Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. See "RJII's Defense Against False and Improper Statements and Claims by Lead Administrator Fred Bauder" on the [Discussion page of the Proposed Decision article]
2. Note, I just found out about this page today. So, unfortunately voting had begun, and 4 administrators voted before I made my statements here. RJII 17:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. Sad indeed. RJII 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

I propose this partisan hassling of RJII be dropped immediately, or failing that ignored. It's simply an attempt by some editors to squelch someone they disagree with. Duh. Hogeye 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose that Hogeye's comment (and this one) be refactored to a talk page -- this proposal is out of order. (Even if it were accurate, it would be out of order on this page.) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

1) Editors are expected to act civilly at all times - WP:CIVIL, and to assume good faith - WP:AGF

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I've been engaged in extensive editing of Wikipedia for over a year. If you compare the restraint and civility I've practiced in the course of voluminous discussions, you will see any "incivility" is negligible in proportion. I should be getting a medal here for my remarkable restraint. On the rare occasions when I've said something that may be construed as incivil, it's always in response to an unjustified attack on me. If you think I'm going to run away with my tail between my legs after I've been attacked just so I can prove I'm "civil," you have another thing coming. RJII 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Proposed by jguk. It seems to get to the heart of what has been going wrong with Firebug's interactions with other users, jguk 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. It also seems to get to the heart of what has been going wrong with RJII's interactions with other users Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, RJII is still here while Firebug apparently isn't, so it's primarily RJII's behavior at this point that we have to worry about. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated editors

2) Users may edit articles about subjects on which they have minority or "fringe" points of view, consistently with Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement and Wikipedia:No original research.

Alternative: Adding properly attributed minority or "fringe" points of view to an article does not necessarily constitute a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. There is no evidence of me having any particular POV. I edit pro-capitalist articles, pro-communist articles, pro-white nationalism articles, pro-black nationalism articles. I've even been praised by a self-described socialist for my edits on the socialism article. [1] (my edits: [2]). This whole arbitration seems to have the implicit premise held by lead administrator Fred Bauder that I'm a libertarian and am giving undue weight to libertarianism in articles, but that notion is completely unsupported. No evidence has been provided by anyone for this notions. Please keep this in mind. This thrust of the case is has absolutely no foundation or evidence. RJII 15:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Note that a self-described libertarian "Arthur Rubin" (below) who accuses me of POV-pushing even questions whether I'm a libertarian. If a libertarian can't detect a libertarian POV in me, then what does that say? It says I'm not pushing a libertarian POV. What POV am I pushing? If someone finds out definitively, let me know, because I'd like to know myself. RJII 15:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. (proposed) If RJII has a libertarian viewpoint on economic and political issues, that is not a problem with his edits. Gazpacho 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

   We have several users who have been banned in the past from editing certain subjects, I guess that needs to be worked in somehow. Alternative proposed. Gazpacho 08:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2. I quite agree. Some of the complaints against RJII have been for that reason. However, he also denies there's a problem when there's a consensus that his edits are wrong or POV, and then he reverts "corrections". I haven't been around Wikipedia long enough to sure I understand the rules of engagement properly, though. (For what it's worth, I consider myself a libertarian, and question whether his viewpoint is libertarian. It's not relevent to the principle, though.) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
3. (reply to RJII #2) You're pushing your own POV, whatever it is, and fail to accept the possibility that there are other POVs. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm always careful to take all relevant POV's into account. I think you're just upset that you couldn't make any headway in the coercive monopoly article because I sourced everything. I asked you for a source, but you never provided one. You've engaged in "original research" haven't you? RJII 16:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verifiability versus original research

5) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Nowhere in this case has it ever been shown that I've engaged in original research. You can't justifiably claim someone has engaged in original research without asking for sources for what he's written. How could you know if it's original research without asking for a source? Those who follow me know that I am quick to provide sources when requested. Claims of me engaging in original research by are complete rubbish. It just didn't happen. RJII 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

7) Wikipedia: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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I always assume good faith initially, but I'm not stupid. Some editors, without a doubt, are operating in bad faith. I assume good faith with everyone initiatially, but, with observation of some people, the conclusion of bad faith is inescapable and accurate. It's your choice if you want to keep your head in the sand, but the law of probabilities tells us that sooner or later we're all going to encounter editors who are operating from a bad faith perspective. I don't believe for a second the utopian assertion that "we all seek a common goal, the condensation and presentation of significant knowledge." That may be true for most. It's certainly true for me. But to claim it's true for everyone is utterly naive. RJII 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Political factions

8) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Much better out in the open Fred Bauder 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikilawyering

9) Wikilawyering, or the inappropriate use of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy is considered harmful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I added this - I think it's a good principle generally. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Firebug has violated civility, assumed bad faith and edited aggressively

1) Firebug (talk · contribs) has, over a period of time, edited without due concern for the feelings of others, with incivility, assuming bad faith and has edited aggressively (see, for example, [3], [4], [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Proposed by jguk

RJII has made personal attacks

2) RJII has made personal attacks [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] in response to warning about personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Well founded finding of fact Fred Bauder 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. It's not a normal practice of mine, but sure I've made a few personal attacks, but only when they're very well deserved. Considering how much discussion I've been in on Wikipedia, the proportion that consistents of personal attacks is truly negligible. I don't think it should be regarded as severe as someone who has only been editing Wikipedia for a week and has made 2 attacks. I've been editing it for over a year. Why am I not being praised for the LACK of personal attacks in the VOLUMINOUS discussion I've engaged in? RJII 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. This is a situation where Firebug was scouring Wikipedia for personal attacks in order to find an excuse to censor me. If you'll note, Firebug, who initiated this case against me didn't even list any personal attacks made against HIM. He went rummaging through archives for personal attacks against OTHERS. He managed to come up with maybe one or two legitimate examples, but also includes obvious jokes that weren't attacks at all such as "Listen you $^%*($$%$!!." And, I referred to him as an "insect" because he refers to himself as a "firebug" --just a joke. And, "talk to the hand" is a personal attack? Whatever. RJII 16:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

RJII has been accused of edit warring, violating 3RR

3) RJII has been accused of violating the 3 Revert Rule, but the situation is ambiguous as he was reverting from a redirect to an existing article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Not sure that is what 3RR is about Fred Bauder 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I think I've violated the 3RR twice (possible 3 times, but no more than that) in a over a years worth of intensive editing. So, this is a non-issue. I should be awarded a medal for showing such restraint. RJII 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Fred, to make the 3RR issue clear, what happened was that the article at economic fascism was moved to economics of fascism, content intact, according to consensus on the talk page. RJII's 3RR violation was in repeatedly blanking economics of fascism and copying and pasting its contents back to economic fascism. TomTheHand 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment This was a false accusation. I know that this claim was made by someone, but it didn't happen. The claim in itself was incoherent because there was nothing to copy over ..the name of the article had changed but the same body of the article was still there. I was editing in NEW information. RJII 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

1. A second violation is documented here but it was more controversial because they were not straight reverts. Nevertheless he was blocked by an administrator. TomTheHand 14:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And they were not partial reverts either. And, the administrator that banned me has a personal thing against me from past experiences. It was a scam. RJII 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Firebug has quit Wikipedia in disgust

4) Firebug has quit Wikipedia is disgust note Jan 2, 2006. This appears to relate to the userbox controversy, not to the matters raised in this arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original#Outside_view_by_Firebug, a bit below there is this comment, "Firebug 18:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) What's the point of participating when you repeatedly get spit on and slapped down by a handful of users who think they're above everyone else?"

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. But what was the problem? Fred Bauder 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading his last page or so of edits seems to indicate he quit over the userbox mess. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Firebug has failed to assume good faith

5) Firebug has failed to assume good faith particularly with respect to Jguk [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Keeps harping on Jguk's case with us and very impatient about technical constraints. Fred Bauder 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of these edits show rather poor judgment. If he were still on Wikipedia, I think a personal attack parole would have been justified. At this point, of course, it would merely be symbolic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. The "merely symbolic" matter Crotalus suggests should be considered quite seriously. My understanding is that firebug's departure was entirely his own decision, so he could change his mind again and show up tomorrow. If he does, would you expect him to resume business as usual, or even to feel vindicated by some parole instituted against RJ but not against him? If the reason its not instigated against him as well is that he's taking a 'breather,' that hardly sounds fair or even-handed to me. --Christofurio 20:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII created "Economic fascism"

5) RJII created Economic fascism, an article which did not find favor with other interested Wikipedians [16]. Although the phrase googles for 13,000 hits it was said to be a libertarian concept and considered "fringe". [17], one of the more prominent hits, is indeed, on a libertarian site. It was listed on articles for deletion Wikipedia: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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I wander if we have an article on corporatism Fred Bauder 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. It's far better written than its POV fork. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. It is failed to mention that this article survived TWO attempts to be censored. In the latest attempt, the vote was OVERWHELMING to keep the article [18]. I deserve praise for creation of this valuable article, not condemnation. This article will develop for centuries to come in one form or another and society will be better off for having it. RJII 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I know I said I'd quit doing this, but I wanted to clarify that economic fascism was moved in its entirety to economics of fascism, not just redirected. TomTheHand 15:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_fascism_2

6) December 2, 2005 Mihnea Tudoreanu created Wikipedia: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#Economic_fascism. This solicitation was apparently effective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I suppose the label "economic fascism" could be applied to mixed economies such as The People's Republic of China. While I believe the term could be appropriately applied to any mixed economy controlled by a totalitarian state apparatus, that concept is not part of the canon of knowledge as Wikipedia interprets it. It should be noted that the article does not explicitly take this point of view, but it might explain the mainly leftist opposition to the concept. Fred Bauder 14:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. However the concept is the published viewpoint of a significant political faction which is no more fringe than the political viewpoint of its Wikipedia opponents. Fred Bauder 14:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I created this article to have an article devoted to studying what economic policies fascist nations had (to be frank with you, I wasn't familiar with the details myself and wanted to learn). Sure, libertarians study it, but that's just because they are the most vocal opponents to fascism. I got my sources mostly from libertarians because they were the most abundant on the subject. My vision for the article was one that would develop and become much more informative than my skeletal arrangement. And, as anyone can see, it is developing so I'll probably leave it alone. My intent was just to plant a seed. Why anyone would want to censor information about how fascist economies operate is strange. The opposition appears to be coming from two POV's. One, that fascist economies were free market capitalist economies, and the other, the fear that the US economy may resemble the fascist economies. RJII 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I believe it's important to note that the AfD was for the article as it stood in early December, and that it has been greatly improved by collaboration. TomTheHand 14:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Tom's point encourages this thought. The purpose of an Afd is to eliminate articles that have some inherent defect that can't be resolved by collaboration. So if Tom is right that this one has been improved, then the Afd was especially misguided. Three times! And it isn't uncivil to point that out to the clique who kept pressing it. --Christofurio 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Christofurio, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The first time the article was deleted, it had nothing to do with RJII. It was a short, terrible article that said something like "economic fascism is where big countries bully small countries with their economies." The second AfD was RJII's first shot at the article. I believe it received some of the backlash from the original terrible article; the kneejerk response from many was "It's the same thing reposted! Get rid of it!" RJII says he was unaware of the first article; I believe him, because his version is completely different. His article was much better, but I thought it was strongly (perhaps inherently) POV, so I voted delete. The issue was strongly debated, and the article was kept by a slim margin (12 deletes, 5 merge/redirects, and 11 keeps). The third AfD, in which I voted "keep" because of the progress that had been made, was proposed by someone coming in from an RfC I posted who was looking at the article for the first time. There was no "clique" seeking to get the article deleted. TomTheHand 01:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious original research and POV forks by RJII

7) RJII has from time to time engaged in original research [19], [20] [21] [22] and created point of view forks Can only be viewed by administrators) reflecting his Libertarian point of view, See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Deal_and_economic_fascism for discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Overreaching in one case, brilliant but unsourced in the other Fred Bauder 13:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Point of view fork certainly is a significant viewpoint, but surely no separate article is necessary or appropriate. If FDR was a fascist that can be said in the article on him. Fred Bauder 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I don't know how Fred Bauder can say it was unsourced. It was FULL of citations. It needed a separate article because all that information cannot be contained in New Deal as you can see. Thanks to POV-motivated deletion of the article, society now has to rummage about looking for sources and information when there was an article devoted to the subject. RJII 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Everyone keep in mind, that you don't know if something is original research without requesting a source. Everyone who follows me knows I'm quite to respond with sources when they're requested. The claims here that I engage in original research are wholly unjustified. What's most disturbing is that the arbitrator of this case is claiming it without evidence. RJII 17:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I stand by that statement. This case was started by, and is being pursued, by people who couldn't get their way. The reason they couldn't get their way is because I provide SOURCES when requested and they're forced to accept the information I provide. Note that the personal attack stuff is just a convenient excuse to try to censor me --an invaluable provider of information. RJII 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

American individualist anarchism

9) On July 20, 2005 RJII created American individualist anarchism [23]. This strongly point of view article has mainly been edited by RJII, although a few others have weighed in, American_individualist_anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RJII's take on anarchism has been criticized as tendentious Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII#Further_Complaint_About_RJII-_Anarchism_and_RJII.27s_POV.2FSpin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Original research in a way, certainly fringe, but a worthwhile creative effort. Not sure Wikipedia policy, interpreted strictly, would permit it. Fred Bauder 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. RJII has shown a tendency to try to put his spin on concepts in rather innovative ways. This is fine if you are writing creative material, not good for encyclopedia entries. Fred Bauder 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. You're "not sure" Wikipedia would permit it? Well I'm sure it would, because it conforms to NPOV and the rule against original research. The article is well backed by sources. I resent you claiming that I'm putting a "spin" on things. I have no agenda to push other than providing information. Whatever POV the information lends credence to, I truly couldn't care less. Note that you can't justifiably claim that something is original research without asking for a source. Just because a statement isn't cited, it doesn't mean it's original research. I don't make statements in articles unless I can cite them upon request. This is not to say I don't make on occasional mistake. If a source is requested and I'm not able to provide one because I've misread the source, for example, I certainly don't try to keep the claim there. In fact, I will delete or modify the claim myself. That has happened. In fact, most of the criticism of my statements comes from ME. One several occasions I will go back and change something because I saw that I didn't catch something in a source that I should have. I am adamant in my claim that I edit in good faith and try my absolute best to only edit in sourceable information. I do not engage in original research. RJII 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template:Afd-noconsensus

10) On December 17 Firebug created Template:Afd-noconsensus (now deleted) [24] which gave notice to readers that the article was disputed, but consensus to delete had not been arrived at. It was promptly deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. A kind of spoiler Fred Bauder 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Coercive monopoly

11) RJII has engaged in tendentious editing of Coercive monopoly, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII#Outside_view_by_Arthur_Rubin and Coercive_monopoly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The telling comment is that others have difficulty getting alternative viewpoints expressed. Fred Bauder 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Bogus complainst. I am the SOLE editor who was has been adamant about getting in the fact that not everyone thinks that government intervention is responsible for coercive monopolies. Some thinks laissez-faire causes coercive monopolies. and I provided sources to back that up. I have been struggling AGAINST a libertarian POV in that article. These bogus claims of "tendentious editing" are getting tiring. Fred Bauder should do more research before he makes such claims. RJII 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Reply to statement by Rubin below. The reason I removed your definition is becuase you were not able to source it. Here is me asking for a source: [25]. Here is your response: [26]. I repled "No problem. I'll be waiting." Well, I'm still waiting. As far as we know, your definition is original research. I hope everyone can see that *I* am the one fighting against original research here. There is nothing in the case that holds water other than perhaps a few "personal attacks" found after scouring over a years worth of discussion. RJII 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. RJII #1 is (partially) true. He also had been (and probably will be again, if he remains with Wikipedia) adamant about removing definitions other than his own. (Separate note to RJII -- I quoted your sources to support my opinion a long time ago. You merely denied my interpretation.) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue by RJII

12) RJII is capable of sustained productive dialogue if the other party is relatively courteous and patient, see Talk:Mixed_economy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think there may be a failure to assume good faith in some instances both on the part of RJII and his opponents. Fred Bauder 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I am very courteous to others, including those who disagree with me --but only up until the point when the other party begins insulting me and accusing me of bad faith and engaging in dishonesty. Then, I fire back. RJII 15:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. RJII's polite and productive dialogue is quite old; his recent contributions to the talk page include a disagreement in which he responds to "I'm not going to edit war with you." with "Good move. Because you'll lose."

I... need to quit doing this, I think. I'm going to try to hold off, from now on, from posting about anything I don't quite agree with. TomTheHand 15:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII

13) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII#Outside_View_by_Slrubenstein points out that the problems presented by RJII have previously been before the Arbitration Committee, but were not adequately dealt with. However there were elements of a content dispute involved, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I can relate to RJII's dismay when confronted by this edit [27] given the history of violent suppression of both individual and collective private property in the Soviet Union. Fred Bauder 15:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Libertarian point of view

14) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Libertarianism is considerably more "popular" than certain Communist sects which receive rather generous coverage on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Talk of a "libertarian point of view" should be entirely left out of this case. There is no evidence of such a thing. In fact, one of the accusers above, Arthur Rubin, is a self-described libertarian who has accused me of POV pushing against HIM. Go figure. RJII 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sanctions for RJII

1) On articles related to political and economic systems, RJII has exhibited repeated incivility, failure to seek consensus, and violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Therefore, he is banned from making any edits related to these topics for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Banned for a year? LOL! I'm sorry, I just have to laugh at that. How can Wikipedia expect to enforce that? That's ludicrous. Might as well make it a decade. RJII 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Proposed by Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. This is too blunt a remedy. RJII's point of view is not a problem and I don't think he should be prevented from improving articles in a cooperative way. Gazpacho 09:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2) If RJII is being paid by any individual or organization for the purpose of editing Wikipedia, he must disclose this funding source prominently on his user page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties: LOL. You've got to be kidding. I don't have to disclose to you how I earn a living. I never said I was being paid to edit Wikipedia, anyway. And, no, I'm not going to deny it either. So, I guess you'll just have to keep wondering, Mr. horridus. RJII 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. See evidence where he has made statements implying he is being paid to edit, and has refused to deny it when pressed. Paid POV editors on Wikipedia have the potential to become a very serious problem if not stopped (imagine what would happen if the Republican and Democratic parties did this in the upcoming 2006 elections on a large scale). Proposed by Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
2. When I looked at the evidence for this, the way I interpreted it was that RJII was editing Wikipedia while at work. I'm not saying he's definitely editing Wikipedia at work, nor am I saying that he's definitely getting paid to edit Wikipedia, but I think Occam's Razor should be applied here. No reason to suspect conspiracies. TomTheHand 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3) RJII is encouraged to review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with particular attention to the section of NPOV regarding undue weight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties: No doubt. And, I do not give undue weight. RJII 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Proposed. Gazpacho 09:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sanction for Firebug

1) Firebug is banned for 6 months for aggressive editing and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Proposed by jguk

Isn't this rather pointless since he quit? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No its not. See my comment above on why. --Christofurio 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

General

1) Supporters of Ayn Rand or the Objectivist philosophy are instructed not to add references to Rand directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Rand or Objectivism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The statement doesn't belong in this case. It creates the impression that I am an Objectivist without absolutely no evidence to back that up. The way this is framed is insidious. It doesn't come out and claim that I'm an Objectivist, but makes a statement that appears to be based on something that's already been proven to be the case --that I'm an Objectivist. I can't help suspecting that the inclusion of this statement is intentionally manipulative. RJII 17:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite, I don't answer questions one way or the other about any POV I may have. Because it's really not relevant. But, I will say that I have no vested interest in retaining any particular POV. I'm open to constant adjustment of my POV based on new information. My POV changes from one minute to the next. All I desire is an accurate picture of reality, and that's all I'm trying to assist in making available on Wikipedia, by providing sourceable information that was lacking before I got here. And, I'm comfortable saying my contribution in that regard has been immense. RJII 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Taken from the LaRouche decision with minimal modifications. Proposed by Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
2. I don't see the relevance to this case. Is there evidence that RJII is an Objectivist? Gazpacho 09:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I can't say I see the relevance to this case, either. Perhaps some of his (non-party) opponents are Objectivists? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Are you an objectivist, RJII? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. I think that sort of question is inherently inappropriate. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of [list disfavored group here]?" First they came for the alleged members of [list disfavored group here], but I did not protest, because.... --Christofurio 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RJII cautioned regarding POV editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Firebug

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RJII placed on probation

4) RJII placed on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Documentation_of_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RJII placed on general probation

5) 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Documentation_of_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Record of bans and blocks

1) The record of bans and blocks kept at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Documentation_of_bans shall contain documentation of the reason for the actions taken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Sword cuts both ways Fred Bauder 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties: Arbitrators who support PROBATION are cautioned to not do so in circumstances that can be interpreted as taking action against an ideological opponent. RJII 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. There's no evidence that any of the arbitrators are suggesting sanctions against RJII in circumstances that can be interpreed as taking action against an ideological opponent. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. While RJII has sometimes faced biased critics, he should consider how his own discourtesy and POV editing has contributed to this disturbance. 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: