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

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Firebug (talk · contribs)

Violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks

1. Accuses User:Slrubenstein of lying and concludes: "So, blow it out your ***." [2]
2. Later in that same exchange: "Talk to the hand." [3]
3. When I politely ask him to refrain from personal attacks [4], he responds: "He had it coming." [5]
4. He was previously warned of NPA by User:fvw. [6] His response: "Listen you $^%*($$%$!!" [7]
5. Uncivil edit summaries: "apparently you have a pretty pathetic library then" [8]
6. More uncivil edit summaries: "pathetic description of feudalism" [9]
7. Refers to User:172 as "Problem Wikipedian #172" [10] because of disagreements over whether an article should be redirected or not. He also accuses me of "vandalism" for wanting to redirect it. [11]
8. Gross incivility: "learn to speak english or go to another language encyclopedia" [12]
9. Refers to me as an "insect" [13]

Violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

1. Virtually all of RJII's edits are to pages related to economics and economic philosophy. He edits all of these pages from a specific fringe POV: namely, the notion that only laissez-faire is an acceptable economic system, and that anything else is fascist.
2. POV pushing and failure to cite sources: Without citation, he inserts a ridiculous statement comparing New Deal murals to the art of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. [14] He reinserts it after I removed it for lack of citation.

Violations of Wikipedia:Cite sources

1. Failure to cite sources: RJII insists on inserting the following statement in United States Postal Service: "However there is a possibility that a private alternatives to the USPS monopoly on normal letter delivery could be profitable and net tax contributors". [15] He uses incivil edit summaries and refuses to cite a source, even though this is an area of potential political dispute. In doing so, he violates WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. He then opposed my RFA specifically because I asked him to follow Wikipedia policy on citing sources.

Failure to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

1. I first attempted to discuss issues with RJII, but he was uncooperative. When I finally opened an RFC, he announced his intention to retaliate: "Ok, now it's time to start an RFC against you. Plenty of information out there to collect. I had better get busy." [16] He also displayed his contempt for the RFC process by using it as a platform for yet more personal attacks, and adding Image:Head to head clowns.jpg. [17]

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Ultramarine

Failure to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks

• [18]. This attack is remarkable, note the extreme character, that it was used in a RFA, and that apparently it is some sort of revenge for the previous arbitration case against RJII which as one of its points had his use of personal attacks then. Ultramarine 13:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TomTheHand (talk · contribs)

My involvement with RJII has been over the article economic fascism. There is consensus on the talk page that the article is unsatisfactory as-is; that is, the article should either be rewritten to accurately reflect the usage of the phrase "economic fascism," or the article should be renamed to accurately reflect its contents. I initiated an RfC on the page to attempt to get some input, and the above consensus was reinforced - literally nobody agreed with RJII. James James moved the article to economics of fascism and RJII engaged in an edit war over it, listing the new title for speedy deletion as well as copying and pasting the content back to economic fascism and redirecting economics of fascism to it. He has blatantly violated the 3RR, engaged in personal attacks in the process, and been generally uncivil and combative. It was suggested by BorgHunter that I get involved in the ArbCom.

It is important to note that RJII tries to distort Wikipedia policy and the words of administrators, using them in situations where they don't apply in order to bully other users. Previously, Firebug tried to redirect economic fascism to corporatism without a merge. I agreed with what he wanted to do, but did not agree with his methods, as he repeatedly either redirected the article with loss of information or added text that spoiled the article and did not try to achieve consensus. Administrators stepped in and asked him to stop. RJII has used this administrator intervention to try to block other changes to the article, most obviously the rename (which has resulted in no loss of information). He is very familiar with Wikipedia terminology, launching personal attacks by using acceptable terms like "vandal" and "disruptive" and accusing users of going against consensus when consensus is obviously tilted in the other direction.

I'd be happy to get fully involved in this ArbCom, but I'm not sure how. BorgHunter suggested that that would be the way to proceed, because previous attempts to resolve things with RJII have failed. I don't want to start my own RfAr because this one is already running.

Violations of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

• RJII's egregious violation of the 3RR on economic fascism is documented here. According to SlimVirgin he has a history of this behavior.

Note that having failed to get his way with moving the page (by c&ping it, can you believe it?) to economic fascism, he moved the page to fascist political economy, which is a bizarre title, and rewrote the intro to say "The political economy of fascism (more commonly known as economic fascism)". He has also refused to collaborate on the page. - comment by James James

Violations of Wikipedia:Civility

• RJII has been very uncivil on his talk page, responding to other users by accusing them of vandalism ([19]) and making empty accusations of violations of Wikipedia policy ([20], [21]), and using uncivil language ([22]).
• He has also been uncivil on Talk:economics of fascism. Here and here, he refuses to cooperate with other users, threatening instead to revert to his previous title as soon as it becomes possible. Here, he continues to make accusations about violating Wikipedia policy.
• Here, he makes a false accusation of 3RR violation, says that he will continue to revert the article whenever he can, and accuses others of edit warring. He also continues accusing users of violating Wikipedia policy. He accuses users of vandalism and violating Wikipedia policy, as well as calling them "disruptive," here. He makes an accusation of vandalism and a false 3RR accusation here.
• On the arbitration page itself, RJII threatens me with a "bloody fight", threatens to "rip me apart", to "go on the attack", to "remove any semblance of credibility on [my] part", and to expose my unspecified "unethical behavior" if I attempt to participate in this RfAr.

Violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks

• RJII refers to good-faith edits as vandalism here in the edit history of economic fascism.
• He further refers to all attempts to rename the article as vandalism here, here,.
• He asks that James James "check his glasses" here.
• He calls users "disruptive" here
• He refers to James James' explanation for the need for a move as "vacuous" here.
• He accuses users of being "sore losers" and "disruptive" here.
• He asks that SlimVirgin's input be disregarded because SlimVirgin previously took part in an ArbCom case against RJII "based on lies" here.
• He calls James James and SlimVirgin "full of it" here and accuses them of "really stooping low."
• He is very uncivil and makes a number of personal attacks in the aftermath of his 3RR 24 hour block here.

Violations of Wikipedia:Cite sources

• He refuses to cite sources for specific comments here, stating that the article is already well-sourced and he will not quote sources until the article is renamed to his liking.
• He inserts an unsourced claim into neo-imperialism. When this is challenged he states that he has put the claim into another article, challenges users to find it, and states that if it is deleted from there he will "hide it in another article, and so on" here.

Evidence presented by Arthur Rubin

RJII's failure to follow and respect NPOV and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Specifically in regard his edits of Coercive monopoly

Hogeye (e.g, at [23]), I (Arthur Rubin) (e.g., at [24]), and Rd232 (e.g., at [25]) have insisted that the definition RJII is using for Coercive monopoly is incorrect or incomplete. There has not been a resolution of that dispute in Talk:Coercive monopoly, but RJII has repeatedly removed the NPOV tag and reverted the definition to his preferred definition; the last time at [26]. (Note: I agreed to the removal of the NPOV last time, but conditional on the alternative definition (which I believe to be primary, as I've stated in the talk page) being present. See, for example, the copy of the talk page at [27], still present in the talk page without significant changes.)

RJII's Failure to follow WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

His response to his block for disruption at [28].

RJII's attempt to disrupt these proceedings

Presenting a comment in this "Evidence" section [29], etc.

Evidence presented by jguk

Firebug acts uncivilly, contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

From 17 December onwards:

• Firebug's first ever correspondence to me accuses me of vandalism, contrary to WP:AGF [30]
• Again, failing to assume good faith [31][32]
• Here Firebug appears to make up a policy to strike out my vote [33][34][35]
• Firebug then twice accuses Nandesuka of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of mine - contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF [36] [37]
• Firebug makes uncalled for personal accusations of POV [38][39]
• A general ad hominem attack [40]
• General insults[41][42]
• Increasing his offensive tenfold, Firebug makes an accusation of a user of engaging in a "jihad" [43]
• Later he makes an uncalled for attack on Ambi [44]
• Another attack, this time on Freemarket [45]
• Then a general, very nasty attack on our developers, who despite volunteering their time to the project should "get off their fucking lazy asses" who have "gone beyond incompetence and into the realm of malice" [46]
• An accusation of "sneaky removal of text" (so sneaky that it had been discussed at length on the talk page and was made with the edit summary "remove disputed text as per discussion on talk") [47]
• He then returns to arguing about a user engaging in a "jihad" and anti-consensus (at the time, on the talk page, no-one agreed with Firebug's position) [48]
• Started a general attack on Kelly Martin over the Userboxes, where he was a vehement proponent of them (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin)
• Changes his userpage to include an offensive swearword [49][50]
• Then his talkpage [51][52][53][54]

Evidence presented by Gazpacho

The point of view that the New Deal had elements of fascism is not original to RJII.

Nor, even, is it an innovation of the post-Goldwater libertarian movement. It arose simultaneously with the New Deal program iself. See

• John T. Flynn in The Roosevelt Myth (1944) [55]
• Murray Rothbard in Left and Right (1965) [56] referencing
  • Rajani Palme Dutt in Fascism and Social Revolution (1934), who further references a 1933 work.
• Thomas Watkins [57] (says the New Deal and Fascism were both corporatist, but the New Deal was not fascist)
• Herbert Hoover, "Reply to a Press Inquiry" (1935) [58]

Evidence presented by Crotalus horridus

Violations of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

• Violation of the 3RR on Capitalism. See [59] (it's at the bottom of the page). He was blocked for 24 hours for gaming the 3RR via complex reverts. SlimVirgin, the blocking admin, noted that "RJII's habit is to make lots of small edits so it's hard to see whether he violated 3RR or not."

Violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

RJII is a libertarian, and virtually all of his edits are made for the specific purpose of furthering a libertarian POV, in disregard of our neutrality policy. In particular, he refuses to follow the portion of the policy that states "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". He often inserts lengthy, detailed explications of fringe views such as Objectivism and anarcho-capitalism into articles. This is just a few examples. Please note that while each individual example may not seem all that severe, when taken cumulatively they make it clear that RJII is treating Wikipedia as his personal soapbox.

• Created a POV fork, New Deal and economic fascism, designed to push the fringe POV that the New Deal was fascist. It was deleted, with many contributors to the deletion debate strongly criticizing RJII's actions in creating it.
• Repeatedly inserting the fringe POV that capitalism is synonomous with laissez-faire and that mixed economies are not really capitalist at all. See [60] for one example, but he has done this many times.
• Repeatedly inserting non-germane references to Adolf Hitler in the Altruism article. See [61] for one example. This is a clear attempt to push the Objectivist POV that altruism is evil. He cites a non-notable fringe source in support of this contention.
• Inserts his personal criticism of a writer's beliefs into the external link description [62]. In his edit summary, he calls the writer "clueless".
• Inserting an unsourced, weasel worded paragraph into Wal-Mart [63]. The edit summary makes it clear that he is simply editing in his own views.
• Preposterously claims that "there is no policy against POV pushing on Wikipedia" [64]
• In at least one edit, he implies that he is paid to edit Wikipedia [65]. When specifically asked about this on his user page, he refuses to deny it [66].

Ideally, I would like to see a ruling on Objectivist POV pushing similar to that which was given on Lyndon LaRouche POV pushing in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. Suggested wording (modified from Remedy 4 of that finding): "Supporters of Ayn Rand are instructed not to add references to Rand or Objectivism directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Ayn Rand or Objectivism."

Violations of WP:CIVIL

• Edit summary: [67] "But, I'll dumb it down for you."
• Talk page response: "You can go cry to administrators all you want" [68]

Evidence presented by User: The Ungovernable Force

Violations of WP:CIVIL

RJII has made numerous comments which are impolite and uncivil (though as I mentioned on an earlier talk page, I don't like the term "civil" because it denotes a value judgment based on civilized vs primitive societies, but anyway). These have all been in regard to the editing of the anarchism talk page and on the talk page of this RfA. My opinions have been called "bull" and "pathetic" and I have been accused numerous times by him of censorship.

• Talk page response: "That's one way to try to censor information that you don't want in the article" and "that's really pathetic". [69]
• Talk page response: "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" [70]
• Talk page response: "(God you guys are sensitive). Complain away to the grownups. LOL". [71]

Note: I'm tired right now and I'm going to bed, but I will try to cite the others tomorrow or sometime this weekend, including the time he called by ideas "bull" and responded to another user by saying "don't give me that crap". The Ungovernable Force 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:AaronS

Violation of Wikipedia:Be civil

RJII has and still does (as recent as today, 25 January 2006) insult fellow editors.

1. "Please try to cease from attacking your fellow Wikipedia editors."
2. "Once more, please try to be civil, RJII."
3. First, again, please, follow the guidelines of wikiquette. It's not very civil to refer to other people's opinions as "bull," especially when they've only treated you with civility and respect.
4. Please try to refrain from belittling those who disagree with you.
5. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. It does nothing to help the discussion.
6. RJII says "Your sleazy dishonest tactics are reprehensible."
7. RJII says "I wouldn't even try to give Aaron any sources. He finds some twisted way to dismiss every one. It's fruitless."

RJII threatens to open a case against me

When I notified other editors that this RfA was open -- so that both detractors and supporters of RJII alike could respond -- he responds: "Great job, man. How about if we start an arbitration case against you?" [72]. --AaronS 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII mocks the RfC process, insults plaintiffs

RJII says: "By the way, the RFC is nothing but a forum for the accusers and nitpickers to make fools of themselves" [73].--AaronS 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring principles of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

When I ask RJII to be civil, he accuses me of incivility (for asking him to be civil), claiming that I have more sinister motives behind my calls for civility. Where I have been uncivil (which is not often), I have apologized. RJII has never apologized to me; rather, he continues to assume bad faith: [74]. --AaronS 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by RJII

God you guys are sensitive. Cry away to the grownups. LOL. But, you better make it quick. The RJII Project is going to terminate soon. All the goals have pretty much been accomplished --just tying up loose ends now. RJII 06:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Click on the caption below the display at left for evidence of the motivation behind these attacks. RJII is highly respected in the Wikipedia community. It's a few bad apples who are upset that they can't get their way in articles in the face of RJII's clear sourcing and brilliant editing. They're upset that they've been outmaneuvered so are crying to adminstrators like babies. It's really pitiful. Shame on them for trying to waste the time of adminstrators. RJII 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.