anything that may vaguely by construed as a "policy" violation and report them here (there's over over a year's worth of extensive writings to inspect)! Let's cut RJII down to size. His extraordinary intelligence, impeccable logic, artful argmentation, and indefatigable competitive drive and spirit is just too much for us to contend with. It's JUST NOT FAIR! Come on kids!. We know you're out there. Come on out of the woodwork and sign your name and let everyone know your frustration about not getting your way! :) :) :)
Not sure it's worth worth my time to respond. I'll think about it. RJII 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, however, that Firebug has had a history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. He's been hassling me ever since I voted against him being an administrator. He lost that vote, fortunately, since others thought him unworthy as well, due to his antics Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug. Taking that with the fact that he recently had some edit skirmishes with me (such as my reverting back the economic fascism article when he redirected it without a consensus [16]), it looks to me like he's out for revenge. Anyway, for the rest of you losers, free free to sign your names in condemnation of me for all it's worth. RJII 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) One new antic from bug, he just moved economic fascism to Economic fascism/Article knowing there was no consensus to do so and without even attempting to obtain a consensus. [17] As you can probably gather by now, this RFC is stemming from his frustration that that article exists, I created and authored it, and he can't get rid of it. (And the bogus claim that he's trying to avoid "stop the edit war." LOL. What edit war? There is no edit war on that article. It's just him trying to redirect the article. Obviously he's not trying to avoid an edit war, but rather, trying to get rid of the article by any means possible.) Again, it's very fortunate that he lost the vote to become an adminstrator. I can't stress this enough: For the sake of perserving the mission of Wikipedia, Do not ever allow "firebug" to become an adminstrator. The consequences would be disastrous. Mark my words. RJII 04:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I'd like to note that firebug is presently the subject of request for arbitration for redirecting the economic fascism article without a consensus after repeated warnings. I, and two other editors, have expressed our condemnation of his unethical behavior. RJII 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the latest problems from firebug on the economic fascism talk page. He refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy. [18] Again, this RFC is just a continuation of his feeble attempts to get his way through any means possible. RJII 05:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I recently created the economic fascism article, but user: Mihnea Tudoreanu put it up for a deletion vote. user:slrubenstein, user:172, and user:Firebug all cast a vote to censor it. They lost the vote a few days ago and the default was to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2. (by the way, user: Mihnea Tudoreanu has been trying to redirect that page without consensus as well [19] and user:172 kept modifying the vote for deletion page after the vote was closed! [20] --a clear violation of policy --vandalism.) Is it any surprise that's it's exactly these characters from the economic fascism vote who have initiated this farce and have signed their names above? Can you say..."sore losers"? LOL.
I'd like to note that I think Arthur Rubin, below, is being really presumptuous to assert that others such as Radgeek and Rd232 think the definition of "coercive monopoly" is wrong. As far I can see, everyone but Rubin and Blackmoor disagree with the definition (which by the way is solidly sourced). And, I must tell you, I was under the impression that Rubin was happy with the article: "An alternative definition of coercive monopoly that has developed is a monopoly that is created or perpetuated through the use of coercion that successfully prevents competition. I'll probably not insist on the NPOV tag. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC) So this is news to me. So, what you have here is another case of someone who is bitter because he didn't get his way. Apparently, this RFC is just a chance for people to vent against a superior competitor because they didn't get their way. So, vent away.[reply]
I just noticed point (6) above from bug. He says I didn't cite a source after he deleted the benign trivial self-evident statement. Well what the hell is then: [21] ? Another bogus accusation from an obviously frustrated and desperate soul.
Lo and behold. Now we have User:max rspct coming out of the woodwork to sign his name! (so I'm a wood worm now? -max rspct) He's upset because RJII created American individualist anarchism and other great articles: "...your 'american indi anarchists' had no involvement in the historical development of anarchism... they have never been part of a movement... max rspct 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)" (note that was just today). I've noticed that anything that seems like it might put American in a positive light (anarchism being positive for him) just doesn't seem sit well with him; I don't assert that he's anti-American but he sure comes across that way to me. Oh, and of course... He's one of the clique that voted to censor the economic fascism article and lost. How about that? Another frustrated soul coming back to retaliate. And, notice he's not complaining about anything I said to him, but found a comment ("it must suck to be you") to someone else from way back in July. Of course he fails to point out anything leading up to that comment. For example, just three days prior: "To be as polite as possible, fuck you and your "eternal war" wikipedia philosophy..." (Kev) "Personal attack overlooked. RJII 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)" "You are an idiot RJ, overlook that as well. Kev 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)"Personal attack overlooked. RJII 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)" the article I showed remarkable retraint. "It must suck to be you" is more than a restrained comment for that rogue. I supposed I could have been petty and file an "RFC." RJII 02:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Also, I just to note that Max_rspct is a disruptive editor. He routinely violates the 3 Revert Rule; for example, just today: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] That's SIX reverts! Do you give Max_rspct who inserted point (12) (in the "evidence" above) any credibility? Do you give any of the individuals who signed their names above credibility? Come on people. These are obviously the dregs of Wikipedian society, coming out of the woodwork, who are incensed that RJII has taken a strong stance against their unethical behavior, POV edits, and often just plain discombobulated writing. I don't "assume bad faith" -- I assert bad faith, as a result of my experiences with some or all of the signatories above and am confident I am correct to assert it; I initiatlly assume good faith with everyone and am confident that the great majority of Wikipedians to have good faith. Sure, RJII has used forceful language with a few people. But, that's how you have talk to a select few of the people on Wikipedia. Wearing "kid gloves" just doesn't work. Though they certainly don't deserve any better treatment than savage beasts, RJII tries to reason with them regardless.[reply]
News Alerts - Funniest news of the day**
- Important News Alert: bug has filed an arbitration case complaining that RJII has "defaced the page with this this clown photo." [28] BUG DOESN'T LIKE CLOWNS! Come on kids, it's true that RJII is a bad guy, but let's all let let bug know what we feel about his discrimination against clowns! Booo!!! RJII 21:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Important News Alert: Hey kids! RJII just deleted a message on his Talk page from Arthur Rubin that was addressed for someone else, so RJII deleted it. As a result of this, Arthur has just claimed that RJII "edits his own talk page to support his own point of view. This seems yet another WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violation. See [29]." Is that funny or what?! A POV talk page!! LOL! What are they going to come up with next?? :) Keep 'em coming kids! We'll get that big bad RJII yet! RJII 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Important News Alert Arthur Rubin just released a statement just moments ago saying "the clown is a violation of different Wikipedia policies." [30] Another guy who doens't like clowns! What do you think kids?Should we have to decorate our section with a grown-up picture? No way!!! RJII is bad guy, but he least he likes clowns. Maybe he's not so bad afterall? RJII 22:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Important News Alert firebug (the insect who initiated this RFC) has taken it upon himself to develop his own template to place on existing articles that at one time had a Vote for Deletion (Afd) that failed: [31] (also on display on Discussion page). Now isn't that creative? Here you see him placing it on an article (which RJII created )because he didn't like results of the vote: [32] Does he actually think he can get away with that? What's wrong firebug? He's becoming increasingly frustrated about not getting his way and resorting to more and more desperate and futile actions. Hey, at least it's funny! :) RJII 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Important News Alert As of January 2, 2006, firebug has renounced his Wikipedia citizenship: [33] Now THAT's funny! :) RJII 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Important News Alert Aaron complains that it's "uncivil" of RJII to point out that Aaron refuses to accept sources. Aaron over and over requests sources for claims, but then why they're presented to him, he dismisses them --not just from RJII, but from others as well. But, what's really funny is he lists evidence of that above! If RJII's flagging Aaron for dishonestly dismissing sources is uncivil, so be it! The evidence is plain to see that he does not have a good faith interest in sources. That's not assuming bad faith, it's a reasoned conclusion. Maybe we should start an RFC on him? Nah ..too immature. :) RJII 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

RJII 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Jkelly

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have three comments. The first is that it is not clear to me that an effort has been made to resolve this dispute before this RfC. The second is that I believe that WP:NOR should be applied to this dispute, specifically the quote about "synthesiz[ing] work in a non-standard way". The third is that User:RJII's response above, accusing User:Firebug of opening this RfC in response to User:RJII's RfA vote, seems to be an accusation of bad-faith. In spite of my concern about the lack of evidence that there has been an attempt to resolve the issue, the number of responses that User:RJII has gotten on article Talk pages about his editing should, I would hope, inspire that user to reflect upon whether or not they can improve upon their approach. User:RJII has instead decided to dismiss those concerns by speculating about bad faith on the part of one of four endorsing parties.

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

Jkelly 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This also looks a totally immature, if not dissonant response from RJIII's part. The RFC is for dispute resolution, and this isn't helping it one bit. Natalinasmpf 09:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I would emphasize "this" in the first part. ~~As for the improper comment below, see the first sentence in Wikipedia:Requests for comment.~~ Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Arthur Rubin

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I am not familiar with those particular disputes, but, in Coercive monopoly, he also violated those same three policies. I, Rd232, and BBlackmoor, and Radgeek, among others, attempted to get the correct, accepted definition into the article, but we've only succeeded in getting the alternative definition sentence in. I believe the article is still in error as to the definition of the term described, but have given up trying to get the article fixed, in spite of an overwhelming concensus that it is wrong.

(I claim right of reply. I said I probably wouldn't insist on a POV tag. I didn't say the article was correct. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Additional comment. IMHO, this user uses the same violations of WP policy in regard a number of different contexted, with a number of different potential complainants. It's not common that more than one remaining Wikipedian has been unable to resolve a particular dispute, although apparently there are a number of different disputes involving different Wikipedians and former Wikipedians. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commnet. He edits his own talk page to support his own point of view. This seems yet another WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violation. See [34]. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outside view by --Christofurio

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

RJII has a "call a spade a friggin' shovel" way of expressing himself that can sometimes grate on nerves. But so far only a very few people, each with his own ideological animus, have seen fit to complain about it, and they've cited no wrong on his part beyond his expressiveness. How thin should we assume their skins are?

I see that one of the uncivil comments that gave rise to this request for comment is "talk to the hand." My gosh! Will horrors never end???

The radical mallard, below, gives away what is really at stake here. His critique of RJ doesn't have anything to do with RJ's violation of any policies at all. RJ just happens to have a different take on certain political and philosophical issues from the mallard. This is a fairly typical sample: "RJII (and others like him), have mentioned Ayn Rand as an inspiration of 'anarcho-capitalism', yet Rand argued very much against anarchists and the Libertarian Party style 'libertarians' in her day."

Now, let's think about that. First of all, anarcho-caps (I don't claim that RJ is or isn't one -- how he wishes to label himself is his own concern, after all, not mine) but anarcho-caps don't generally believe in unquestioned authorities. So there is no contradiction involved in saying (a) some anarcho-caps are inspired, in some respects, by Ayn Rand, and (b) her position was very different from theirs. Why should that be a contradiction? or a sign of "spin"? Would it be equally problematic to be influenced by Marx (or Plato, or Rousseau, etc.) yet to occupy a position importantly different from Marxism, Platonism, or Rousseauism? What the mallard really wants is for all articles on political philosophy to categorize matters the way he would -- yet as Mick Jagger might remind him, you can't always get what you want. If you try some time, you just might find ... I'm tempting the copyright lawyers here.

The mallard reflects precisely why this whole Rfc is a bad precedent. The "No Personal Attacks" policy tells us "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme" constitutes such an attack. The people pressing this Rfc seem intend upon using political affiliations in exactly the way in which they aren't to be used. It is sadly ironic that they claim (1) RJ is making personal attacks amd (2) his politicl affiliations are themselves a problem, when (3) the second of those is itself, according to policy, an example of the first. The mote in his eye and the beam in theirs.

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

Christofurio 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by WAS 4.250 16:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience with RJII at short and easy to read talk page Talk:Mixed economy (4.250.xxx.xxx is me) over the last year and my following the unending debate in the unending anarchism series of articles, leads me to believe RJII mirrors back the conduct he recieves. WAS 4.250 16:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Slrubenstein

Christofurio is vastly oversimplifying. First of all, Wikipedia: No personal attacks is a policy for good reasons; a persistent pattern of personal attacks is not to be taken lightly. Second, I have accused RJII of violationg Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research because he never provides sources for his claims. RJII has a history of POV warring and bullying.

Some time ago I requested arbitration [35] on two grounds: RJII was violating our NPOV and NOR/Verifiability policies, and RJII was reverting or deleting every edit I made to the Capitalism article. At that time, RJII claimed that I had acknowledged that I was wrong, becuase I stopped making edits to that article. I replied that the reason I stopped making edits to the article was because RJII reverted or deleted all my contributions, and I was tired of his bullying. At that time, I hoped the ArbCom would intervene. Instead, the ArbCom closed the case because, it claimed, the dispute had been resolved [36]. Part of their evidence for this claim was that I had stopped editing the article and had stopped challenging RJII on the talk page. This was a decision the ArbCom should be ashamed of. What they took to be evidence that the dispute had been resolved (a cessation of conflict) was actually evidence of how grave the problem was, as RJII had bullied anyone who disagreed with him off of the article.

The last communication between me and RJII concerning the RfA was this [37]:

Slrubenstein, just between you and me, it's hard for me to take you seriously. You lost credibility in my eyes very early on, and that lack of credibility to me is only confirmed every time you say something. And, I'm sure others feel the same way. I say this out of genuine concern for you: don't make a further spectacle of yourself. RJII 18:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your only response is just another ad hominem remark? So be it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above was the final exchange on the talk page, but the following was the final discussion specifically concerning the ArbCom's decision [38] (from the section "A solution"):

A while back, EL C provided a definition of Capitalism from the Encyclopedia of Marxism, which is, as far as I can tell, a Marxist publication.[[39]] It defines capitalism as "The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour." Now there's a source. Can we all move on with our lives, now? Dave 06:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here's information from the Marxist Internet Archive (which runs the encyclopedia I quoted above) that supports my above claim that it is a Marxist publication: "We are a volunteer based non-profit organisation, with the purpose of educating people around the world about Marxism"[40], and that their goal is to provide a "rebirth" for their version of non-authoritarian marxism[41] Dave 07:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dave, how is this a solution to the arbitration? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A big chunk of the debate was over whether there was a Marxist definition that supports his. Now there is. We can all go home now. Dave 20:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The discussion is over RJII's violation of various Wikipedia policies: NPOV, NOR, Cite Sources, Verifiability, and No personal attacks. Now, if you want to "go home" you can "go home" any time you want to. But the ArbCom has accepted this matter and I do not understand why you are suggesting that they now reject it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right. I tried. Dave (talk) 16:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure your intentions were good -- I just think you were missing the point. Also, I think the definition you provide over-simplifies Marx's view (which is why, when researching an encyclopedia article, we need to be very careful to try to understand a topic rather than hunt for lines we can quote out of context). Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's over, dude. Go home. (And feel free to quote this to arbitrators an another alleged personal attack as a testament to your sensitivity. I'm sure they'll shed a tear for you. They may even make me sit in the penalty box. If they do, it's worth it to expose a fraud.) RJII

I would like to make four points for the ArbCom, and any Sysop who comments on RJII's behavior:

I registered my dissatisfaction with the ArbCom decision and the basis for the decision (the separate article).
my claims against RJII, although sparked by a conflict over content of the Capitalism article, were based on his violation of specific Wikipedia policies.
While disagreeing with Dave and others I strived to stick to issues and not make the disagreement personal.
And most germain to User:Firebug's RfC: RJII is utterly incapable of refraining from making personal attacks. In both of the discussions above, taken from the RfA talk page, RJII responded to my comments, which were reasonable and constructive and motivated by a concern for the quality of the article (and I am not saying "I was right," I am only saying I engaged in a debate over what was right and wrong in a reasonable manner) with personal attacks on my: that I lack credibility, and that I am a fraud. These are not reasoned arguments against my position, these are attacks directed personally against me.

I suspect RJII will respond to these remarks with another condescending, snide, or dismissive comment about my character. RJII is a bully, and he has continued to edit Wikipedia because we have a very high tolerance for bullies. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJII's responses to "Outside View of Slrubenstein"

Blah. Blah. Blah. I think I'll go play my violin just for you. RJII 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to see the hypocrisy of slrubenstein? This just happend a short while ago. He claimed in the capitalism article that in communism individuals can own the means of production [42]. Anyone with the vaguest idea about communism knows that elimination of private ownership of the means of production is abolished in commmunism. So I asked him for a source, both in my reversion note [43] and in Talk [44]. He then reverted back with no explanation and no source (of course) [45]. Amazing eh? This is the kind of character we're dealing with here. From my experiences and observations of him on Wikipedia, he cannot be trusted in any way, shape, or form. He's a rogue editor that will resort to any means (including filing bogus arbitration cases the one discussed above that failed due to lies from him) to try to get his way. RJII 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted. RJII is not capable of responding except throughinsults. RJII, you are a liar. I provided two sources from real books written by Mrx and Engels. You provide no source, just a dictionary definition. Looking a word up in a dictionary is not research. If you want to make claims about communism, do not base them on a dictionary definition. Read books by communists, and read books about communists, like I did. I provide two authoritative sources, you provide none. And then you come here an lie and insult me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. You're writing this today. You did your reversion yesterday. Then, when you saw I noted it on the discussion page of this article, you ran back to that article's talk page and said you had a source and you'd get it later. This is the next day. You shouldn't have reverted back without the source. Regardless, your source is bogus. You provided no quote from it so that I can verify it. Also, even more important, the quote wouldn't suffice it it existed. That book is about Marxism (capital C communism). What are you doing editing the capitalism article anyway? What business does anyone have discussing economic philosophy at all when he doesn't know the basic fact that in communism, private ownership of the means of production is eliminated? Your claim that communism consists of private ownership of the means of production is ludicrous! I'd like to remind you, and everyone else, that you didn't know what capitalism was. You fought to keep a definition of capitalism out of the article because you couldn't figure out what capitalism was. That's why you brought that bogus arbitration suit against me (fraught with lies) ..to keep capitalism from being defined (an arbitration case which you rightfully lost). Well, a definition is there now, and I wrote extensively in the sections and created new sections. Thanks to my determination, the article is improved beyond all recognition (I even put the pictures in). And get this. You even admonished someone else on that article's talk age about conflating Marxism with communism: "any claims about "communism" should represent them, and not only Marx..." Then you immediately come along and assert in the article what you believe to be a Marxist position that there is private ownership of the means of production in communism! If this doesn't illustrate your hypcrisy and dishonesty, I don't know what does. RJII 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If en editor makes claims, they should be based on good source. You made claims about communism and provided no valid source (just a dictionary definition?) — I made a claim about communism and provided two sources, both from classic communist texts. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. RJII 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who looks at the talk page, and my entry last night, will see that you are lying. You are pretty shameless. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, it's obvious that you are lying. And I hope they do look at the talk page. Your lack of ethics is reprehensible. RJII 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Sarge Baldy

I respect RJII's effort towards helping the encyclopedia, and towards researching information to support his points. On the other hand, he researches information to support his points, often stringing together sources to support his own conceptions. At times he can be civil, and I for one consider his editing in good faith, although I think he completely misconstrues NPOV policy (seeing it as every view should be considered equally, which actually falls in contradiction to the undue weight clause). Often as a result he makes statements such as "Well, that's unfortunate that you're not willing to compromise your POV. Because, I'm not willing to compromise the NPOV policy" [46], closing debate out of a confidence that his POV is "the" NPOV. I also think he dominates certain articles to unsafe degrees. [47] In general the distribution of what he contributes to also makes me uneasy. Sarge Baldy 01:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alienus

Everything I've read here has sounded entirely familiar, because RJII's behavior is equally bad on articles involving Ayn Rand. He constantly, he twists citations and assuming good faith about his actions amounts to an act of blind faith flying in the face of all evidence. He's here to push his POV and won't let the facts get in his way, nor the well-meaning efforts of other editors. More disturbingly, there is evidence that he is playing games with us. The following was copied directly from his uer page and speaks for itself:

Stay tuned for an important message concerning the RJII Project, to be announced shortly.

The RJII Project began as a one year mission, however, due to a stronger than expected show of resistance due to entrenched bias and irrational integration of information, the Project was extended until June 30, 2006 so that its goals for Wikipedia could be fully realized. Though resistance was significant, through the use of advanced techniques of...[CENSORED until late June]...one full time editor, two part time editors, and one full time research assistant. This allowed us to edit/research/strategize/debate 18-24 hours a day for over a year and half...logging nearly 25,000 edits, introducing invaluable new knowledge and concepts to Wikipedia...we are now extremely pleased to announce that the Project has been successfully completed (as of late May)....[CENSORED until late June]...Since the Project has been completed approximately four weeks prior to the scheduled June 30 completion date, [CENSORED until late June] will be, and have been, engaging in minor tinkering on Wikipedia to pass time until late June on a much more infrequent and irregular schedule, as you may have already noticed. On July 1, we (including at least one of our benefactors) will be boarding aircraft en route to Martha's Vinyard for a protracted vacation in celebration of [CENSORED until late June] but also to celebrate Independence Day...[CENSORED]... the Project could not have been completed...would like to thank...without whose...assistance completion would not certainly not have been possible....Thank you for your participation in the [CENSORED until late June] Project...TO BE CONTINUED...

Given all this, I can't see why we should allow him to continue to inflict his bias on our articles. Al 15:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Complaint About RJII- Anarchism and RJII's POV/Spin

One of the biggest problems is that RJII is not "smart" at being factual or true, but rather "smart" at "spin"... putting a slant on subjects in his favor, and using selective quotes to back up his arguments. I don't care if he wants to do this in sections that represent his own POV and beliefs.. but he has seen to it to invade the entries of subjects he is ideologically opposed to and putting negative spin and pepper them with attacks, slanders, etc. disguised as a sort of faux scholerly tone. Let me give an example of one of the problems.. RJII (and others like him), have mentioned Ayn Rand as an inspiration of "anarcho-capitalism", yet Rand argued very much against anarchists and the Libertarian Party style "libertarians" in her day. Still, since right-wing economists like RJII must have their way and must shape reality as they see fit, they overlook or dismiss what she said and put her in there anyway (Both Rand and Bastiat were statists - they wanted the state to defend business interests and oppose ordinary working human beings interests.) Whereas at the same time, they will "tip the scale" so that people like Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker or Warren or Heywood seem to be similar to modern (post FDR "individualist") pro-capitalists... when they could just as easily be described as socialists who simply wanted to "go at it alone", and not be part fo a commune, but in no way block workers from opposing corporations with the power of the state (which is the only way corporations can continue to exist. Private armies don't last long, at least in a Democratic Republic: it has to be a dictatorship to keep the average worker from being armed... a situation like this with no de-facto goverment would have to become Feudalistic City-State in structure. Industrial Capitalism with no government is frightening and tyrannical, whereas Socialism with no government is the only way "pure" socialism can work.)

Reproducing Bryan Caplan's FAQ or articles (or other right-wing sources) does not count as actual anarchist scholership - Caplan isn't an anarchist, he's a right wing economist who did everything to could to distort or outright destroy the history of anarchism when being depicted on the Internet.

The point I am making is that since RJII is deeply ideologically opposed to the things he is writing about, yet they are still active movements of substance today (as opposed to Naziism or Bolshevism, which is pretty much dead), it is unethical for him to turn it into his own little philosophy. I know that the way Wikipedia works, there likely isn't much that can be done to stop him or people like him from ruining anything positive that anti-capitalists have to say or do, or defining to their own desire what some label means (freedom, liberty, individualism, egoism, etc.) ... but I would at least like it to be known that what he and his cohorts write isn't accepted by actual anarchists, and when it comes to heated ideologicaly disputed topics, Wikipedia is a failure. (it is quite useful in other areas, to be sure.)

Let me also mention another example of spin that RJII and people like him use and our anarchist response to it: to those of us who are anti-capitalist anarchists, the egoist Max Stirner is not a villian or an enemy we would oppose, like Ayn Rand... instead he is a hero to us. Max Stirner did not simply say that humans are selfish and shouldn't care about how they harm others and thus this somehow gives a big boost to capitalism and says it is "natural". Nope. Stirner spoke to us workers and told us that we should not sacrefice our lives, our time, or our joy to the marxist state, to the boss, to the landlord, to the corporation.. he told us that we should be strong, and care for ourselves, and that our egoism was the essense of anti-capitalism: when the ordinary person who is used, fooled, tricked, abused, caged, recorded, mocked, and put on the clock by the capitalist finally rises from their knees and stands up - desiring to not be oppressed and to not oppress anyone else, they become a whole person... a free person. In this way all anarchists, in opposing capitalism, are truly egoists, truly selfish... but our selfishness is the basis of libertarian socialism, a rational, ethical socialism that is not about blind sacrefice.

RJII also does not understand that anarchists do not slavishly hang on everything every famous anarchist has said. There are things we disagree with that have been said by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tucker, Goldman, Warren, Berkman, Spooner, Heywood, Chomsky, Stirner, Bakunin, Bookchin, Proudhon, etc... there are also many contradicary things they said in their lives... obviously people who want to make these figures appear to be slanted toward one ideology or another, or supporters of violence or pacifism can selectivly choose their quotes in order to attack them or boost them up as a false version of themselves. Sorry for the numerous typos. Radical Mallard Thu Dec 22 20:46:11 EST 2005

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.