Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

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.

Statement by User:RJII
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 Conversely, he fights to keep sources that are not credible in articles (unpublished internet postings by no-name self-proclaimed experts).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: 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.


 * Example of personal attacks:

"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)"


 * Simultaneous personal attack and assuming bad faith:


 * Admits to stalking me after I confront him about it (following me around to articles that he has never edited before and deleting my edits simply because they're mine), then proceeding to lie by claiming that I have been stalking him (I'm trying to avoid him, but no matter where I go he comes to harrass me):


 * Example of deleting credible sources:


 * These sources were added because someone requested a source for the claim that "many" consider..... I informed him of this after he deleted them and he proceeded to delete them again  calling it "spamming" when he knows good and well that more controversial claims need the most sources.

Keeps putting them back in after the policy is stated to him that that is it an unpublished internet source. 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.
 * Example of fighting to keep non credible, non-published, sources IN articles:


 * Overwhelming vote against his request for adminiship due to his disruptiveness:Requests_for_adminship


 * He most recently filed an RFC against me, which was deleted because he could not find anyone else to agree to sign on with him: The majority of "observers" endoresd an observer's comment that said said "RJII's edits to An Anarchist FAQ were in generally in accordance with WP:NPOV and the edits of infinity0 and his associates generally were not" I saved the page before it was deleted, so I can provide record of this RFC upon request. The RFC is saved at  before the input was made by other Wikipedians (again, I have the complete RFC saved with input from Wikipedians, if it is requested). Addendum: the RFC page has fortunately been restored for evidence.  Take a look at the diffs for things that he is complaining about --there is nothing improper about those edits and discussion. It really leaves one wondering what the why the RFC was filed. It's just another phase of his harrassment of me and desperation to drive me off, or get me banned from, Wikipedia --so that he doesn't have to deal with my insistence on credibly sourced NPOV content.


 * Keeps violating the 3RR rule:


 * Has been fighting for months to keep it from being noted in the article An Anarchist FAQ that it was written be "social anarchists" when it says right in the FAQ "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." Here is is deleting a direct primary source quote: At first he wouldn't allow it to say "social anarchists" at all, then after months of dispute he allowed "mostly" but obviously that's misleading --"mostly" implies that some of the writers are individualist anarchists --which is not the case.


 * He just made an additional personal attack after his phony "apology" below, by calling me "paranoid." RJII 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He continues to restore deletions of non credible sources (self-published): RJII 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Vision Thing
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)

Statement by User:ElectricRay
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)

Statement by User:Infinity0

 * Please note that I'm pasting in this more elaborate statement, overriding the original shorter one, at the request of Infinity0, who is very busy in RL and on a wikibreak. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

I made extensive attempts to try to get RJII to work co-operatively instead of aggressively User_talk:RJII I request RJII to stop continuing his aggressive editing: User talk:RJII

I try to explain NPOV to Vision Thing: User talk:Vision Thing

A note about An Anarchist FAQ
"An Anarchist FAQ" is a very widely-distributed document, and is immensely influential - see An Anarchist FAQ. 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. 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.

The FAQ says "the writers [are] social anarchists". However, the FAQ is also open to contributions 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.

An Anarchist FAQ has been cited and used as a reference in two books
 * Viable Utopian Ideas: Shaping a Better World - Page 188
 * edited by Arthur B Shostak - 2003 - 288 pages
 * References Agarwal, B. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies 18, no. 1(1992): 119—58. An Anarchist FAQ Webpage (2001).


 * Utopia and Organization - Page 201
 * by Parker - Business & Economics - 2002 - 200 pages
 * This principle is also of course central to anarchist ideas and practices on organizing (eg Bookchin, 1971; Malatesta, 1995; An Anarchist FAQ Webpage. 

RJII
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 and. 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. 

Response to RJII's arbitration summary
RJII's summary

"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. 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 " 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.

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 ), 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. -- infinity  0  19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing
He does not seem to follow NPOV. In fact I have a hard time finding an NPOV edit in his contributions.


 * - all his edits are to politics-related articles, and similar to the articles RJII is interested in.

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

Response to Vision Thing's arbitration summary
Vision Thing's summary

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 was that he was inserting links from the same website (eg ).

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. 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.


 * - User:Aryah tries to explain to RJII that the FAQ is open.
 * - User:Libertatia tries to explain to RJII that the FAQ is not social anarchist doctrine.
 * - User:BlackFlag tries to explain the structure and writing of An Anarchist FAQ to RJII.

ElectricRay
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.

Response to RJII's RfC
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.

Response to accusations of "passive aggression"
Some have suggested I am being passively aggressive towards RJII and that my attempts to solve the disputes are phoney. 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 concede to one of his demands.
 * - I offer a compromise wording.

Applicable policies
I guess these would be a start for me:


 * WP:3RR - I revert too much. However, to be fair, extreme edits such as many that RJII make are not easily ignored.
 * WP:AGF - I am too suspicious of RJII. He himself does not help this, however, having implied he is being paid to edit wikipedia, the intensive arguments resulting from almost every subject he chooses to edit, and his insertion of links from extreme right-wing websites onto irrelevant articles, eg.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept to consider edit warring and possible harassment, and maybe revisit RJII. Dmcdevit·t 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful
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.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Assume good faith, and to observe Wikiquette, Civility, and Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use the dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) and  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 Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop and subsequent proposals.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0 edit wars
4) Infinity0 has engaged in edit warring, leading to 3 separate 3RR blocks, and one violation which did not lead to a block.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII prior Arbitrations
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. Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug and Requests for arbitration/RJII.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII fails to conform to prior restrictions
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.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
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.

Infinity0 placed on revert parole
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.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII banned
5) For continued violation of his previous ruling, by incivility and edit warring, RJII is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block Infinity0
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 Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block RJII
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 Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 11:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Tony Sidaway 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) blocked indefinitely as a self-proclaimed sock of RJII.  RJII ban reset to terminate 31 July, 2007.
 * pschemp | talk 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) blocked indef as a sockpuppet of RJII.
 * pschemp | talk 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) blocked indef as a sockpuppet of RJII per RFCU and suddenly springing to life when above sock was blocked.
 * Vassyana 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Blocked for 24 hours. Violation of revert parole.
 * Parole expired. Block lifted. Vassyana 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I misread the expiration. However, the block would be punitive instead of preventative at this point, as the user has not been on in a few days. He has been warned about the behaviour. Vassyana 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)