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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 3 arbitrators (Mackensen, SimonP, Morven) are assumed recused and 2 (Filiocht, Smoddy) are inactive; 2 have explicitely un-autorecused (Charles Matthews, Dmcdevit), and 8 (Raul654, Mindspillage, Neutrality, Theresa Knott, Jayjg, Jamesf, Epopt, Fred Bauder) are active, making 5 votes a majority

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Neutral point of view

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Assume good faith

5) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Firebug has failed to assume good faith

1) Firebug has failed to assume good faith particularly with respect to Jguk [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Firebug has quit Wikipedia in disgust

2) Firebug has quit Wikipedia in 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?"

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Perhaps not: [6] Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] RJII has made personal attacks

3) RJII has made personal attacks [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11] in response to a warning about personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Locus of dispute

4) RJII created Economic fascism, an article which did not find favor with other interested Wikipedians [12]. Although the phrase googles for 13,000 hits it was said to be a "libertarian concept" and considered "fringe". [13], 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_fascism_2

5) On 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, but not sufficient.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious original research and POV forks by RJII

6) RJII has from time to time engaged in original research [14], [15] [16] [17] 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. For other examples, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug/Workshop#American_individualist_anarchism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug/Workshop#Coercive_monopoly. RJII is often able to come up with sources later if challenged, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Proposed decision.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII

7) 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"

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Libertarian point of view

8) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, qualify by comment that US-centric interpretation of 'measure of support' will never get my vote. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] RJII placed on probation

3) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Reluctant support - this is a bit tight. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Documentation_of_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not sure we really need both of these. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Full support for bans based on pattern of bad edits. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Though, if he's left... James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Would go for something with teeth as well, based on Jguk's evidence, but he is gone... Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Documentation of cause

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Obivous, but sadly increasingly worth stating. James F. (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

While RJII has sometimes faced biased critics, he should consider how his own discourtesy and POV editing has contributed to this disturbance. Fred Bauder 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We should ask the same standards of behaviour of everyone, whether their opinions are popular or not. The other side of the coin: representing a minority opinion is no more an excuse for disrespect for other editors than anything else. Don't wear it on your sleeve. Charles Matthews 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. All done, close. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 07:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_RJII_v._Firebug_Proposed_decision_d853.html"