Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

message: 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. NSLE (T+C) 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement/Comment by NSLE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by The Land 

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Jmabel

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Electionworld = Wilfried Derksen 

message: 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:
* "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 urge you to take decisive action on this matter. -- Nikodemos 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  violations of parole since conclusion of case 

message: : I refactored this section on the project page.  This is what it contained prior to refactoring --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old "Log of blocks and bans" section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can I have some help? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad faith accusations on userspace