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.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rules are not to be abused

1) Wikipedia policy is to ensure a good, neutral, encyclopedia. Therefore, editors are encouraged to use leeway and common sense in applying rules, instead of finding loopholes to suit themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly covered.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Insignificant points of view

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not require that insignificant points of view be included in an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

3) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fred, there is probably no one on wikipedia that believes in this more thoroughly than I do. Therefore, it is sad to see such a charge being levelled against me. A few of my actions may seem pushy, but I am always open to have this pointed out to me, and nobody has ever said to me "your edits to wage labour are POV". I have always acted believing that what I have done is in the best interest for wikipedia. It is also ironic that you have chosen to focus on my actions, rather than that of RJII's, whose user page and other comments leaves much to be desired. -- infinity0 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An Anarchist FAQ

Alternative A

1a)WP:V says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

An Anarchist FAQ is self-published on a personal website [1], then circulated around the internet. It is not written by "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, [that] has produced self-published material [that has had] their work...previously published by a credible, third party publication." RJII 17:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alternative B

1b) WP:V says, "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic."

An Anarchist FAQ is a self-published source and therefore "may be used only as sources of information on [itself], and only in articles about "An Anarchist FAQ." An Anarchist FAQ is an article about "An Anarchist FAQ." RJII 17:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alternative C

1c) An Anarchist FAQ is citable on relevant wikipedia articles as a primary source and occasionally as a secondary source where appropriate, not just on its own article. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#A_note_about_An_Anarchist_FAQ for a detailed explanation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It raises a paradox for Wikipedia, itself a self-published collaborative work, to refuse to cite a work on that basis. Fred Bauder 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I supposed one could look at it as a sort of "paradox." But, yes. The editorial content of Wikipedia is not a credible source. The content on Wikipedia is written by individuals with, apparently, no qualifications to comment on anything. So, it would be very shoddy for anyone writing a scholarly paper to cite any editorial on Wikipedia as a secondary source. The rule requiring credible sources --sources that are not-self-published and written by people qualified to comment --is foundational to Wikipedia. I think it's only paradoxical if one expects Wikipedia to be reliable encyclopedia. Any content on Wikipedia should be looked at very, very, very suspiciously. To cite Wikipedia in a paper would be analagous to making a copy of a copy, instead of a copy of an original (with the original being someone qualified to comment). Information would be more degraded and unreliable with each successive sourcing. There has to be a standard for a source to be regarded as an authority. So, to go back to the analogy, Wikipedia is a copy but at least it's a copy of an original. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source on information, but it is and will always be (as long as the sourcing rules are on place) one step, and no more than one step, removed from being authoritative. The rule against self-published sources should be followed, especially when, as in this case, the author(s) have no academic qualifications to comment. RJII

Comment by others:

AFAQ seems to be significant enough to be carefully cited as a secondary source, and has been cited in two published books about anarchism, per this Google Books search [2]. This point will become moot anyway if it is published as planned. However it should be cited like any other book (author, title, date, page #) and just like you would not use one book by Al Gore to represent the position of all Democrats on an issue, you should not use this work (by McKay et al) to support broad statements of the type "All X's believe Y". Thatcher131 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy distortion

Alternative A

2a) RJII has twisted policy, especially that regarding citation of sources, to suit himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, I agree with this point. He has removed three sources from Classical Liberalism. On the classical liberalism page he deleted citations to books and laws written by Thomas Jefferson, saying that quoting from a letter from Jefferson to Adams that was online was unacceptable "original research." Likewise he deleted a quotation from a book by Paine. All of this was to support his fringe libertarian ideological agenda that early liberals like Paine and Jefferson were fellow libertarians, and not strong egalitarians who favored progressive taxation and universal public education.

Wikipedia needs to be very careful that these fringe minorities (libertarians, Scientologists, Objectivists, AmWay vendors, Mormons, etc.) who feel very strongly about certain issues and are not simply content to have their minority viewpoint represented, but insist that it be stated as fact. I find RJII's presence here to be extremely disruptive.Kitteneatkitten 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative B

2b) RJII's interpretations of policy, especially that regarding citation of sources, are at odds with those of most other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I prefer this wording. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII has a vendetta against An Anarchist's FAQ

3) RJII has campaigned to remove citations of An Anarchist FAQ from wikipedia by labelling it as an extremely biased / uncredible / unreliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What conceivable connection does the title "vendetta" have to do with the text following it? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the header to what I think infinity0 meant (based on the previous RfC). Thatcher131 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII ignores criticism

4) RJII has failed to acknowledge criticisms of his conduct and his behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RJII edits aggressively

5) RJII edits aggressively, provocatively and disruptively. He has pushed a POV in many articles whilst claiming neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RJII is discourteous

6) RJII is discourteous, rude and threatening to people who have an opposing viewpoint.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

wholeheartedly agree with this point, and with the point about the aggressive editing. For him, there is no other view besides his own. I cannot say anything about the dispute about the anarchist pages, but from my experience RJII's extreme rudeness, his stoking edit wars, and his agressive editing harms the wikipedia to an extent that greatly outweighs any contributions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitteneatkitten (talk • contribs)

Vision Thing has pushed POV

7) Vision Thing has pushed a POV in articles, including, but not limited to, spamming links from the same few extreme-right-wing websites and making provocative comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RJII creates dispute-specific templates

8) RJII has creates templates specifically for use in disputes he is currently in, such as Template:Request quote and Template:Secondary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Infinity0 creates wage labour

1) February 14, 2006 Infinity0 created the article Wage labour which prior to its creation had been a redirect to wage [3]. "Wage labour", as set forth in the introductory paragraph, is a "phrase [which] is usually used by socialists or anarchists to describe the social relationship between an employer and an employee in capitalism. It is used in this way mostly to refer to some sort of exploitation or the condition of wage slavery"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to see, other than the opportunity to present the anarchist (or socialist) viewpoint, any reason for a separate article. Making such an article conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view seems a daunting challenge. Fred Bauder 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I couldn't figure that out either. Wage labor is simply the act of performing labor for wages. He's trying to make it into some specialized term that intrinsically refers to exploitation and basing a whole article on that. Also, he wasn't able to find any credible sources defining the term, so he picks something from a non-credible (with no stated author) review of a book he found on the web. [4] and claims the book is the source. RJII 17:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wage labour warrants its own article because many believe it to be a major structural feature of capitalism. It is not the same as wage - it is a specific social relationship. It is used not as a compound of two words but as a phrase in its own right. A lot of criticisms of capitalism are levelled at "wage labour" in particular. Other users have given input (eg [5]) concerning the subject of the article also, implying its coherency as a separate concept from "wage".

As for the sources, I thought they were good enough for the article, and RJII had been removing all instances of AFAQ from any article he stumbled across so I took his actions with a pinch of salt. -- infinity0 11:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A quick look through google scholar seems to show that "wage labor" is not used by socialists or anarchists but rather to distinguish different types of labor, for example, "By 1935, the vast majority of commercial wheat producers throughout the world market were organized through household, rather than wage labor." In other words, most wheat farms were worked by family members rather than hired hands. I am not aware of any justification to keep an article on wage labor as a term relating to exploitation. Thatcher131 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wage labour according to Infinity0

2) Editing of wage labour by Infinity0 continued until March 1 and produced an article portraying wage labour as "exploitation" and "wage-slavery". On March 22, a link was added to "An Anarchist FAQ" [6]. At this point KDRGibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user who has himself been sanctioned for tendentious editing from an anti-communist point of view Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Tendentious_editing_2 began contesting the bias of the article [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to An Anarchist FAQ is noteworthy as the section linked to has very little to do with wage labour. Fred Bauder 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I was aware that the article was very narrow, which is why I welcomed edits by User:Jurriaan which added non-lefist points of view to the article. -- infinity0 11:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had worked hard to make the article non-biased. By this edit I had removed exploitation from the introduction. I was under the impression that "wage labour" was used primarily in criticisms of capitalism, as opposed to "wage", so I structured the article accordingly. I see that I am now mistaken, but RJII did not help me form a neutral impression impressions of it, since he had always insisted to me that "wage labour" is primarily a Marxist term unused by anyone else ("wage labour is the same as wages"). -- infinity0 11:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Entry of RJII

3) This edit marks the entry of RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on March 29, 2006 with a suggestion of merge with wage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It’s also a great example of infinity0’s bad behavior. First he deletes RJII's merge tag on account there was no discussion on talk page about it [8] and then after one day of discussion he deletes it again [9]. -- Vision Thing -- 08:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most other editors disagreed with RJII's merge, for example User:Jim62sch. ([10]) and User:Arthur Rubin ([11]). -- infinity0 11:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

An Anarchist FAQ as source

4) Relying on Wikipedia:Verifiability, RJII removes links to the Anarchy FAQ as "self-published" [12]. An edit war ensued despite extensive discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed. I think the status of AFAQ as a source is open to interpretation. I've already given my opinion on the evidence page. Thatcher131 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Anarchist FAQ

5) An Anarchist FAQ is a borderline source regarding the views of Anarchists. It has been widely published, although not in book form. The number of people actively involved in determining content is probably quite small, but a mechanism exists for incorporation of feedback into the FAQ giving a measure of peer review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

"Feedback" maybe. I had an experience with a editor named user:Blackflag, who, when I requested sources for his original research, would simply go and add his original research to the FAQ on the Geocities.com personal website where it originates, then come back to Wikipedia to cite it. This kind of thing can't be allowed to continue. The rules against self-published documents from personal websites prevent this kind of thing. That's one of my main concerns. There wasn't any "peer review" --he just stuck his original research in there then came back and cited it. See this talk page: [13] under "Citation fraud" where I first realize what was going on. He created whole new sections in the FAQ as a direct result of my being in edit disputes with him and requesting sources. (Unforunately, the updated version has been circulated around since, so you can't see the differences) There is no peer review. BlackFlag puts what he wants in the FAQ. Either he is able to edit it directly or he's able to ask someone else to put whatever he wants in it, on the fly. He confronted him about it and it's pretty clear he admitted it without explicitly saying so. He has left Wikipedia since he had been found out. Unfortunately, his history files have been deleted from his user page. RJII 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is me confronting him about it in the Anarchism Discussion page: [[14]]:

That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to cite "credible" sources. An anonymously written article by someone with no apparent academic qualifications that has never been published is not a credible source. You can't go contrive your own internet article then come back here cite it because you lack sources for your assertions on Wikipedia. RJII 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy not to reference any new sub-sections of section F of "An Anarchist FAQ" in the future -- I would hate to be considered "unethical" by RJII (whose grasp of facts is well known). However, I do wonder what will happen when "An Anarchist FAQ" *is* published. Does it become a valid source then? And what of articles written by anarchists who have "no apparent academic qualifications"? Does that mean we cannot quote anarchists who have only been published in anarchist papers? Just wondering... BlackFlag 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And...

Yes it can be used as a primary source. That means it can be used to show what the philosophy of the authors of the FAQ are (as if anyone cares). But, it can't be used as a secondary source. That is, their interpretations of OTHER anarchists can't be referenced. It's not a credible source. And, "being published" is not good enough. I don't believe it's going to be published, anyway. I think that's wishful thinking. And, on what grounds to you think it is proper of you to enter in your original research here and then when a sources is requested of you, you just add your original research to the FAQ and come back and cite it? What you have done is the kind of thing that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources is meant to protect against. RJII 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the point? RJII does not "believe" that the FAQ is going to be published. Does he *really* think the authors' of the FAQ would state openly on their webpage and their update announcements that their work is being published if it were not? They would be a laughing stock if AK press turned around and said "No, it's not being published." RJII really has serious problems, not least of which is with the FAQ. I'm sick of this. This is my last post (see my talk page for details). For those who remain fighting the anarchist cause, you have my fondest regards and best wishes. I appreciate how difficult your task is now and I wish I had your energy and time. I don't, I'm sorry. BlackFlag 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Going to be published" is not good enough. It means nothing according to Wikipedia policy. RJII 14:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)'

Read more under "Caution: BlackFlag's sources" on the Anarchism Discussion page: [15] RJII 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any better reason to not allow the FAQ to be cited than that some Joe Blow with no apparent qualifications to comment on a subject can go and put whatever he wants in a self-published FAQ on a personal website and come back and cite it. So what if the FAQ is distributed around and posted on multiple websites? What makes the FAQ a credible source on Anarchism, by Wikipedia standards? Nothing at all. It's not published, it's not "peer reviewed," it emanates from a personal website, and the authors have no apparent academic qualifications to comment on anarchist theory. RJII 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

On the plus side, AFAQ has apparently been cited by other anarchist writers. On the minus side, the feedback mechanism is not transparent. Thatcher131 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy as a minority viewpoint

6) Anarchism was during the nineteenth century a political movement with a substantial mass base with strength in Italy, Spain and Russia. During the twentieth century, under pressure from Bolshevism, its mass base dissipated. The contemporary anarchist movement, without a mass base in the working class, is a small minority viewpoint of minimal significance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inclusion of Anarchist views

7) Due to its attenuated status it is generally not appropriate to cite the views of the contemporary anarchist movement in most Wikipedia articles which concern radical viewpoints. It is not a "significant point of view" in most cases. The exception would be articles where anarchism, or a prominent anarchist is the subject of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I believe that it was appropriate to cite criticisms of wage labour in the article. However, it is not as if I have spammed anarchist views into non-related articles. The only non-anarchist article I have added it to is Wage labour, where I only added one or two sentences on it. -- infinity0 11:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Inclusion of minority viewpoints

1) It is generally not appropriate to cite the views of minority viewpoints, such as anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, objectivism et.al. in most Wikipedia articles. It is not a "significant point of view" in most cases. The exception would be articles where they are or are directly related to the subject of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This proposal goes too far. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of minority viewpoints such as the libertarian point of view (in appropriate articles), but not of splinter points of view such as anarchism or anarcho-capitalism (except in articles which relate to them such as laissez-faire. Fred Bauder 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Better to make this more wide ranging to include everyone. -- infinity0 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anarchism related edits

1) Edits by Infinity0, other than those to Anarchism and closely related subjects such as prominent anarchists, which set forth the views of the contemporary anarchist movement or which link to sites such as An Anarchist FAQ 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. Restoration of such edits by Infinity0 shall be grounds for a brief block. Repeated insertion of such edits shall be grounds for extended blocks. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially this was the remedy applied to La Rouche edits. Fred Bauder 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have not made such edits, or if I have, I have made very few of them, and in good faith that I was improving the content of the article. -- infinity0 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"An Anarchist FAQ" also shouldn't be used as a source about what most anarchists think. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is infinity0 putting obscure anarchist figures into the Capitalism article: [16], and me removing them [17] RJII 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I understand your reasoning, it is inappropriate to cite the views of contemporary anarchists in an article such as wage labor because they do not represent a "significant" point of view. Do you really want to restrict this to infinity0? Thatcher131 00:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but other users who may do so are not before us. Fred Bauder 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism related edits

1) Edits by RJII, other than those to Anarcho-capitalism, Libertarianism (et. a.l) and closely related subjects such as prominent anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, et.al., which set forth the views of the contemporary anarcho-capitalist/libertarian movement or which link to sites such as mises.org 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. Restoration of such edits by RJII shall be grounds for a brief block. Repeated insertion of such edits shall be grounds for extended blocks. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An appropriate remedy, I believe, since RJII has caused far more disruption and done this sort of thing far more often than I have. (eg [18] (adding a link to a Neo-Tech (an extremely fringe philosophy) website to Biological immortality.) -- infinity0 11:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site mises.org contains texts and works of Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Prize winner in economics, and many texts by other authors from Austrian school of economics. Surely Hayek's viewpoint is significant in any relevant article and viewpoint of the Austrian school is significant in articles dealing with economic topics? -- Vision Thing -- 12:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek is not a political philosopher and therefore his viewpoints on political philosophy can at best be considered no more valid than that of the authors of AFAQ. -- infinity0 12:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevent. infinity0 is the one on trial here. RJII 17:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek is also a political philosopher. His book "The Road to Serfdom" is highly claimed. Figures like Winston Churchill, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher and George Orwell had high opinion of it and this book was one of main reasons why Hayek received Presidential Medal of Freedom [19]. -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Austrian school, to which Rothbard contributed to greatly has been very influential. Alan Greenspan, speaking of the originators of the School, said in 2000, "the Austrian school have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country." RJII 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Threats are not tolerated

1) If RJII should threaten to engage in edit warring or arbitration (eg. [20], [21], [22]) he may be blocked by any administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

RJII has done this several times, not just to me. See the relevant section of evidence. -- infinity0 12:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously [23] is out of character with me. That's because it was not my doing. My girlfriend did it and I removed it like 30 seconds after it happened. [24] I admit I told her how to edit my user page when she asked me. She was sitting in my lap and I watched her do it. But, it was her decision of what to write. Obviously it was just a joke. I removed it immediately so no one would get the wrong idea. But, apparently someone is watching my user page like a hawk. RJII 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have not pushed an Anarchist POV, if that is what you are suggesting. My inserting of An Anarchist FAQ has always been on anarchist-related articles. The only article which is not specifically anarchist I have inserted it on is Wage labour, where I believe it is appropriate. -- infinity0 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: