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.
1)
1)
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)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Editors are expected to act civilly at all times - WP:CIVIL, and to assume good faith - WP:AGF
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.
3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
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.
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.
6) Tendentious or sustained aggressive point of view editing is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a battleground.
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.
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.
9) Wikilawyering, or the inappropriate use of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy is considered harmful.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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].
2) RJII has made personal attacks [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] in response to warning about personal attacks.
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.
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?"
5) Firebug has failed to assume good faith particularly with respect to Jguk [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15].
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.
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.
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.
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"
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 ( | 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.
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.
11) RJII has engaged in tendentious editing of Coercive monopoly, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII#Outside_view_by_Arthur_Rubin and Coercive_monopoly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12) RJII is capable of sustained productive dialogue if the other party is relatively courteous and patient, see Talk:Mixed_economy.
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)
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
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
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.
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.
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.
1) Firebug is banned for 6 months for aggressive editing and incivility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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.
1)
1)
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)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Editors are expected to act civilly at all times - WP:CIVIL, and to assume good faith - WP:AGF
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.
3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
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.
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.
6) Tendentious or sustained aggressive point of view editing is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a battleground.
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.
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.
9) Wikilawyering, or the inappropriate use of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy is considered harmful.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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].
2) RJII has made personal attacks [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] in response to warning about personal attacks.
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.
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?"
5) Firebug has failed to assume good faith particularly with respect to Jguk [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15].
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.
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.
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.
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"
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 ( | 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.
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.
11) RJII has engaged in tendentious editing of Coercive monopoly, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII#Outside_view_by_Arthur_Rubin and Coercive_monopoly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12) RJII is capable of sustained productive dialogue if the other party is relatively courteous and patient, see Talk:Mixed_economy.
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)
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
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
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.
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.
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.
1) Firebug is banned for 6 months for aggressive editing and incivility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis