Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug

Case Opened on 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties


and



Third party


Original complaint is at Talk page.

Statement by Firebug
Please limit your statement to 500 words

RJII appears incapable of refraining from personal attacks. He made a number of personal attacks against User:Slrubenstein; in one, he accused him of lying and concluded: "So, blow it out your ***.". I politely asked him to refrain ; he responded "He had it coming". He has also ignored and disregarded other warnings of WP:NPA by various other users. He repeatedly pushes his POV onto pages, refusing to provide cites when asked. He incorporates gross incivility into edit summaries.

Statement by RJII
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Firebug is being very disruptive and disregarding Wikipedia policy. He's been redirecting and moving the economic fascism article knowing that there is no consenus to do so. There was just a vote on deleting this article that failed. The result was no consensus. He seems to think he can redirect and/or move the article anyway. He has no even attempted to collect a consensus for what he's doing. Moreover, he explicitly acknowledges that there is no consensus: "Note that 12 people wanted the article gone completely, 11 wanted to keep, and 5 to merge/redirect." He flatly says he's "not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully." Adminstrator Jkelly has locked the page now because of the back and forth redirecting and reverting back. You can look here for a discussion on this that pretty much says it all:

Party has quit Wikipedia
As of January 2, 2006 it looks like Firebug has renounced his citizenship at Wikipedia:  So, unfortunately, it looks like the case can't go on. The accused on one side of the case is gone, and the accuser on the other side is gone. RJII 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The RfA against Firebug may be moot, but the one against RJII may still proceed, I suppose. The complainant having left doesn't mean that his/her claims are necessarily invalid. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a run-in with User:RJII on Talk:Capitalism, where he's attempting to insert fringe (Objectivist) POV into the article. I would strongly object to the arbitrators deciding to drop the case, especially since users other than the originator have provided good evidence against RJII. This is the second time RJII has been brought to arbitration. He works by attempting to wear people down via sheer volume, and to drop this case would amount to an endorsement of this tactic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is false information. RJII has not tried to insert any fringe POV into that article, much less an Objectivist POV. RJII has made it a point over and over again that he is attempting to present the mainstream views in regard to capitalism.RJII does not make edits unless they are sourceable. RJII has a strong dedication to the NPOV and sourcing principles of Wikipedia. One thing that "horridus" should be aware of, however, is that there is no rule against putting a so-called POV statement in an article as long as it's sourceable an attributed to source that issued it. RJII 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be wrong to drop the arbitration against RJII because Firebug has left Wikipedia. TomTheHand 15:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be fair. This was a two sided case. Me against him, and vice versa. If you just prosecute one side, that's an injustice. RJII 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But it began as two separate cases: a case against you, and a case against him. It was merged to streamline things. There's no reason it can't continue as a separate case. TomTheHand 16:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No reason? The accuser is gone. That's a reason. Does not a defendant have a right to face his accuser? RJII 16:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need for you to "face" Firebug. I think facing his evidence, and the evidence brought by other parties, is enough. Any action that would be taken against you would not be because of Firebug, but because of your own actions, whether he were still here or not. TomTheHand 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No plaintiff, no case. Feel free to start your own case if you wish, if you think you can handle it. I love the challenge of an arbitration case, but get ready for a bloody fight. RJII 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to step in as plaintiff for this case, if any administrators are currently watching. I'm unsure of how to proceed, though. I have already contributed to the evidence page. TomTheHand 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. I look forward to it. I'm going to rip you apart. Plenty of evidence of unethical behavior on a certain article you were involved in. But, unfortunately, you'll probably have to go through the normal dispute resolution procedures first. RJII 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may be operating under some mistaken impressions of how RfAr works. It's not a last-man-standing cage match; if I were to be listed as a plaintiff on a case against you, you would be responsible for proving that the accusations against you are false, not that I've done more bad stuff than you. In order to open up an arbitration against me, you'd have to have a conflict with me elsewhere which could not be resolved by negotiation or mediation.  As far as I can tell, you and I have not had any particular dispute that became deadlocked.  We've had some back-and-forth on the economics of fascism article, but I think we've made continual progress, and you haven't made any previous attempts at going through the dispute resolution process with me. TomTheHand 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, believe me, if you become the plaintiff in a case against me, it's not going to be all about defense. I'm going on the attack. It would be very easy to remove any semblance of credibility on your part, with the unethical things you've done on Wikipedia. The motivation on your part for this is obviously that I was successful at getting the economic fascism article firmly in place. You wanted the article gone, but there it is. And, there's absolutely nothing you can do now to get rid of it. Now you're lashing out. RJII 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jkelly
I am concerned that User:RJII's first response to content disagreements or concerns about behaviour seems to reliably be to assume bad faith. I am concerned that User:Firebug seems to have a tendency to escalate any dispute that editor is involved in, rather than work diligently towards resolution. My knee-jerk judgement is that neither editor is purely disruptive. I am pessimistic that mediation would be effective, given the current environment of anatagonism and provocation. That said, it is not clear to me that there is enough urgency here that the typical process shouldn't be followed. Jkelly 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * This is a bit of a mess. I've merged the two cases, as they both seem to be parts of the same inter-user interaction. James F. (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ... and I accept it now that it's been more cogently and coherently developed. James F. (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept as merged ➥the Epopt 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept as merged. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Charles Matthews 10:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Neutral point of view
1) Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
2) Users are required to be reasonably courteous to other users and avoid personal attacks and incivility. Focusing on another individual or a perceived group of "opponents" is especially discouraged.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability versus original research
3) Users are expected to use reliable published information as the source for the material they place in Wikipedia articles. Subtle overreaching and spinning of information is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
4) Tendentious or sustained aggressive point of view editing is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a battleground.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
5) Assume good faith requires users to relate to others in good faith, negotiating content and other decisions on the basis that we all seek a common goal, the condensation and presentation of significant knowledge.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Political factions
6) Users who share a political perspective may freely communicate with one another on Wikipedia talk pages regarding their shared concerns. Such communication shall not vitiate their input.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Firebug has failed to assume good faith
1) Firebug has failed to assume good faith particularly with respect to Jguk, , , , and.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII has made personal attacks
2) RJII has made personal attacks, , , and  in response to a warning about personal attacks.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
3) RJII created Economic fascism, an article which did not find favor with other interested Wikipedians . Although the phrase googles for 13,000 hits it was said to be a "libertarian concept" and considered "fringe"., one of the more prominent hits, is indeed, on a libertarian site. It was listed on articles for deletion Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2. It was moved to Economics of fascism. See Talk:Economics of fascism for an extended blow by blow discussion.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_fascism_2
4) On December 2, 2005 Mihnea Tudoreanu created Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2, soliciting support from leftist editors with the assertion, "There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist...", see User talk:Sesel. This solicitation was apparently effective, but not sufficient.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious original research and POV forks by RJII
5) RJII has from time to time engaged in original research,   and created point of view forks Can only be viewed by administrators) reflecting his Libertarian point of view, See Articles_for_deletion/New_Deal_and_economic_fascism for discussion. For other examples, see Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug/Workshop and Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug/Workshop. RJII is often able to come up with sources later if challenged, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Proposed decision.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII
6) December 12, 2005 Firebug posted Requests for comment/RJII alleging personal attacks, incivility and point of view editing. RjII responded contemptuously Requests_for_comment/RJII, as he has to this arbitration Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Evidence, "Apparently, this RFC is just a chance for people to vent against a superior competitor because they didn't get their way"


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian point of view
7) The libertarian point of view is a significant point of view, however, like the collectivist points of view held by some of those who have opposed its inclusion in Wikipedia articles, it is a distinctly minority point of view and should only be expressed to a degree congruent with its measure of support among the general population and the academic community.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

RJII placed on personal attack parole
1) RJII is placed on personal attack parole. RJII may be blocked for a short period of time if he makes personal attacks or is markedly discourteous to other users. The block may be as long as a week in the event of repeat offenses.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII cautioned regarding POV editing
2) RJII is cautioned regarding original research and other point of view editing. He is encouraged to review What Wikipedia is not, Content forking, and Neutral point of view, with particular attention to the section of NPOV regarding undue weight.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII placed on probation
3) RJII placed on Probation. He may be banned for a year by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. A record of bans shall be maintained at Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII placed on general probation
4) RJII is placed on general probation. If he engages in a pattern of disruptive editing he may be banned for up to a year from Wikipedia by any three administrators. A record of bans shall be maintained at Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Firebug
5) Firebug is counseled that Wikipedia is a work in progress with a wide variety of volunteer developers, administrators and users. Perfection is not to be expected, only good faith effort. If the usual situation with mistakes and occasional wrongheadedness by others is intolerable, please consider using other venues.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of cause
1) The record of bans and blocks kept at Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug shall contain documentation of the reason for the actions taken.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Banning under general probation
2) Administrators who support a ban under general probation are cautioned to not do so in circumstances that can be interpreted as taking action against an ideological opponent.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 08:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of bans
Place here the basis of any action taken under the provisions of any remedy under Probation imposed in this matter. Include a link to a statement of all administrators supporting the action taken. , ,, where he repeatedly removed the same text. I noted his block on his talk page and at the Administrators Noticeboard. I believe this behaviour violates remedy number 4 above. Hiding talk 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked User:RJII for 24 hours. I deemed him in violation of WP:3RR at Anarchism, namely  the following edits:
 * I've banned RJII from Anarchism, for 2 weeks. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:RJII for 48 hours for violating 3RR at Anarcho-capitalism and violating his probation by making a false edit summary on his fourth revert. —Ruud 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note here that whether it was a 3RR seems to be in dispute, and RJII was unblocked this time. Dmcdevit·t 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've banned User:RJII for two weeks from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Given Requests_for_arbitration, I've banned RJII from the Administrators Noticeboard and Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof, for a period of three months. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 09:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked RJII for two weeks as a general probation ban per consensus on AN/I. The three administrators supporting the ban are myself,, and . Essjay  Talk •  Contact 12:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As part of this, I've protected his talk page as well; he was using it to make personal attacks on several other users during the course of the ban. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 13:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked RJII for 48h for tendentious editing on An Anarchist FAQ William M. Connolley 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked RJII for 24 hours for being markedly discourteous here:  Stifle (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of observation: 20:52, June 24, 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson blocked "RJII (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (admits to being a shared account) Kevin_b_er 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)