Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

Statements by editors not listed as parties

 * These statements were moved here to keep the main case page relatively uncluttered.

Statement by User:Bishonen
After my experience today of trying to get RJII to stop posting intrusive speculations about Infinity's private concerns on I's page while I's on a wikibreak, I'd be most interested to see ArbCom take stock of this user's way of interacting with fellow editors. Here's the thread on Infinity's page (look left, scroll down); ElectricRay is also in there, but he backed down when I insisted. By contrast, here's RJII's charming response to my plea for letting a 16-year-old take his exams in peace. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Statement by User:RJII in regard to comment by User:Bishonen
A note was left on infinity0's user page saying he wasn't going to be around, but it was left by someone other than infinity0 (unless it's a sockpuppet, which is possible since the edit explanation was written in 1st person). I'm competely justified in trying to determine if the information is accurate, since we are trying to pursue this arbitration case against him. I don't know how a case can go on when the person isn't around. And, if it's a sockpuppet, then that needs to be found out as well. Bishonen is quite unjustified in accusing me of "trolling." I suggest he review our Wikipedia:Personal_attacks policy as well as our Assume_Good_Faith policy. RJII 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Also, Bishonen blanked out a section on infinity0's talk page. I'd like to advise to not delete information from someone else's Talk page just because he doesn't like what's on it. And, as far as his "plea for letting a 16-year-old take his exams in peace," he may be 16 year old kid taking exams, but he's wreaked some significant havok and unethical behavior on Wikipedia. And, that's what this arbitration is about. So, let's not be tempted to be overprotective. RJII 19:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:ElectricRay in regard to comment by User:Bishonen
I didn't "back down" at all, actually. To the contrary, I chided Bishonen for being a busy-body nosey-parker, here, but amusingly he doesn't appear to have understood, or undoubtedly he would have told the teacher on me (or, being a prefect, just given me a detention directly himself). Opportunity missed: but I suppose he can always make up for that now, given the insubordination represented by this very post. Write it a hundred times: "I must not be a smart-arse. I must not be a smart-arse ...". ElectricRay 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Infinity0's comments on User: RJII by User: The Ungovernable Force
I agree with infinity on this--RJII is incredibly disruptive and often very uncivil. Not to say everyone's perfect, both infinity and I have made a number of mistakes, but we have both apologized for our mistakes, which RJII refuses to do. RJII disregards WP:CIVIL and cannot work well with editors he disagrees with. Infinity and I have made numerous attempts to work things out with RJII, which RJII refuses to do. In terms of this paticular issue (the FAQ) I am staying neutral since I have not been involved in that edit war, but based on my own experience with RJII I am inclined to doubt RJII is innocent in this matter (as to Infinity I cannot say since I have not been paying attention to his edits). The Ungovernable Force 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The hypocrisy of "TheUngovernableForce" assuing me of being uncivil: RJII 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. "[...] Both infinity and I have made a number of mistakes, but we have both apologized for our mistakes, which RJII refuses to do". I apologized for that and I am sick of you not being able to let it go. It's in the past, now forget it. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say you are unable to cooperate. Someone apologizes or attempts to work things out with you and you NEVER acknowledge it. You just keep on wanting to clash with other editors. You refused to cooperate with Infinity and I when we tried to work things out with you . You keep on bringing up that isolated instance of vandalism on my part. It's really getting old. The Ungovernable Force 04:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned, blocked
The benefit of the ArbCom banning RJII for a year, when he (they) were already indefiniately blocked for being a multiple user account (amonhg other reasons) is questionable. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee can only be overturned on appeal. A community ban can in principle be summarily overturned by any dissenting administrator, and this has happened in the past. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)