Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed decision

Correcting false impression of RJII

Lest anyone gets the wrong idea, let me make something clear here. I don't write anything about anarcho-capitalism in anything other than anarchism related articles anyway. I don't understand this restriction. Is it your belief that I'm an anarcho-capitalist? I've never claimed to be such a thing. It's an interesting subject just like every other form of anarchism, but I have no desire to spread anarcho-capitalism. I write about communist anarchism as well. This is an odd restriction, but it's fine because I have no desire to say anything about anarcho-capitalism in non-related articles anyway. I'm just concerned because the proposed decision appears to assume that I had been engaging in such a thing and gives a distorted impression of me and my activities. RJII 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is strange: "Edits by RJII, other than those to Anarcho-capitalism and closely related subjects such as Laissez-faire, which set forth the views of anarcho-capitalist thought may be removed by any user on the basis that they do not constitute a significant view point for the purposes of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" I'm not sure what it means. Does that mean any notable economist that just happens to favor stateless capitalism cannot be cited in non-anarchism related articles? If so, that doesn't make any sense. How about Murray Rothbard? The Austrian School is sigificant in economics and he's a significant contributor. Please explain. RJII 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, consider the article supply and demand. It is inappropriate to add either the anarchist or anarcho-capitalist perspective to that article. The question of how an anarchist society would handle the issues raised by supply and demand are very interesting, but should not receive coverage. Likewise whatever unique perspective anarcho-capitalist thought might bring to the subject should not receive coverage, not because the perspective might not be profound, but because the viewpoint is not significant. Fred Bauder 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I suppose that would allow Rothbard to be sourced in non-anarchist articles about economic issues because his economics aren't unique to anarcho-capitalism --he's simply one of the theorists in Austrian school economics. He's just an Austrian who happens to be an anarchist. RJII 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not realize he was a working class revolutionary...Fred Bauder 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment issues

Are the harrassment issues going to be covered? Clearly, infinity0 has been engaging in systematic harrassment of me to get me banned from Wikipedia by taking advantage of my probation. He even managed to get me banned for two weeks awhile back. I tried to figure out why I was banned but have not been able to find out. All I can figure out is that when infinity0 made a bogus complaint on Administrators Noticeboard that the administrator saw I was on probation and simply assumed I was a bad guy and therefore gave infinity0 the benefit of the doubt and didn't bother checking out what was really going on. As I pointed out before, he is on a mission to get me banned so he doesn't have to deal with my requests for sources, my push for credible sources, and NPOV. I've got this probation for "tendentious editing" that can be taken advantage of very easily by anyone who wants to try to get rid of me for no good reason. Sure, I could just change username and edit without anyone knowing I was on probation (like most people do) and I would be fine, but I have some integrity and let my history stay with me for all to see. Please look at why I filed this arbitration --it is about the harrassment issue. These complaints to administration from infinity are definitely not good faith complaints. They are done for one reason --to get me banned from Wikipedia so he doesn't have to deal with my attempts to make articles NPOV and well-sourced. (Not to mention his stalking of my edits --which he admitted to when confronted). (and also the personal attacks). RJII 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism related edits

I understand fully the point being made in this proposed decision and I am happy to go along with it. However, I am not aware that I have done what that point suggests I have done... but whatever. If the ArbCom really feels I need a formal "restriction" on something I don't do anyway, then I guess it doesn't really hinder me.

I actually agree with this proposed decision, and I have never thought of citing AFAQ on non-politics articles. However, does this imply that AFAQ *can* be used on anarchism-related articles? If so, could that please be an explicit finding of fact?

If I am placed on revert parole for one year, then surely RJII should be too? The vast majority of my edit wars have been with him. -- infinity0 19:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist this around. RJII 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement section needs rewording

The enforcement section currently states "...violate the ban on inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material..." for both users, yet the remedies that are likely to pass do not involve the insertion of anarchist material. As a result, shouldn't the wording be changed to "...violate any ban..."? 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Proposed remedy number 3: Caution is urged regarding the use of An Anarchist FAQ especially in the editing of articles which do not directly concern the history of anarchism or the contemporary anarchist movement.

Does this mean that it is OK to use this source in anarchism-related articles?

-- infinity0 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is my revert parole one revert per day for all articles, or one revert per day per article? -- infinity0 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, RJII has been indefinitely banned now. What's going to happen? -- infinity0 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I still to be placed on revert block after THIS? Are you going to punish me for trying to keep crap off wikipedia? -- infinity0 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is still in the voting phase. Each separate motion must gather a majority of available administrator votes (that is to say, in this case it must acquire at least 5 votes), otherwise it does not pass. Of the motions you refer to above, only the revert parole has enough votes to pass at present. Under this, you "may not perform more than one content revert per page per day and every content revert must be accompanied by discussion on the relevant talk page.". So you can revert several different articles once each in any one day but you must explain each revert on its talk page. It's probably a good idea to take the word "day" to mean "any twenty-four hour period", so if you revert a page at 2300 on Tuesday it probably isn't a good idea to revert it again before 2300 on Wednesday. --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is premature. I can tell you what I intended by my votes, but my approach is not prevailing. They think it goes to content not conduct. Fred Bauder 12:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am only asking for a certain amount of leeway since I was dealing with a problem user. I have not edit warred with anyone who is not inserting crap, even people who have inserted opposing POVs to mine. -- infinity0 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true. You are edit warring [1]. -- Vision Thing -- 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the reverts were undoing blocked users edits and I have since been unblocked. My revert % is substantially lower than yours, VT. Over half your edits to the article namespace have been reverts, a great majority of them needlessly reverting MY edits. -- infinity0 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of my reverts are reverts of simple vandalism. Once I even reverted vandalism on your user page. Sorry if that bothers you.

Anyway, in none of your edit summaries you didn't note that you were reverting blocked user. Also, even the administrator who requested your unblock says that you were edit warring [2]. -- Vision Thing -- 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII's recent comments

Given RJII's admissions of malicious intent, would it not be best to formally indefinitely block the account, and all of its sockpuppets and masters, instead of only for one year? -- infinity0 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit does raise questions. Fred Bauder 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This email is also of concern. Although I doubt it is true, it just goes to show the lengths RJII is willing to go to to piss people off. -- infinity0 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

I allege that User:Vision Thing is a sockpuppet of RJII, based on several observations:

Vision Thing registered on March 19 and immediately jumped into a discussion on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism, picking up where RJII had left off. [3]
Vision Thing has been extremely active during the two periods when RJII was banned in recent months: 12-26 March and since 24 June. The periods of RJII's blocks and Vision Thing's highest activity do not entirely overlap, but Vision Thing has repeatedly reverted pages to versions supported by RJII (see RJII's block log and Vision Thing's contributions). The words "rv" or "revert" appear 40 times in the edit summaries of Vision Thing's last 500 edits - nearly 10% of his edits are self-confessed reverts.
- Actually there are 65 (as of June 29), not including "rv v". -- infinity0 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJII declared that "most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple 'sockpuppets' (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection)". [4]

-- Nikodemos 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]