Case Opened on 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
infinity0 is extremely disruptive. Not in good way, as in bringing in new information that may be controversial but is relevant and notable, but in a bad way. He fights against credible and notable information. He fights against credible sourced information by deleting the information and deletes sources in order to maintain whatever false reality he wants to maintain in an article. Conversely, he fights to keep sources that are not credible in articles (unpublished internet postings by no-name self-proclaimed experts). In addition he engages in personal attacks, harrassment, and stalking by following me around to articles that he doesn't ordinarily deal with to delete my edits simply because they are mine (I can say this with certainty because he admitted to it). Others have witnessed his disruptions as well, as can be seen in his failed attempt at adminship.
Also, I must note he uses my vague "probation" against me for "tendentious editing" in a very unethical way. He keeps making complaints to adminstrators on Noticeboards in hope that an adminstrator will see that I'm on "probation," assume that I'm a bad guy, and consider any given edit of mine "tendentious" and ban me from Wikipedia. You can see a few failed attempts here: [1] He has been warned to stop bugging the adminstrators about me and was warned by one: "stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him." (jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents. So, don't be surprised if he tries to do that here as well. Please do not fall for it. I edit very controversial articles in politics and economics and it's very easy to claim that I am engaging in "tendentious editing" but I am always enter information that can be sourced by credible sourced, write in an NPOV manner, and most always attach the source to the edit. I've don't usually considerit worth the trouble to file an arbitration case. I'm not that vindictive. I'm more concerned about the content than the person. But, in this case, infinity0 has been on a persistent mission to try to get me banned from Wikipedia and if something is not done about his disruptiveness, eventually an administrator will fall for his claims that I'm engaging in "tendentious editing" and I will be banned simply for fighting to maintain Wikipedia policy standards for credible sources and NPOV. I've contribued a wealth of information to the encyclopedia and I would like to continue doing so, but it's very difficult with someone determined to fight against NPOV policy and sourcing policy by any means necessary.
"In all honesty, you were being a dick. Let's forget that though. What headings do you suggest for the article? -- infinity0 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)" [2]
[8] Keeps putting them back in after the policy is stated to him that that is it an unpublished internet source. [9] Here an administrator tried to informally mediate the issue of him citing a non-credible, non-published internet source: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources (under "FAQs") but he still continues to cite the source.
I agree with arguments RJII presented and I only wish to add following. infinity0 keeps removing relevant links that express criticism to socialism, trying to create the impression that pro-socialists ideas are dominant (1, 2, 3, 4 on the Socialism article and now he started the same thing on the Marxism 5). First dispute (on Socialism) ended with other user cutting number of pro-socialist links 6 & 7, but, not surpassingly, infinity0 immediately added several back 8, without attempt to discuss it 9. Also, on "An Anarchist FAQ" article, after an edit war, consensus was reached about term "reject" 10 but infinity0 soon deleted consensual sentence replacing it with his own 11, without mentioning it on the talk page even though there was discussion in progress just about that paragraph 12. He was also deleting comments on talk page 13, 14 and 15.
Just as I was writing this, he again started potential edit war by adding POV in POV tag 16 (claim that the FAQ is an open document) even though both RJII and I expressed our concern about "openness" of the FAQ 17. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Infinity0's interactions on the Anarchism related pages have been particularly helpful recently. He has resorted to a number of fairly uncalled-for tactics particularly against RJII (such as opening an RfC against him), and - I suspect through youthful inexperience - he appears to not to have grasped a number of tenets of Wikipedia activity - in particular about sourcing and verifiability, about not owning articles, and about not being a dick. ElectricRay 22:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I made extensive attempts to try to get RJII to work co-operatively instead of aggressively User_talk:RJII#A_friendly_offer I request RJII to stop continuing his aggressive editing: User talk:RJII#Source spamming
I try to explain NPOV to Vision Thing: User talk:Vision Thing#POV
"An Anarchist FAQ" is a very widely-distributed document , and is immensely influential - see An Anarchist FAQ#Influence. It is mirrored on hundreds of websites and linked to on many many more. It is a very well known source.
I understand concerns about it being used as a secondary source, and I agree with most of them. However, in the vast majority, if not all, of cases it has been cited, it has been used as a primary source as an example of what anarchists think. I hope this type of usage will not be blocked, because of the above reasons, namely that "An Anarchist FAQ" is a very important resource for anarchists.
As for concerns about the FAQ's neutrality: the FAQ editors are social anarchists but it has been complimented by individualist anarchists too [19]. The FAQ makes a good faith attempt to explain individualist anarchism. It makes arguments against individualist anarchism, but the authors make it known these are only social anarchists' views.
The FAQ is only biased against anarcho-capitalism, and the sections against it take up less than 1/8 of the whole FAQ [20].
The FAQ says "the writers [are] social anarchists". However, the FAQ is also open to contributions [21] I have interpreted from this that that sentence is the main editors calling themselves as social anarchists, but anarchists of all types may have contributed content to the FAQ, since the editors make a good faith attempt to try to be neutral. My main concern is that RJII makes it sound like the FAQ is purely the work of social anarchists, and from this the reader infers that it is social anarchist doctrine, which it is anything but.
An Anarchist FAQ will be published by AK Press in 2007 [22].
An Anarchist FAQ has been cited and used as a reference in two books
RJII edits aggressively and ignores other people's inputs and comments. He ignores others' criticisms of his POV. Instead, he attacks them to be POV and re-asserts himself to be NPOV. He thinks wikipedia is a battleground.
RJII has a vendetta against An Anarchist FAQ and has repeatedly tried to discredit it as an unreliable source not to be used in articles, mis-citing wikipedia policy.
RJII is continuously disruptive on various articles, for example An Anarchist FAQ. He continues making aggressive and tendentious edits such as [23] and [24]. Various users have explained why his view and edits are POV. However, he refuses to acknowledge their input, instead repeatedly making the same arguments which have already been responded to. For example, RJII's comments at Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#Anarchist writers and Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#Editors say exactly the same thing.
He thinks wikipedia is a battleground, and has repeatedly told me "I won't win". See diffs below.
He also seems to have a vendetta against An Anarchist FAQ. See Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#FAQ Publication. He has been actively campaigning against its inclusion as a source of anarchist opinion in wikipedia articles, for example Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Citation fraud?, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#FAQ's. He has even inserted his own interpretation of policy onto article content. [25]
"infinity0 is extremely disruptive. Not in good way, as in bringing in new information that may be controversial but is relevant and notable, but in a bad way." - RJII basically is implying that he is disruptive in the good way that he mentions.
I edit very controversial articles in politics and economics and it's very easy to claim that I am engaging in "tendentious editing" but I am always enter information that can be sourced by credible sourced, write in an NPOV manner, and most always attach the source to the edit. - As expected, RJII keeps asserting himself to be NPOV, even when many many other editors disagree with him.
If arbitrators kindly read the diffs RJII actually provides, his commentary is extremely distorted. He says I delete credible sources, citing this [26]. I hope that arbitrators will have the common sense to realise the rationality behind that edit.
Also, his comment The majority of "observers" endoresd an observer's comment <snip>" is extremely distorted. It was not a majority, and it involved extremely poisonous claims of me planning the RfC and baiting RJII, and those comments I can hardly call neutral. The RfC had comments against RJII's behaviour too, and two outside editors User:Liftarn and User:Brookshawn endorsed my summary (there might have been more, but I stopped checking the RfC after a day because of said poisonous comments), which he fails to mention.
As to his accusations of stalking; I have followed onto two or three articles, ever, because I was frustrated at him. I have not done this repeatedly; so I don't think this can be called stalking. He has also followed me onto places, eg [27].
RJII has been using my request for adminship as a way to discredit me. He fails to point out that all my bad records (3RR violations etc) were caused by disputes with him. I am generally a good and relaxed editor (even with people whose ideologies are opposite to mine [28]), and my only major dispute ever has been with RJII. I have generally tried to stay calm with him (the "personal attack" mentioned above is hardly an attack; as you can see my tone is very calm); however, he is impossible to work with, especially at his adamancy that he is correct, and his refusal to compromise. I apologise for anything harsh I may have done or said, but I am only human, and RJII is not a walk in the park. -- infinity0 19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
He does not seem to follow NPOV. In fact I have a hard time finding an NPOV edit in his contributions.
He becomes very disruptive when there is something he doesn't like on an article. He inserts extreme POVs into articles, giving them undue weight
infinity0 keeps removing relevant links that express criticism to socialism, trying to create the impression that pro-socialists ideas are dominant - that was not my position. My position [30] was that he was inserting links from the same website (eg [31]).
not surpassingly, infinity0 immediately added several back 8, without attempt to discuss it 9. - I added three back on the next day; I was not aware a user had to discuss ALL of his edits - WP:BB.
infinity0 soon deleted consensual sentence replacing it with his own 11, without mentioning it on the talk page even though there was discussion in progress just about that paragraph - I removed the word "reject" by mistake, and explained it after Vision Thing brought the issue up on the talk page [32]. I pointed out that Vision Thing could have added that one word back in, instead of reverting all my edits.
even though both RJII and I expressed our concern about "openness" of the FAQ - those are their own views of the FAQ, and is frankly, personal opinion and original research. The FAQ states itself to be an open document and there is nothing on the internet criticising the FAQ for being biased or accepting contributions from only one group of people.
ElectricRay has been harassing me on my talk page. His behaviour has been very passively aggressive, which ironically is what he accuses me of. He basically accuses me of being uncivil when I have tried my utmost hardest to be civil, and to not engage in personal attacks. Yet the way he words his accusations makes it incredibly difficult for me to respond without provoking further accusations.
He repeats his accusations yet has given me no evidence or examples of my behaviour apart from "you're doing it right now!" Even so, I can't actually respond to anything he says without seeming like a passive aggressive, because of the tone of his comments.
It appears that some think my edits to An Anarchist FAQ are not NPOV. I do not know the reasoning behind this, but my own reasoning is explained above. RJII's repeated insistence of saying *only* social anarchists contributed content to the FAQ is unsupportable and also gives undue weight to the bias of the FAQ, which is on the whole neutral, except towards anarcho-capitalism. Its bias is explained in the sections immediately below the introduction of An Anarchist FAQ; adding it in the introduction is undue weight as the bias is not a major issue for the FAQ.
Some have suggested I am being passively aggressive towards RJII [36] and that my attempts to solve the disputes are phoney [37]. I do not know the reason behind these accusations. All I can say that it is extremely poisonous, and assumes extremely bad faith. The accusers have the choice between thinking I am trying to solve the dispute, and thinking I am being aggressive; they choose the latter.
My responses to ElectricRay's accusations are above, in his section.
I don't know what actions I can take to dispel these suspicions, but I would suggest these people to look at my interactions with people other than RJII. I try my outmost hardest NOT to push POV, and be as unaggressive as possible. I have conceded to RJII's arguments before; unfortunately I cannot remember him doing the same for me.
I guess these would be a start for me:
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly covered.
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not require that insignificant points of view be included in an article.
3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
4) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
1) Infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have quarreled and edit warred regarding articles of mutual interest such as Wage labour and An Anarchist FAQ, Infinity0 from an anarchist point of view, RJII from an anarcho-capitalist point of view. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop#Infinity0_creates_wage_labour and subsequent proposals.
4) Infinity0 has engaged in edit warring, leading to 3 separate 3RR blocks, and one violation which did not lead to a block [41].
5) RJII has been the subject of two previous Arbitrations. The last one resulted in his being placed on personal attack parole, article probation and general probation for tendentious editing and incivility. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII.
6) RJII has continued to violate the terms of his previous arbitration remedies, and has been blocked a total of 6 times since the last case's conclusion for edit warring and incivility. One of the blocks was for two weeks imposed under general probation. [42]
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.
4) Infinity0 is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He 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.
5) For continued violation of his previous ruling, by incivility and edit warring, RJII is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.
1) Should Infinity0 violate the ban on inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
2) Should RJII violate the ban on inappropriate insertion of anarcho-capitalism related material he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.