Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Original complaint:
Please do not edit.
Contents |
[edit] RJII / Firebug
[edit] Involved parties
- Firebug
- RJII
- Juicifer I wouldn't exactly call myself an involved party here. But I do strongly oppose the recent behaviour of Firebug.
- Jkelly
- Comment: I am not an involved party, but I would like to note that Firebug relisted the Gay Nigger Association of America article for the 8th time. This was speedy kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure of the relevance of this. My nomination was made in good faith, and indeed a significant number of individuals agreed with me on the issue (the consensus was leaning towards delete at the time of closure). Furthermore, I have subsequently attempted to discuss and propose policies (see WP:GNAA) that would formulate specific rules on whether and how often repeat AFD nominations can take place. Firebug 04:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[First part, from Firebug]
RJII repeatedly engages in personal attacks against various users, even after being warned to stop. He also refuses to follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE.
[Second part, from RJII]
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: [1] Making edits without consensus is one thing, but deleting a whole article (redirecting) without a consensus, when you know that others want it to stay is abominable (full knowing that a vote had just revealed no consensus a few days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2). I'd like to note that another editor besides myself (Jucifer) has put the article back after he redirected it with the comment to him: (Your edit caused significant loss of info. This page recently had an AfD with no consensus therefore KEEP. you must Put it up for AfD again if you want to REDIRECT.) So, it's not just me. He knows both from the vote and from actions that there is not a consensus to get rid of the article. RJII 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the two disputes have been merged, I'd like to say that that's probably the right thing to do as they're closely related. I think it's pretty clear that firebug's arbitration case was launched in retaliation for me stopping him from redirecting the article without consensus. RJII 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Noting that firebug recently tried to become an admin. Thank God the vote failed: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug This is one guy you don't want as an administrator. RJII 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I alerted RJII on December 13. [2]
--
Notified Firebug and Jkelly
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
When an RFC was opened against him, he refused to take the process seriously (despite certification and three additional endorsements) and defaced the page with this clown photo. It had the following caption: "Hey kids! Here's your chance to vent against big bad RJII because he didn't let you get your way! Someone this competitive should not be allowed on Wikipedia! Don't miss your chance to vent out all your frustration! Scour Wikpedia for "personal attacks" and anything that may vaguely by construed as a "policy" violation and report them here! Let's cut RJII down to size. His extraordinary intelligence, impeccable logic, artful argmentation, and indefatigable competitive drive and spirit is just too much for us to contend with. It's JUST NOT FAIR! Come on kids!. We know you're out there. Come on out of the woodwork and sign your name and let everyone know your frustration about not getting your way! :) :) :)" At this point, it is clear that no other form of dispute resolution except for arbitration will have any effect on RJII's misbehavior.
--
Jkelly, adminstrator, tried to meditate but to know avail.
[edit] Statement by party 1
[To first part]
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 ***." [3]. I politely asked him to refrain [4]; he responded "He had it coming" [5]. 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 [6]. He incorporates gross incivility into edit summaries [7] [8] [9].
[To second part]
[edit] Statement by party 2
[To first part]
I have a right to put a clown on very own RFC page! RJII 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
And, don't let bug fool you. The RFC was not intented to settle any dispute. Read the RFC there for more details. RJII 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[To second part]
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: [10]
[edit] 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)
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
- 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)
- 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)
End of original complaint.
[edit] Further comments
I have been very involved with the anarchism article the last couple weeks (actually, mainly just the talk page since the article is protected because of an edit war). Although I know nothing about this actual arbitration request, I will say that I have witnessed a lot of the behavior on that page that RJII has been accused of here. He consistently violates WP:EQ and is incredibly impolite at times. Here is a recent debate I had with him. I hope this can be of use. The quotes that I put in are all from within the last few days, and should be fairly easy for me to find the full context of on the talk page if you need me to. I really just want to see RJII stop being so uncivil (not to make any pov assumptions about primitive peoples). The Ungovernable Force 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's one way to try to censor information that you don't want in the article. Single the person out that's providing information you want censored in hope you can get him banned from Wikipedia, even though there are others that are truly uncivil that are on your side of the disputes. That's really pathetic. RJII 06:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have said several times that aaron has said some mean things (I'm guessing that is who you are refering to). But he at least apologizes. I have never seen you do so. If you want to bring it up with him, go ahead. I have disagreed with comments made by others on my side before, so don't say I'm just playing to my pov. Once again, I admit, no one is perfect, not all the anti-caps, and not even me. But at least aaron and I have acknowledged when we have made a mistake or said something out of line. The Ungovernable Force 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I have never singled-out others who are supportive of an-cap being featured prominently, except for hogeye, who also engages in impolite edits and comments. I have not said anything negative about Mr. Voluntarist as far as I remember, and I know I haven't said anything negative about Harrypotter (who seems to be more open to an-capism than I am). Just because I don't like your position doesn't mean I'm going to single you out for debate, the reason I am doing that is because of you bad faith and impolite comments (both of which can now be found on this talk page). The Ungovernable Force 06:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and "that's really pathetic"? This is just one more in a long line of obviously impolite statements on your part, and just for the record, I want the arbcommitte to make sure to take note of this example of clear violation of WP:EQ, right here on an arbitration talk page no less. The Ungovernable Force 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The arbitrators can take a look at "Here" and see for themselves that I was in the middle of very constructive research and providing citations (which others on that page have commended me more) until you came in and started threatening me. You got upset because I said "Who cares? Your section is first! I wanna be first! Waa Waa! RJII 05:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" which was directed at no one, but was just an expression to point out the immaturity of arguing over whose section is listed first. This may come as a revelation to you, but I and everyone else have a certain latititude of freedom expression here on Wikipedia. If what I said was a bit offensive to you, too bad. It will well within the bounds of "civility," and I don't have to be "polite" to you as long as I don't go out of my way to attack and harrass you like you're doing to me. But, you're not fooling me, and I doubt you're fooling anyone else. All indications are that you're simply trying to get an editor banned that is providing too much research that conflicts with your POV. And, I'll say it again. I think it's pathetic. RJII 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- That comment of yours was the straw that broke the camel's back, to use a lame cliche. I agree, it wasn't that big of a deal, but combined with your history of similar (and worse) edits, it is part of a consistent pattern of behavior typified by disregard for polite discussion. I think others feel the same way considering your repeated history of impolite comments, which have resulted in several complaints against you, both formal and informal. The last person (an anon) to comment on our little debate seemed "fooled" by me, and Aaron doesn't seem to appreciate your comments either. Oh, and I also support freedom of expression, but with that comes responsibility, especially in a community who's guidelines call for constructive debates without personal attacks and/or rudeness. I obviously am not supporting censorship of ideas--I have been voting to keep all the political userboxes, even ones I disagree with. The big problem is not so much your opinions, but the way you express them. These discussions should be in a polite debate format, as opposed to a kid's playground where users insult other user's ideas as "bull" and "pathetic". I have never said anything like that to you, yet I am somehow the one who is out of line according to you. I could just as easily call your idea "bull" or "pathetic", but I know it will do nothing to solve these problems. In fact, I'm beginning to think you really don't want to solve this problem though, and want to keep this debate going forever until I give up. Well I won't, so forget it. Oh, and I've given sources that conflict with my pov, so don't you accuse me of being one-sided and unwilling to compromise. I have even been arguing with some of my "allies" in this edit war to push for a compromise with you and hogeye, but the more I see of your behavior, the less willing I become to do so. Of course, I could post all kinds of accusations of bad faith about you (in fact I have them, but I won't share them here) but I am not, so why do you feel the need to accuse me of censorship and attempting to ban you without any real evidence? All I'm doing is asking you to be polite or else I will consider formal complaints. The Ungovernable Force 04:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The arbitrators can take a look at "Here" and see for themselves that I was in the middle of very constructive research and providing citations (which others on that page have commended me more) until you came in and started threatening me. You got upset because I said "Who cares? Your section is first! I wanna be first! Waa Waa! RJII 05:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" which was directed at no one, but was just an expression to point out the immaturity of arguing over whose section is listed first. This may come as a revelation to you, but I and everyone else have a certain latititude of freedom expression here on Wikipedia. If what I said was a bit offensive to you, too bad. It will well within the bounds of "civility," and I don't have to be "polite" to you as long as I don't go out of my way to attack and harrass you like you're doing to me. But, you're not fooling me, and I doubt you're fooling anyone else. All indications are that you're simply trying to get an editor banned that is providing too much research that conflicts with your POV. And, I'll say it again. I think it's pathetic. RJII 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and "that's really pathetic"? This is just one more in a long line of obviously impolite statements on your part, and just for the record, I want the arbcommitte to make sure to take note of this example of clear violation of WP:EQ, right here on an arbitration talk page no less. The Ungovernable Force 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
