Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Statement/Comment by NSLE
My interactions with KDRGibby have been limited to his RFC and his talk page after I saw the revert/edit war over communism in the IRC bot channel. However, he has apparently taken offence to me "(having) taken sides with friends to bully oposition in pages", and opposed my ArbCom nomination, without suffrage (mine was the only nomination he voted on, too), in what to me is a WP:POINT. NSL E (T+C) 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by The Land
I encountered KDRGibby on Economics of fascism where I blocked him for 24hrs for violating the 3RRR, with five reverts, , , , in the space of 24hrs 12 mins. He then repeatedly reverted notification that he had been blocked on his talk page, starting with, and accused me and others of bullying behaviour and vandalism, while implying everyone who disagrees with him is part of some left-wing conspiracy. . The Land 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jmabel
I have repeatedly found KDRGibby's remarks on talk pages to be nasty and hostile (not particularly toward me, but toward a number of contributors), and many of his edits to be repeated insertions of the same POV material in numerous places, often with only tangential relevance to the topic of the article at hand, and sometimes into articles on topics about which he clearly knows very little. Some recent examples can be found at Talk:Gift economy. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Electionworld = Wilfried Derksen
The way he discussed with me at Talk:Liberalism was insulting. He never apologized and I stopped discussing with him. It doesn't make sense to debate with him. Electionworld 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

violations of parole since conclusion of case
I have compiled a partial list of Gibby's personal attacks since the closure of this case. The list is partial because it only contains comments he made on the talk pages of articles on my watchlist: I urge you to take decisive action on this matter. -- Nikodemos 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
 * "the complaint is actually...stupid"
 * "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
 * "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
 * "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
 * "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
 * "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
 * Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
 * "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
 * "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
 * "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
 * Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
 * "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
 * "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
 * "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
 * "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

I placed a 30 minute block around 21:25 UTC on 6 March for increasingly incivil and hotheaded editing. I left a message on his talk saying to cool it, 'cos 30 minutes isn't long enough to make a BIG fuss over but it is enough time to think a bit. I suggest that consistency of short blocks works very well indeed in personal attack paroles in my experience - a week doesn't educate like ten 1-6hr blocks, and if they had judgement of what constitutes a personal attack they wouldn't need a parole, but anyone can understand "it hurts when I do this!" "don't do that then" - David Gerard 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that block (though not this comment, until now), and have subsequently applied a three hour block on the basis of comments like this:. Which of course results in removal from his talk page of the blocking notice, with comment "this is also the second time you have abused your adminship". The kindest thing one could say is that he was even worse initially, but I don't see him turning into a model contributer any time soon. Alai 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After having a brief talk (see and his latest comment ) with Gibby, I am convinced that he will never reform in any meaningful way, and I hope that an admin will make use of the one year block option stipulated by this RfAr after Gibby has been blocked five times (which will inevitably happen). -- Nikodemos 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone (that is, an arbitrator) should leave a note of this case at Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. -- Nikodemos 10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, he has begun revert warring again after he was blocked. He doesn't even make an effort to change - he sees his blocks as abuse, and repeats the very same actions that gets him blocked. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Old "Log of blocks and bans" section

 * I refactored this section on the project page. This is what it contained prior to refactoring --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * Based on these edits,, I have blocked KDRGibby for twenty-four hours for making personnal attacks in violation of his parole. Tom Harrison Talk 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Inflammatory perhaps, but I can't see the personal attack (at least in the first edit). I udnerstand why someone would be angry if sourced edits get removed. I've offered to unblock if he agrees to report unexplained removals of material rather than posting these messages. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He can't resist making personal attacks even when responding to warnings about personal attacks. His own talk page comments (to me and to the blocking admin) are in themselves worthy of another block (longer this time, as per this arbitration.) He has asked for a detailed definition of what constitutes a personal attack on Wikipedia; perhaps someone with more patience than I might explain this to him. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the detailed evidence to the talk page; I don't want to clog up this page. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR at participatory economics. I have banned him from editing this article for 1 year. —Ruud 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, and for sakes of completeness, here's the note I placed on the talk page regarding a violation of his NPA parole:
 * I noticed that block (though not this comment, until now), and have subsequently applied a three hour block on the basis of comments like this: . Which of course results in removal from his talk page of the blocking notice, with comment "this is also the second time you have abused your adminship".   The kindest thing one could say is that he was even worse initially, but I don't see him turning into a model contributer any time soon.  Alai 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"This block" refers to a half-hour block placed earlier by David Gerard. Alai 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unblocked and re-blocked for 31 hours for this personal attack. Talk page protected. NSL E (T+C) at 02:21 UTC (2006-03-08)

If we're counting the "standard" 3RR block as also counting towards the AC conditions, that would appear to be five blocks in total. Alai 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

dispute ban from participatory economics
I dispute this. The page in question was bombarded by edit warring by editors who wished to keep a highly pov and original research statement that is NOT even factually correct. I was unaware of violating the 3rr because I was so caught up in trying to explain why their original statement was not only incorrect but POV and Original Research as well.

I dispute the block (Wasnt even warned not to mention the circumstances) and dispute the over the top ruling. (Gibby 14:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC))


 * KDRGibby, the three-revert rule is an electric fence. There is no excuse of violating the 3RR. Saying that "I forgot about violating the 3RR" because you were caught up in making tendentious editing is not even an excuse. If you dispute its factual accuracy, place a disputed template on the talk page. I only made two reverts on that page, which I assumed to be in line with consensus as no one else who came along (for about a week or more since you made the change) supported your changes, with multiple editors disputing your change. Also, the progressivism page was fine before, with harmony among its editors until you appeared.


 * Also, saying that you weren't warned is ridiculous: you were warned about the 3RR numerous times; you are not a newbie, and you were blocked for the 3RR before: you knew about the rule, and you knew, about the 3RR, and you see your block as a "abuse" of the wiki-rules. Well, sorry &mdash; a 3RR block is legitimate, especially as no one else violated the 3RR on the pages you edited on. If you think so, make a report on the 3RR page. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Same goes with you. You knowingly violate reverts and on top of that you are doing so to keep in pov original research. I'm reverting to keep you from keeping it!(Gibby 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

I also don't think you, or the other admins even know what tendentious is....you all throw that word around..(Gibby 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
 * There is no excuse for 3RR. That's the whole point. You seem to want us to excuse your lack of civility because other editors' actions drove you to it; you seem to want us to excuse your breaking the 3RR because other editors' actions drove you to it. It's understandable that you might feel this way -- other people often feel just the same. I know I do. There are plenty of times I want to scream bullshit. There are plenty of times I want to call another editor an idiot. The culture on Wikipedia does not tolerate that; nor does it tolerate revert wars. For any reason other than dealing with vandalism, which is pretty carefully defined, and which is not what's happening on the articles you are involved with. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But it certainly does tolerate admins letting their own personal bias run their own decesions while applying wiki rules. (Gibby 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
 * To whom, and of which biases, are you referring? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I have some help?
KDRGibby is really testing my patience on Classical Liberalism. Gibby restarted this page after it had been merged with Liberalism and proceeded to fill this page up with the views of Friedman and Hayek - which I (as a not particularly good Wikipedian) got rid of so as to start writing the article in a more NPOV way.) Gibby obviously reverted it (saying "you can not delete cited material") and demanded sources for my view, which I then provided (that, in my opinion, justify the deletion of large amounts of Gibby's text by undermining their legitimacy to be there.) Having done this Gibby has decided that these sources are "neo-marxist revisionism" and rejects them, despite them being highly regarded academic sources. To add to this Gibby's holy sources are not even properly cited or vaguely credible, however, any changes that are made to the article are either incorporated to make the article completely incomphrensible or just reverted....even when I include Gibby's beloved sources.

On the talk page Gibby has constantly accused me of ignorance, (now I believe I'm considered a "revisionist") bad faith and POV-pushing. He constantly requires me to repeat earlier debates and is essentially demanding a level of evidence to make changes to the article which is not possible (while his 5 seperate authors' views are allowed to dominate.) Slizor 13:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I started Classic Liberalism after my edits at Liberalism were constantly deleted dispite citations. Editors there refused to allow Hayek's and Friedman's liberal opinions (note I was including them along with all others present before my editing)...that means I was merely trying to express what most academics even believe is just one of many liberal view points. Classic Liberalism was later merged with Classical Liberalism which was an article that was already in existance.

Slizors views on Classical liberalism are simple. 1. Classical Liberals define a certain time period. which goes against modern scholars who claim to be classical liberals, the claim exists it is cited, report it. 2. Libertarianism is not classical liberalism, again i have citations to reflect that. The list goes on but what it boils down to is his deletion of these cited sources and the inclusion of his sources ONLY.

I attempted a compromise by including his sources as criticism which his sources MERELY claim that Libertarianism is not classical liberalism and the Austrian school are right wing conservatives not liberals. His sources are minority views and are critical of classical liberalism but do not represent classical liberalism itself.

He's the one who needs to put forth evidence and so far he's only put forth criticism, and it is criticism that cannot even explain the very ground it walks on.

For example it cannot explain how classical liberals, libertarians, and the austrian school all accept limited government roles, individual rights, freedom from coersion, and free markets, but are not liberals...and meanwhile can't explain how modern social liberals directly discended from people who advocated free markets and limited government while they themsevles advocate social markets and centralized authority. He hasnt done it. nor have his sources.

Again, repeating, for the 300th time, his sources are in a criticism section (2 of them actually) but DO NOT deserve to be the focus of the article.(Gibby 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, could you please explain why Milton Friedman's, Hayek's and the Cato Institute's claims (and they are only claims) deserve the focus of the article? You have two sources that agree with that - one which is a link to nothing (the quote appears to have come from thin air) and the other to an article written by someone who, at the time, only had a bachelor's degree? How exactly is your work supported? Slizor 17:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Soft ban on editing Cuba
Copied from talk page.
 * 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * After KDRGibby removed well sourced statements from Cuba on the stated grounds that they are "original research", Tony Sidaway banned him from editing that article.  This is a soft ban, subject to review, and may be rescinded by any administrator at any time.  The ban does not apply to comments on Talk:Cuba.
 * I rescind. OR was being removed. However, this would appear to ignore important health statistics where the Cuban system is ranking highly., though none of this information provides a negation of the claim that Cuba runs a segregated two tiered healthcare system. Anytime you see "this would appear to...", unless it's quoting authority, you can generally assume it's OR. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The paragraph read as follows:


 * The Cuban American National Foundation claim that Cuba masks the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that real Cuban healthcare is abysmal and that what is shown to non-Cuban foreigners is a healthcare system unavailable to the average Cuban. However, this would appear to ignore important health statistics where the Cuban system is ranking highly., though none of this information provides a negation of the claim that Cuba runs a segregated two tiered healthcare system.

The paragraph in that form clearly addresses the statement that the Cuban healthcare system is abysmal (on the CIA figures it's providing a very high standard) and if Gibby had really wanted to correct for the absence of references on this he could have found something from WHO about the free healthcare system. The CANF claims are rather dodgy and this really should be addressed in the article. Gibby instead removed the entire section starting with the word "However", leaving the statement by CANF sticking out like a sore thumb. I fear that Gibby's partisan approach is blinding him to the need to provide balance. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fear your partisanship clouds your judgement. The conclusions drawn are CLEARLY original research! They were conclusions drawn by the editor from the citation not conclusions of the citation. THe editor draws a further conclusion from the conclusion NOT even in the ciations.  THis is a double violation of original research. It is very clear and very dodgy...as you say(Gibby 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


 * But how can the "however" sentence be anything other than a conclusion arrived at by the editor? Or, as I sometimes ask when removing such things myself, "says who?" You're saying the CANF claims are rather dodgy. OK, says who? Unsourced evaluation of data is OR. "Appears to ignore" is an evaluation. There's plenty of evidence to support the claims of excessive partisanship on Gibby's part, and there will likely be more; this, however, was a poor one. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that evaluation of data is original research. Evaluation of sources is a fundamental task in compiling an encyclopedia.  The CIA has a reasonable (though not unimpeachable) reputation for reliability.  CANF is described by Wikipedia as "a non-profit organization dedicated to overthrowing the Cuban government of Fidel Castro" and could reasonably be classed as a highly partisan source on this subject.  The CANF-originated source document referenced in the Cuba article  seems to rely primarily on some statements by a group of exiled Cuban doctors and does not address the country's very good child mortality and life expectancy figures.


 * The "health apartheid" claims seem to derive from the limited access to advanced medical facilities that are being used by Cuba to generate foreign exchange--so called "health tourism". While it would be desirable for such facilities as transplant surgery to be freely available to all in Cuba (and indeed in other countries) the observations about Cuba's high standards of health are a necessary counterpoint to the "two-tier" claims. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, now we're actually at the interesting issue here -- to what degree, and when, is evaluation of data original research? If, indeed, CANF's claims are questionable or biased, someone out there in the Land of Sources will have said something about it. Our own conclusions about the data are here, as everywhere else, completely irrelevant. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Ton and Slizor are the same person.

Anyway, yes it is. You can state the number but you can't draw a conclusion from the number unless the source does so. That is the rule. Especially if drawing such a conclusion leads you to dismiss previous information when that source doesnt conclude that EITHER! This isnt that hard to follow TS.


 * 1. Cuba has a two-tiered heathcare system
 * 2. Life Expectancy is 77 years of age, infant mortality is 5 in 1,000 births.

(Up to this point WE ARE FINE!)


 * 3. Therefore Cuba has a good healthcare system.

(This is drawing a conclusion which the CIA factbook does not make, they are merely reporting figures


 * 4. Since the Cubans have a good healthcare system the critics of the healthcare system who say its bad (two-tiered one good for the rich and powerful one bad for the poor cubans) must be wrong because they are missing or ignoring these facts.

(This is drawing a conclusion from conclusion drawn by the editor from facts from the CIA. This too is original research)

Its not that hard TS. It is a very clear violation. (Gibby 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Actually it says it has a good healthcare system relative to equivalent countries. This is clearly shown by the data - Cuba is even ahead of the US in Infant mortality rates and slightly behind for life expectancy. If the source shows it to be relatively good, then how is it original research to say it? And please stop misrepresenting people's views Gibby. I did not say the critics were wrong (in their claim of a two-tiered healthcare) but that the statistics suggest something different. Slizor 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibby, stop reverting. If you want, comment the entire healthcare issue out altogether, until it's resolved at the talk page. Also, Tony Sidaway is not the same person as Slizor, for one, Tony Sidaway has a totally different personality than Slizor, and is a well-known user, as well as for some other issues (KDRGibby, why don't you make some polemic userboxes, then you can see that they're not the same person?), for one Slizor AFAIK is a relatively new user, and Tony Sidaway doesn't need sockpuppetry to achieve his intended aims. For the record, I restored his deletions of a few userboxes, so you can tell that we're not just some big left-wing conservative cabal. (No one get offended - just thought I'd bring this up so I can illustrate the difference between each Wikipedian administrator.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well actually he is left wing and he does, or has, kept up communications with several editors/admins I have had disputes with, who also appeared to be left wingers...so. And no Slizor has had that account since 2004, has made only around 270 edits mostly on Classical Liberalism. I think that is a special side account for someone. (Gibby 22:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Or maybe....just maybe I don't really care that much? Not that I need to prove I am a sockpuppet but you should do a search on "Slizor" on the internet - most of them are me. It is, Patrick, the same as for your username. Slizor 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Violation of page ban
After being clearly warned that he was banned from the participatory economics page, he edited the page again, with this edit. This is a clear violation of his ban, a mere 6 days after he was banned on March 7, 2006. What are the appropriate remedies of this breach? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The ban is null and viod. For six days I requested comment and got none. I even posted that I would place a tag in 24 hours if no one commented, I even waited much longer than that. Nothing was said, no comments were made.

Nati is an abusive editor who began an edit war by removing my corrections of POV and Original research. She now removes tags that say the section is in dispute and the material is POV. She also refuses to provide sources for the disputed material. She now protects pov and original research while vandalizing tags. (Gibby 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC))


 * KDRGibby has edited four times after his banning from participatory economics. 1st  2nd 3rd 4th This requires urgent remedy as it is an outright violation of Probation. I await advice for consensus on this matter on the appropriate remedy. Thanks.


 * I would like to remind KDRGibby that he is under revert parole, and the arbitrators have allowed administrators to implement, with discretion (which is why I ask for advice) an appropriate remedy. The ban overrides all other circumstances, except blatant vandalism (such as page blanking or profanity insertion). I have already discussed much of the issue on the talk page, but KDRGibby is not allowed to edit the page for any purpose with virtually no exceptions, if I get this correctly. Please clarify the matter. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 3 hours for personal attack (comment on content, not contributor! "abusive editor"), plus three days for violation of ban, per the enforcement ruling in your RfAR. NSL E (T+C) at 02:18 UTC (2006-03-14)

Bad faith accusations on userspace
Note, constructive criticism of Wikipedia is one thing. However, outright conspiracy theory about cabal on his page has happened to in fact mislead a few people, and he continues to use his talk page while blocked for a month to slam administrators who blocked him, accusing them of bias just because things did not go his way. Can these comments be removed? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)