Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing/Evidence

User:Intangible2.0 presenting evidence
I'm not sure what relevance Intangible2.0's evidence has to this case. If he has a problem with User:Full Shunyata's behaviour, shouldn't he start a case of his own, and allow FS the oppurtunity to defend himself, as well has having Int2's own behaviour taken into consideration? -- infinity  0  17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, though the case is entitled "Vision Thing", the Arbitrators will look at the conduct of all involved users. MastCell Talk 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I would have thought this would be limited to only issues surrounding the case. If Int2 brings evidence against FS that isn't part of the VT-issue, the only way FS can defend himself, is to bring in evidence about his interactions with Int2, who is *not* part of the case. Would this be allowed, at least? -- infinity  0  18:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * MastCell is correct, the arbitrators can look at relevant conduct from anyone named as a party. If for some reason, someone thinks the case should be expanded to add a new party, a motion should be proposed in the Workshop.  Cbrown1023    talk   18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know these points, but how is FS's interactions with Int2 relevant to this case? I don't particularly care either way, but in either case, the proceeding should be fair (ie. either FS and Int2 leave each other alone, or they both are allowed to give evidence about each other).
 * Arbitrators look at all aspects of the users' behavior. These are disputes between two parties, definitely relevant to the case.  Cbrown1023    talk   01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, I should just like to point out Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible, Int2's previous account. -- infinity  0  21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to put this on the Evidence page, not the talk page.  Cbrown1023   talk   01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments about bias
Infinity0, where have you explained alleged bias in Zhuangzi edit? -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Undue weight here. -- infinity  0  18:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I apologise to everyone if I don't counterargue against every single one of your points but you really should be able to get the general gist of what I am saying, and probably be able to predict what my counterargument would be. -- infinity  0  18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What in Zhuangzi edit is undue weight and why? You haven't explained it then, you are not explaining it now. -- Vision Thing -- 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard is a fringe figure. His views are inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry about some chinese philosopher. -- infinity  0  22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

VT, maybe we should stop spamming the evidence page
We're putting a lot of stuff unrelated to this case, eg. this, on the evidence page. If you want to discuss things like this, maybe it's better to write here rather than clog the other page up. -- infinity  0  22:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts by EtcEtc
I apologize for the long time it took me to write this, I have become frustrated with Vision Thing's trolling of various articles I used to edit to the point of no longer feeling that my presence on wikipedia can be positive. As such I am only presenting my thoughts here in the hopes that they can do some good in preventing other users to be burned out through interaction with VT as I am. VT iss extremely belligerent in his interactions with others. As can be seen from his talk page, when he first began wholesale reverting or deleting of my edits I attempted to discuss the issues with him, he never replied to those attempts.

I took a lot of time and energy in attempting to weed through unreliable sources added by now banned sockpuppet RJII to the article on anarcho-capitalism, and to add sources that can from multiple viewpoints rather than the single side being presented. Despite the fact that many of the sources from RJ were shown to be unreliable and misrepresented, VT continued to reinsert them in the article. VT continued for days to remove all the sources I added to the article under a number of different excuses, first claiming that they were original research, then insisting that they all be quoted, and finally, after finding what he believed to be an error in a single one of the sources I cited, he tagged all of them as unreliable and needing verification. This despite the fact that I provided a quote for the source upon request, which VT decided of his own accord was insufficient, and despite the fact that all of the sources added by banned user RJ remain without any such tag.

Finally, I believe that VTs history as an edit warrior is clear from his own edit history. Even a brief look at the article he has edited will show consistent patterns of deleting any material that doesn't accord with his own political viewpoints despite numerous warnings for many different parties. VT attempts to push against the spirit of cooperative wikipedia editing as much as he can while obeying technical rules to prevent him from being banned, but even then his constant attacks have put him in hostile relations with numerous positive wiki contributors.

I hope these thoughts can be useful in some way as evidence of another editor affected by Vision Thing's warpath. I would like to note that there is plenty of evidence to show that VT is in all likelihood a meatpuppet of banned user RJII, as can be seen here. However, I no longer have the time or patience to collect more evidence on this matter. Etcetc 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)