Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RJII 2

'''This page is restored for use as evidence in a possible arbitration case (as of yet unaccepted). Do not edit it. ''' Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What this RfC is about
This RfC is not about User:BlackFlag or that specific issue, but about the way RJII has acted towards the articles and the other editors, which I have given plenty of evidence for, and which other editors agree with. Like I have explained, thinking BlackFlag wrote that section purely for insertion in wikipedia is extremely bad faith. The subject of RJII's debate with BlackFlag makes up 1/4 of the section, and it is hardly an obscure subject. Nor this issue have anything to do with the credibility of An Anarchist FAQ, as RJII has so eagerly implied. The editors of the FAQ can have easily accepted the section as good content.

Who else is "brusque and uncompromising" like RJII? This RfC isn't supposed to be a "stone"; it is for RJII to take in criticism, something he urgently needs to do. -- infinity  0  22:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the one that needs criticism, and this RFC is a great forum for that. RJII 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Brusque and uncompromising beats petulant and passive-aggressive any day, in my book. ElectricRay 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you think that. But everything I have done against RJII is in response of what he has done. -- infinity  0  22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are more things on heav'n and earth than are dream't of in your philosophy, infinity  0 .
 * If I were to make an observation, infinity  0 , it would be that you seem to have invested (if you'll excuse the pun) a little too much emotional energy in the content of a few pages around the topic of anarchy, and you might profit (if you'll excuse the pun) by just easing up a little and allowing other users to edit even if they might not entirely fit with your view of the facts. That is, one would like to think, what a good anarchist would do, after all. Good anarchists aren't control freaks.
 * Remember, you are a young man: you are not the only person in the world that knows something about anarchy; your view of the facts isn't "the truth" (no view of the facts is)p; and if you were to let some analyses prevail which don't accord exactly with your own state of mind right now, your net contribution to Wikipedia's intellectual capital (excuse the pun) might be more valuable (you would spend less time suppressing the enterprise (if you'll exuse the pun) of other editors who also have valuable intellectual capital to contribute). ElectricRay 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you are telling the wrong person this. RJII has made about 20,000 edits all related to politics articles, and he has put a lot of stress and disagreement onto everyone. Just look at User:Firebug. Many people have said his edits are POV; he does not take this into account. He doesn't seem to realise when his edits are POV. He pushes aside those disagree with him. -- infinity  0  23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Take a walk outside, and get a breath of fresh air. ElectricRay 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you are not looking at all the indications of RJII's behaviour and attitude. Do you think he is "suppressing the enterprise of other editors"? What about his "state of mind"? I don't think you're being fair in attributing these sentences to me, but denying them for RJII. -- infinity  0  23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't gone out for a breath of fresh air yet, have you? ElectricRay 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me, ElectricRay, that you only negatively contributing to this article. Here at Wiki we try to be kind and courteous to each other. That includes not mocking and snubbing others. I hope that this is all a terrible misunderstanding, but it appears that you don't have anything nice to say. While your comments are appreciated, mocking others does not help the community whatsoever. Happy wiki and I hope i have underestimated your kindness. Thanks :) --Shawn 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Riiiiiight. Another of the passive aggressives enters the fray (what is it with schoolkids these days?). Shawn, do me a favour: before telling me to but out, bear in mind that at least I have contributed to the article and the talk page - a quick scan of your contribtions seems to be long on PowerRangers, High Schools and the environs in Wisconsin, but somewhat light on anarchy, per se. And don't confuse "negatively contribute" with "be in disagreement with". I have plenty of constructive things to say, however, whenever I have tried to say them - even where there has been no disagreement on their merits - they have been immediately reverted by a couple of people who, as I said above, have invested too much personal interest in this article. Wikipedia is collaborative: it isn't (well, oughtn't to be) the domain of a couple of know-it-all schoolkids who have more time on their hands than anyone else to revert anything they don't like. Since I don't do edit warring (I'm a grown-up; my testosterone levels have subsided to the point where I don't need to) all I can do is point out the errors as I see them in talk pages. I'm sorry if you see that as mocking and snubbing. I would look upon it as asking for the "application of intellectual rigour", which I'll grant you, overflows into mockery at the edges, quite justifiably, mostly out of a frustration (which I think RJII shares) that some of the contributors here (not naming names) don't appear to have any grasp of what this means. ElectricRay 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Shawn, you said in the RFC that you've had personal experience with me. Who are you? I don't recall ever dealing with you. RJII 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember Talk:American Liberalism --Shawn 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I know who you are. What did I do to you? I thought we had a short and pleasant discussion. RJII 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher131
(users should not edit other user's views. Discussion (other than simple endorsement) should happen on the talk page)

An Anarchist FAQ cannot be edited by anonymous users. The editors take in contributions and they themselves check it, and add it in as they see fit. In this way it is very different from wikipedia. "An Anarchist FAQ" has not been used primarily to be cited in its own article; it has been used to cite anarchist opinion in articles on subjects related to anarchism. -- infinity  0  16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what should not be done with the FAQ. According to Wikipedia standards, it cannot be used in other articles to interpret the works of anarchists. That is, it cannot be used as a secondary source. RJII 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is it being used to interpret the works of other anarchists? -- infinity  0  16:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, even if everything was completely above board, the document An Anarchist FAQ should only be used as a source for its own article as a last resort, for the same reason that wikipedia discourages autobiography and "spamvertisement" by corporations. The AF is not a reliable source to describe its own importance or influence in the field of anarchist thought, for example.  I did not understand the dispute to be about the use of the internet document An Anarchist FAQ as a reference for other articles.  All the diffs and evidence relate to the wikipedia article An Anarchist FAQ.
 * Regarding the use of the internet document An Anarchist FAQ as a source for anarchist thought in other articles, I generally disagree with RJII, see my comment on his talk page, excerpted here.
 * In an article about a political controversy, you could include, "Republican party spokeman Joe Smith said the Democrats, "were making mountains out of molehills" (Cite), as long as you included the opposing view. The Republicans are not precluded from commenting on political events just because they are involved. Likewise, if the article on (to make something up at random) private property were to include a discussion of how different political philosophies (capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, etc) regard private property, it seems acceptable to use it as a source for notable anarchist thought. If you can cite Marx's writings to back up what Marx says about private property, or you could cite a famous anarchist by name and quote his views on private property from a book he wrote, why can't you instead cite the FAQ to back up what anarchists say about private property?


 * I would be willing to alter this view if it could be demonstrated that the editors of the FAQ were altering it to act as a better citation for other wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure that that's a real concern. Suppose the FAQ says anarchists' view of topic A is B, and someone changes it to say, anarchists' view of topic A is C.  Would the change really be made solely to win an argument on wikipedia when the FAQ has been around for 10 years and aspires to be a serious politcal document?  That seems unrealistic to me.
 * Of course, this whole debate could be avoided if instead of citing the FAQ, you cited a named anarchist who was published in a traditionally recognized reliable source (book, journal article, op-ed). If the only source for anarchist thought on a topic is the FAQ, that suggests the whole field is rather shallow, doesn't it?  And as I said, I would prefer that citations be to a specific date, archived version.
 * In summary, the anarchist FAQ should not be used as a source for its own article. I don't generally see a problem with using it a source for describing anarchist thought in other articles, although it would be better to cite named anarchist scholars published in traditional media. Thatcher131 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to rehpotsirhc
Of course I fail to mention my many conflicts with RJII on his own talk page; he knows about them already. Furthermore, I am astounded by the sheer poison of your thought that I "planned" this RfC. RJII completely rejected my offer; I had no other options and was willing to try it out. -- infinity  0  16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Vision Thing
Please do not make personal attacks upon me, and please do not make bad faith accusations about me thinking Wikipedia is a battleground, an unsupportable accusation. The 3RRs are an unfortunate thing, which I regret, and have tried hard to stop; but RJII has even more. Please do not make "smear campaigns" against me; your own record denies you credibility. -- infinity  0  17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unsupportable accusation? He gave a direct quote of a vicious personal attack by you. RJII 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack ("you were being a dick" is a comment on your actions at one time) and I haven't made any others. -- infinity  0  17:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "You were being a dick" is not a personal attack? Try explaining that in the next arbitration case that will be filed against you. RJII 19:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

response to claim by TheUngovernableForce
I don't think the opinion of TheUngovernableForce should be given any credibility, considering how disruptive he has been. He viciously vandalized by user page not too long ago with a "fuck you": He has chosen to be an enemy of mine. I never did anything to him to deserve that. And, his claim that I am "disruptive" is only true if it's in the sense of constructively disruptive of the status quo and apathy under which some the Wikipedia articles suffer. When I bring in new information that wasn't in someone's textbook or that is politically incorrect, sure it causes a disruption, but it's a good disruption. And, sure, a few people get pissed off. That's what this attack against me is all about. I'm strong and resolute but I'm civil about how I handle things when seen in context of the abuse I get. I sure don't go around saying "fuck you" to people. It's beyond belief that TheUngovernableForce would have to gall to to call ME disruptive. RJII 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah, yeah, yeah, how did I not see that coming (actually I did). You have linked to that diff more times than I can count. And your handeling of that situation was quite disruptive, seeing as it got you banned from editing AN and AN/I after you reported a month after the vandalism just to get back at me. Anyone who is not fully aware of the situation regarding that edit and it's subsequent fallout should not take his above comments too seriously until they have a full picture of what happened. The Ungovernable Force 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And what "happened"? What did I ever do to you? Nothing. You just took it upon yourself to start trouble with me. You have no credibility here whatsoever. RJII 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I already apologized, why can't you get over it? You are impossible to work with and this is a perfect example of why. Get over it already. The Ungovernable Force 01:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, you apoligized --but only after being coaxed by an administrator. I don't believe you're sincere. And, the fact that you keep coming back after me proves that to me. I've done nothing to you, but you are intent to keep harrassing me and trying to take me down. If you truly want to apologize, then just leave me alone. Until then, save your phony apologies. RJII 01:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Assume good faith--your accusations are getting tiresome. Broken records aren't useful btw. Even if I wasn't sincere, it doens't matter, I made an effort which you are still unwilling to do.

If you truly want to apologize, then just leave me alone. Oh, right, get rid of me, that will solve all your problems. Well, tough, I'm not planning on leaving anytime soon. The Ungovernable Force 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you trail me? Why do you follow me and take every opportunity you find to criticize and harrass me? What is wrong with you? RJII 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment on this page so I did. Why do you make false accusations? Oh, and "what's wrong with you" seems like a personal attack, please watch yourself. The Ungovernable Force 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You watch yourself. RJII 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)