Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/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:.

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.

Against me

 * "In all honesty, you were being a dick. Let's forget that though. What headings do you suggest for the article?"
 * Calls me "paranoid" by titling the heading for a message on my talk page as "Paranoid"
 * Tells me to "grow up."

Against others

 * Called another editor a "dumb bitch."
 * Calls Ultramarine a "fucking twit."

Personal attack / assume bad faith
Accuses RJII of being a troll. This is a personal attack as well as assuming bad faith, as if I'm not genuinely trying to argue important points about the article content. 

Admission of stalking (going to articles he does not edit simply to delete edits because they're mine)
(Note: then he proceed to lie by claiming that I'm stalking him "too." I've done nothing of the sort.)

Deleting sources
In this episode, he is upset that the article says that there are "many" sources, so he dishonestly deletes sources and replaces the term "many" with "some." 

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article
 I note to him that this is in opposition to sourcing policy and he puts it in yet again:

Wage labor article
Keeps putting in the "An Anarchist FAQ" in this article as well, knowing full well that it is created on a "personal website" at Geocities.com and has not been published. 

Evidence that others have witnessed his disruptive behavior
Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0

Harrasment by repetitive complaints on Noticeboards and RFC, etc.

 * Makes multiple complaints to Administrator's Noticeboard to try to get me banned from Wikipedia. He knows that there is a probation against me for "tendentious editing." Because of the vagueness of this, he is obviously hoping there will be an administrator that falls for his claim and doesn't examine his complaint closely. He was warned by one administrator there to ""stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him." (jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) In reality, he is just trying to get rid of me because I am a thorn in his side that is preventing him from deleting sourced information and citing non-credible sources. Here (under "RJII disruptive and POV editing): And, here (under "RJII POV edits"):  Also note there my complaint about him under "Infinity0." Anyone who examines his complaints can see that they're bogus. He continually tries to get me banned from Wikipedia by taking advantage of my probation.
 * Makes multiple claims in Administrator's Noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement to try to get me banned from Wikipedia, when clearly I haven't done anything wrong (fortunately the administrators who watch that could see through it and there was no administrator response to this harrassment). (There are two seperate complaints on that page)
 * Files and RFC with no evidence of wrongdoing by me. The supposed "evidence" reeks of desperation to find something improper that I may have done. The RFC was deleted in 48 hours because no one else agreed to sign on with him. Most of the observers agreed that my edits were NPOV and infinity0's were not.
 * Here is finds out that I was in a minor content dispute on an article that he has never edited, so he contacts the person I was in a dispute with and notifies him that I am on probation for "tendentious editing." Apparently, he is hoping the editor will report me from "tendentious editing" so I will be banned.  Fortunately, the editor I was in a content dispute (mostly just in Discussion)with is a sensible person.

Fighting to keep out sourced information out of articles
Here he deletes the direct qoute from "An Anarchist FAQ" so as to present the illusion that some of the writers are not social anarchists in the article about the FAQ (An Anarchist FAQ). 

Deleting comments of mine on article Discussion pages
 (see more examples of this, below in Vision Thing's evidence)

Deleting comments on talk page

 * 
 * 
 * 

Edit warring
On Socialism, links section:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

He makes unsupported and, frankly, ridiculous accusations against me
All this is from this RfA:
 * he called this comment on a talk page "a very disruptive edit" (note that I didn't make any changes on article itself, I just posted a comment on a talk page hoping for some feedback);
 * similar thing about these  edits - although he was informed (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/RJII_2) that the "An Anarchist FAQ" shouldn't be used as a source for its own article, now he calls edits where I removed claim that the FAQ is open (claim based on what the FAQ said about itself and which can not be independently verified) disruptive;
 * in his "Unnecessary attacks" section (!) he just called me "very unscrupulous" and, as far as I know, that is a personal attack.

Evidence presented by Infinity0

 * ''Please note that I'm adding Infinity0's evidence at his request and because he is busy IRL. Bishonen | talk 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

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.

Note: I have tried to group the evidence into sections but some parts overlap. Eg, many of the "Vendetta against An Anarchist FAQ" diffs are also "disruptive editing".

Heavy disputes with everyone he comes across
Many many others have complained about his attitude:       They centre around the same theme, that RJII is very aggressive in pushing his edits, thinking wikipedia to be some sort of fight.

RJII Is Always Right

 * - does not admit to doing anything wrong whatsoever, contesting all the blocks he has been put under.
 * - does not take his blocks well
 * - ignores criticism I make of his edits. When I press him to respond, he answers by saying he has already responded when in fact he hasn't.
 * - turns my criticism around, saying I am the one that is violating NPOV, on my talk page.
 * - I bold my points, so he then goes and bolds ALL his replies and threatens an arbitration case against me.
 * - I explain to RJII why his edits are POV and inappropriate. RJII calls this explanation incoherent.
 * - RJII refuses to respond to my argument, instead calling it nonsense.
 * - RJII refuses to explain why he thinks my response and criticism of his edits are incoherent.
 * - RJII refuses to explain why he disagrees with my deconstruction of his edit.
 * - Without responding to any of my points whatsoever, RJII goes and inserts his wording back into the article. (This diff also includes a false quote at the top of the page - "small collective" and "social anarchists" are from two opposite ends of the FAQ.)
 * - Asserts himself to be NPOV after being criticised.
 * - refuses to consider changing his aggressive attitude

Destroy All Enemies

 * - "BE PREPARED FOR THE MOTHER OF ALL EDIT WARS;" claims it was his "drunk girlfriend"
 * - RJII thinks editing is fighting.
 * - Thinks wikipedia is a battleground, thinking he is fighting against me.
 * - Threatens that I "won't win".
 * - When a user disagrees with his interpretation of policy, he threatens them with "action".
 * - Threatens a user with arbitration after said user criticises him for making a personal attack.

Disruptive editing

 * - I add a notice informing readers of the disputed sentence; RJII inserts a second notice detailing his own reasons for including the sentence, which is redundant, since the sentence is already included in the article.
 * - requested a source which is easily found on the FAQ's front page.
 * - adding tags to make a point - then accuses me of being disruptive - - when he could have made that edit the first time around.
 * - spams 9 sources for a single point onto an article, giving it undue weight.
 * - spamming the same aggressive point into multiple talk pages, trying to discredit User:BlackFlag and An Anarchist FAQ.
 * - creates a template for the sole purpose of usage on Wage labour which he has been disrupting.

POV editing

 * - spams the same source which supports his view onto 3 different articles.
 * - a very weaselly edit intended only to attack the subject of the article.
 * - RJII falsifies the quote. The authors do not not specifically reject ind-anarchism; this edit makes it seem like they do.
 * - RJII rewords the sentence to make authors seem less neutral, removing a key point

Vendetta against An Anarchist FAQ

 * - the FAQ says it is going to be published by AK Press. RJII implies the FAQ is lying, being unnecessarily unscrupulous in his application of sourcing rules.
 * - Denies the truth of the FAQ, implying it to be uncredible. This is unnecessary, as it is highly unlikely the FAQ is wrong (about its own publication), indicating RJII's personal problems with the FAQ.
 * - Tries to get User:BlackFlag banned based on an unproven accusation
 * - being disruptive, disputing the validity of An Anarchist FAQ (which he has a personal vendetta against) as an example of anarchist opinion.
 * - creates a template for the sole purpose of using against An Anarchist FAQ in . This template is also misleading as An Anarchist FAQ is primarily (if not solely) used as a primary source, not a secondary one.
 * - removes all references to An Anarchist FAQ from an article; this is insanely disruptive - then accuses me of violating policy for reinserting
 * - lies about An Anarchist FAQ, saying it is "someone's website on Geocities", which is far from the truth.
 * - calls An Anarchist FAQ "shoddy", revealing his personal problems with the FAQ.
 * - Here, I have emailed a publisher to ask whether they are publishing An Anarchist FAQ. RJII says emailing the publishers is original research. I would have thought it was verifying a source.
 * - removes all reference from An Anarchist FAQ completely from one article again.
 * - adds his own original interpretation of policy onto article content.

Personal attacks

 * - deletes my comments defending myself because it's "improper".
 * - uses my failed adminship attempt to smear me (and has done so on many occasions)
 * - On my RfC of him, he turns my criticisms around onto me instead.
 * - says I want him gone so I can push my POV.

RJII's favourite phrase
There is no point to this, apart from some humour to try to lighten up the mood. I found these a few weeks ago, and thought they were funny, so why not share it? I doubt even RJII can't find this funny:


 * Infinity0 is out of control!
 * Ultramarine is out of control!
 * Ultramarine is out of control!
 * James James is out of control!
 * Crotalus horridus is out of control!

Applicable policies

 * Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CON
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:POINT
 * Probation

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

POV editing

 * Spams the same group of edits (multiple links to articles on the same few websites) onto a page.
 * Adds dispute tags onto multiple pages without explaining on the talk page.
 * Makes edits which pushes the POV that facism and socialism are related.

Disruptive editing
Makes disruptive, provocative, point-making edits like these:


 * - a very disruptive edit. He makes a point which he fully knows there is a good explanation for.
 * - the FAQ is open to contributions; this fact is said in the article.
 * - tries to insert an extremely weaselly and POV edit into the article.
 * - ridiculous edit, picking fault with the subject of the article based on his own personal suspicion. Instead of rewording it, he deletes the sentence.
 * - keeps reverting an edit I make based on one word I remove, which he could have easily added instead of reverting me.

Unnecessary attacks
He's very unscrupulous, and attacks me and my editing unnecessarily, sometimes in situations where it's irrelevant.


 * - uses my previous 3RRs (with RJII) to try to smear me.
 * - uses 3RRs to smear me again, and says I have "long history of edit warring". Says I am trying to discredit "main ideological opponent", ignoring my evidence against RJII's behaviour.

Applicable policies

 * WP:3RR
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:POINT

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.

Passive aggression outside the dispute

 * - ElectricRay came onto my talk page to have a debate on anarchism. When I tell him I do not want to participate in the debate, he implies my position is incoherent.
 * - a very weaselly comment (you must be looking forward to a life of being stuck in the system as a "happy slave"), which is hypocritical of him since this is the sort of thing he is accusing me of.

Passive aggression within the dispute

 * ElectricRay comes onto my talk page accusing me of passive aggression; I ask him why he thinks this; the response I get is "there you go again!"
 * - When I point out his hypocrisy, he goads me to attack him.
 * - ElectricRay starts a discussion on AN/I on passive aggression.
 * - a very dubious and disputable proposition on AN/I where he suggests "At any rate, when confronted with the behaviour it would be nice to go back and say, smugly, "please don't indulge in passive aggressive behaviour: WP:Don't Be Passive Aggressive" (which is something I do anyway) and being immune from the inevitable response allegations of incivilility or engaging in personal attacks etc."
 * - when User:ZoFreX disagrees with ElectricRay's proposal, ElectricRay then proceeds to harrasses him on his talk page, telling him "don't be a dick" even though ZoFreX hasn't done anything other than voice his opinion.

Applicable policies

 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CIVIL


 * WP:DICK
 * WP:POINT

First assertion
I have found RJII to be consistently nasty, aggressive, and uncompromising. His personal attacks and combativeness reached a point where I have simply stopped editing a wikipedia entry because it is not worth the time and stress that are required with dealing with him.

Specifically he has called me a conspiracy theorist, claimed to know my real indentity, deleted my sources, reverted changes without cause, and has always been ready with an insult or put down. He seems to spend all day here and frequently would revert my changes less than an hour after I made them.

He has basically driven me away from editing the wikipedia, at least for now.Kitteneatkitten 01:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: evidence at User talk:Kitteneatkitten and Special:Contributions/Kitteneatkitten. -- infinity  0  00:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Thatcher131
I had some discussions with RJII and Infinity0 on the subject of if, how, and when it would be appropriate to cite An Anarchists FAQ as a source in wikipedia.

The discussion began at Requests_for_comment/RJII_2, continued on my talk page User_talk:Thatcher131/Archive1 and ended up on infinity0's talk page here User_talk:Infinity0 (beginning with this diff  and continuing forward).

I gather Arbcom is not interested in settling a lengthy content dispute, however, a few points of reference may be useful. An Anarchist FAQ is a compilation of Anarchist writing. Although it is hosted on a personal web site, it aspires to be more, with a 50 page bibliography and announced plans to be published in book form next year by AK Press. Infinity0 had a habit of citing AFAQ to back up statements about anarchists of the form, "Social anarchists believe X." This is sloppy writing in the best of cases; one would not cite a single conservative or liberal writer to back up a statement about all conservatives or liberals, especially as the writers of AFAQ have some clearly defined biases. My suggestion was to use the bibliography to cite those writers, rather than the faq directly; and when necessary, cite the faq as one would a book, "McKay wrote X about topic Y" and so on. RJII took the most extreme position, that AFAQ could not be cited even under those terms because the authors are not notable or important anarchists. I tend toward a more flexible view, given that the FAQ has been favorably cited as a source by other anarchists, and that once it is published, the point will be moot.

I am not convinced either side moved at all toward the middle as a result of these discussions. RJII seems largely inflexible on the point, and some of infinity0's comments suggest he that he did not grasp the point I was trying to make. Since infinity0 is on wikibreak, there is no way at present to tell whether these discussions could have been productive, but both users were participating civilly and respectfully.

RJII is a difficult editor to work with
I have had a good deal of interaction with RJII and Infinity0 during my time here at wikipedia. First off, I can say that neither are perfect (nor am I), but RJII is by far the most persistently difficult editor I've encountered here. I actually began to back off of editing from Anarchism related articles to reduce my stress levels. Anyway, I have no direct hand in the current dispute (Anarchist FAQ), and therefore I cannot attest to Infinity's hand in this issue, but I can say that RJII has a long history of not editing well with others.


 * RJII reported a month old case of vandalism I made to his userpage to AN/I, after I apologized and he was told by an admin that no one would take it seriously . RJII was incredibly candid for his reasons behind this report
 * When the same admin said the issue was dealt with, RJII assumed bad faith and (falsely) accused the admin and I of conspiring against him . RJII was subsequently banned from posting on AN and AN/I as a result of this (and other abuses on those pages). *NOTE: If you follow the conversations in those diffs, you can see that the reason RJII reported me was because I suggested he be banned for this edit (which RJII later claimed their drunk girlfriend made) Also, RJII constantly links to this vandalism diff in any conversation we have, even though I have apologized and have asked that he do the same for his own unsavory actions. He refuses to, saying that I'm just out to get him and that he doesn't have anything to apologize for.


 * RJII assumes bad faith and violates WP:CIVIL with a near-personal attack against me (RJII often avoids clear personal attacks).


 * RJII shows bad faith towards AaronS and acts impolitely (again, violating WP:CIVIL).


 * RJII refuses to apologize for his own mistakes, even when others apologize to him (this specific instance is in relation to AaronS, but he has done the same to me on numerous occasions).


 * RJII calls any user who is willing to present evidence against him "petty".

(NOTE: I hope to expand this and work on the formatting, I just want to get it up now)

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.