Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Proposed decision

message: To see that RJII's behavior is not limited to capitalism, economic fascism, or American individualist anarchism, please also see anarchism (talk). Thanks. --AaronS 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

message: ==original research==
I'd like to point out, for the record, that the alledged examples of original research provided by the administrators are false. For example..
:It is claimed by the administrators that  was original research, but here you see me providing a source after being requested: . And, that information still stands in the article, as it should.
:It is claimed by the administators that  was original research ,but here you see my providing a source after being requested: . And, the information still stands in the article, as it should.
:It is claimed by the adminstators that  is original research. I didn't provide a citation because one hadn't been requested. The adminstrators are wrong to simply assume original research. In fact, it's not original research. Here's a source: 
:It is claimed by the administrators that  is original research. However, it is not. There is no citation because no one has requested one. This is a common criticism of the doctrine of altruism, and sources are not hard to find at all.
::I'd like to caution the adminstrators about presuming something is original research without asking me for sources. Just because there is no source listed, it doesn't mean it's original research. I don't make edits that I'm not confident are sourceable. I'm well aware of the original research policy, and I'm a strong supporter of that policy. RJII 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note. Lead administrator Fred Bauder added "RJII is often able to come up with sources later if challenged" after I registered the above complaint.  I think that statement is misleading, by the use of the term "come up." It gives the impression that I am conducting original research and then running around looking for a source that I haven't read before that matches my original research. But, that's not the case. I cite research that I have read. Lead administrator Fred Bauder should have written this; "RJII cites sources when requested." In other words, I do not conduct original research. Point blank. RJII 08:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, you must think I've quoted a source out of context or you wouldn't have brought that up. Can you point to any specific quote that I've misrepresented? RJII 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No shit. I'm very strict on that. I won't quote a source unless I'm convinced I have a thorough understanding of what the context is and what's exactly being said. I'm extremely knowledgable in certain areas and those are the areas where I do the most editing. If I'm not very confident that I'm not representing something correctly I won't quote something. That's not to say I don't make an occassional mistake, but it's infrequent. My dedication to honesty outweighs any POV that I may have. In fact, my POV --no, make that my personal goal, is to adjust my POV according to each new bit of information I find. I couldn't care less what POV is being supported or opposed by a new piece of information. I have no vested interest in having a closed mind, and I have no interest in withholding information from others in order that they have may less a grasp on reality than they could otherwise have. Bring out all the knowledge that's been obscured for various reasons, and lay it out on the table. Let the chips fall where they may. I'm not trying to changes anyone's point of view to anything other than the correct one --whatever that may happen to be. But, the only way to arrive at the correct one is with maximum knowledge. What is important is knowledge --that society has as much knowledge it can at its disposal. And, that's why I'm here. RJII 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RJII's Defense Against False and Improper Statements and Claims by Lead Administrator Fred Bauder

message: I'd like to point out, for the record, that the alledged examples of original research provided by the administrators are false. For example..
:It is claimed by the administrators that  was original research, but here you see me providing a source after being requested: . And, that information still stands in the article, as it should.
:It is claimed by the administators that  was original research ,but here you see my providing a source after being requested: . And, the information still stands in the article, as it should.
:It is claimed by the adminstators that  is original research. I didn't provide a citation because one hadn't been requested. The adminstrators are wrong to simply assume original research. In fact, it's not original research. Here's a source: 
:It is claimed by the administrators that  is original research. However, it is not. There is no citation because no one has requested one. This is a common criticism of the doctrine of altruism, and sources are not hard to find at all.
::I'd like to caution the adminstrators about presuming something is original research without asking me for sources. Just because there is no source listed, it doesn't mean it's original research. I don't make edits that I'm not confident are sourceable. I'm well aware of the original research policy, and I'm a strong supporter of that policy. RJII 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note. Lead administrator Fred Bauder added "RJII is often able to come up with sources later if challenged" after I registered the above complaint.  I think that statement is misleading, by the use of the term "come up." It gives the impression that I am conducting original research and then running around looking for a source that I haven't read before that matches my original research. But, that's not the case. I cite research that I have read. Lead administrator Fred Bauder should have written this; "RJII cites sources when requested." In other words, I do not conduct original research. Point blank. RJII 08:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, you must think I've quoted a source out of context or you wouldn't have brought that up. Can you point to any specific quote that I've misrepresented? RJII 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No shit. I'm very strict on that. I won't quote a source unless I'm convinced I have a thorough understanding of what the context is and what's exactly being said. I'm extremely knowledgable in certain areas and those are the areas where I do the most editing. If I'm not very confident that I'm not representing something correctly I won't quote something. That's not to say I don't make an occassional mistake, but it's infrequent. My dedication to honesty outweighs any POV that I may have. In fact, my POV --no, make that my personal goal, is to adjust my POV according to each new bit of information I find. I couldn't care less what POV is being supported or opposed by a new piece of information. I have no vested interest in having a closed mind, and I have no interest in withholding information from others in order that they have may less a grasp on reality than they could otherwise have. Bring out all the knowledge that's been obscured for various reasons, and lay it out on the table. Let the chips fall where they may. I'm not trying to changes anyone's point of view to anything other than the correct one --whatever that may happen to be. But, the only way to arrive at the correct one is with maximum knowledge. What is important is knowledge --that society has as much knowledge it can at its disposal. And, that's why I'm here. RJII 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: original research

message: Not necessarily referring to any of those diffs cited as WP:OR, quoting a source out of context in a manner designed to make the quote say something different than the clear intention of the source is wrong -- whether it's WP:OR or WP:POV is matter of interpretation.  Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, you must think I've quoted a source out of context or you wouldn't have brought that up. Can you point to any specific quote that I've misrepresented? RJII 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No shit. I'm very strict on that. I won't quote a source unless I'm convinced I have a thorough understanding of what the context is and what's exactly being said. I'm extremely knowledgable in certain areas and those are the areas where I do the most editing. If I'm not very confident that I'm not representing something correctly I won't quote something. That's not to say I don't make an occassional mistake, but it's infrequent. My dedication to honesty outweighs any POV that I may have. In fact, my POV --no, make that my personal goal, is to adjust my POV according to each new bit of information I find. I couldn't care less what POV is being supported or opposed by a new piece of information. I have no vested interest in having a closed mind, and I have no interest in withholding information from others in order that they have may less a grasp on reality than they could otherwise have. Bring out all the knowledge that's been obscured for various reasons, and lay it out on the table. Let the chips fall where they may. I'm not trying to changes anyone's point of view to anything other than the correct one --whatever that may happen to be. But, the only way to arrive at the correct one is with maximum knowledge. What is important is knowledge --that society has as much knowledge it can at its disposal. And, that's why I'm here. RJII 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reply 

message: I resent the adminstrators' claim that I create "forked" articles that represent my "libertarian POV." I create articles in order to provide a forum to bring information forth. Because I created the article national anarchism (white nationalist anarchism) does that mean I'm a white nationalist?  Of course not. Maybe you actually will claim that I have a white nationalist POV. But, then I ask you, why did I create the article Black anarchism? (I must bring to your attention that both of those philosophies oppose capitalism). I'm also an occasional editor of the anarcho-communism article --not to promote "libertarianism" or put in "POV" edits but to provide information on what the philosophy is. I'm on occasional editor of the libertarianism article, becuase I understand it and can contribute valuable information there. I created the economic fascism article because I wanted others and myself to learn about the apparently obscure, but notable subject, of fascist economics. I create articles because I want information brought forth, often in areas where I'm not educated so that others, and *I*, can learn about these views --I'm not afraid of creating articles that may happen to favor a particular POV, and bringing in sourced information about these POV's. If you'll study the record in my Talk page, you'll see I have been praised for editing in anti-libertarian/captalist information in the socialism article. As long as something is fully exposed what is there to be afraid of? If I have knowledge about a particular POV I'll go to that article on add that information. The more information society has, the greater likelihood that the POV society in general has will be the correct POV. Lead administrator Fred Bauder is misrepresenting me and I resent it. Unless you have firm evidence of me stating my "POV" don't make that kind of a claim. And, how is Fred Bauder defining libertarianism? Is he talking about libertarianism or laissez-faire economics? RJII 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adminstrators' claim of RJII's "libertarian POV."

message: The adminstrators claim that the libertarian POV is a "minority POV." While that may be true in the general population, I think they're underestimating it in the academic population. I don't have any objective evidence for this, but from my observations and experiences, I think it's pretty mainstream --especially if you're talking about economic libertarianism (laissez-faire), which is what I've been focused on studying. So, I'd like to see evidence that it's "minority POV" in academia before I'll accept that claim. I would hope that the adminstrators would have objective evidence to back up that claim. Do they? I certainly hope they don't mean laissez-faire is a "fringe" POV, because it certainly is not. RJII 04:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: libertarian is minority POV? and Statement by Fred Bauder that creates False Impression

message: Lead administrator Fred Bauder says: "RJII created Economic fascism, an article which did not find favor with other interested Wikipedians [11]. Although the phrase googles for 13,000 hits it was said to be a "libertarian concept" and considered "fringe"." Fred Bauder fails to mention it put up to a voted for deletion after being renamed to "Economics of fascism" and survived with an overwhelming keep vote.  The article is an extremely valuable and informative resource as Wikipedians have come to realize. I should be praised for its creation, rather than condemned. Lead adminstrator Fred Bauder is out of line. RJII 09:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics of fascism article

message: Note: See RJII's "Defense Against False and Improper Statements and Claims by Lead Administrator Fred Bauder" on the Discussion page of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJII (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 January 2006
===Research===
As counter-intuitive as it seems, I'd like to note that there's a built-in bias against providing sourced research on Wikipedia. There are a number of Wikipedia "editors" who do little or no searching for sources, but rather try to prevent the sourced research that others have found that conflicts with their POV from being added into articles. They'll claim it's a "misinterpretation" of the sources, so the researcher/editor is relegated to simply providing direct qoutes. Then the POV-motivated critics come along and claim that the quotes are taken out of context, and claims of "original research" are renewed. This applies to both primary and secondary sources. God forbid adding any explanatory editorial among the quotes at all, lest there are claims of "original research" there as well. So, you can't have an article with all quotes, you can't have an article with no quotes, and you can't have an article with any explanation of sources or quotes. It's a no-win situation in all cases. Then, arbitration cases are filed that claim original research, and as you can see in this case, even the arbitrators (such as Fred Bauder here) themselves accept the unbacked claims of the accusers and assert original research without even bothering asking for sources to verify whether it's original research. That's is exactly what's happening to me here. I am an honest, hard-working editor who conducts extensive research for sources and present sources with absolute honesty. And, I'm being condemned by the very people (administrators) who are supposed to be protecting the furtherance of knowledge. And, the sad thing is, they don't even realize what they're doing --even when it's spelled out to them. Or, they're just too apathetic to care. "Put him on probation. Since we're not actually banning him, we can wash our hands of our wrongdoing. The next arbitrator that bans him will have the dirty hands." Sad indeed. RJII 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved comments by RJII 

message: As counter-intuitive as it seems, I'd like to note that there's a built-in bias against providing sourced research on Wikipedia. There are a number of Wikipedia "editors" who do little or no searching for sources, but rather try to prevent the sourced research that others have found that conflicts with their POV from being added into articles. They'll claim it's a "misinterpretation" of the sources, so the researcher/editor is relegated to simply providing direct qoutes. Then the POV-motivated critics come along and claim that the quotes are taken out of context, and claims of "original research" are renewed. This applies to both primary and secondary sources. God forbid adding any explanatory editorial among the quotes at all, lest there are claims of "original research" there as well. So, you can't have an article with all quotes, you can't have an article with no quotes, and you can't have an article with any explanation of sources or quotes. It's a no-win situation in all cases. Then, arbitration cases are filed that claim original research, and as you can see in this case, even the arbitrators (such as Fred Bauder here) themselves accept the unbacked claims of the accusers and assert original research without even bothering asking for sources to verify whether it's original research. That's is exactly what's happening to me here. I am an honest, hard-working editor who conducts extensive research for sources and present sources with absolute honesty. And, I'm being condemned by the very people (administrators) who are supposed to be protecting the furtherance of knowledge. And, the sad thing is, they don't even realize what they're doing --even when it's spelled out to them. Or, they're just too apathetic to care. "Put him on probation. Since we're not actually banning him, we can wash our hands of our wrongdoing. The next arbitrator that bans him will have the dirty hands." Sad indeed. RJII 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research