Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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)[reply]

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

RJII (talk · contribs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

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.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

RJII is continuously disruptive on various articles, for example An Anarchist FAQ. He continues making aggressive and tendentious edits such as [1] and [2]. 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?.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[3] - 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.
[4] - 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.
[5] - turns my criticism around, saying I am the one that is violating NPOV, on my talk page.
[6] - a very weaselly edit intended only to attack the subject of the article.
[7] - I bold my points, so he then goes and bolds ALL his replies and threatens an arbitration case against me.
[8] - RJII thinks editing is fighting.
[9] - RJII falsifies the quote. The authors do not not specifically reject ind-anarchism; this edit makes it seem like they do.
[10] - RJII rewords the sentence to make authors seem less neutral, removing a key point
[11] - requested a source which is easily found on the FAQ's front page.
[12] - adding tags to make a point - then accuses me of being disruptive - [13] - when he could have made that edit the first time around.
[14] - I explain to RJII why his edits are POV and inappropriate. RJII calls this explanation incoherent.
- [15] - RJII refuses to respond to my argument, instead calling it nonsense.
- [16] - RJII refuses to explain why he thinks my response and criticism of his edits are incoherent.
- [17] - RJII refuses to explain why he disagrees with my deconstruction of his edit.
- [18] - 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.)
[19] - 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.
[20] - The statement is widely accepted by all the other editors. RJII does not explain why on the talk page.
[21] - 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.
[22] - Thinks wikipedia is a battleground, thinking he is fighting against me.
- [23] - Threatens that I "won't win".
[24] - Asserts himself to be NPOV after being criticised.
[25] - Tries to get User:BlackFlag banned based on an unproven accusation
[26][27] - spamming the same aggressive point into multiple talk pages, trying to discredit User:BlackFlag and An Anarchist FAQ.
[28] - being disruptive, disputing the credibility of An Anarchist FAQ which he has a personal vendetta against.
[29] - creates a template for the sole purpose of using against An Anarchist FAQ in [30].
[31] - refuses to consider changing his aggressive attitude
[32] - deletes my comments defending myself because it's "improper".
[33] - uses my failed adminship attempt to smear me (as has done so on many occasions)
[34] - removes all references to An Anarchist FAQ from an article; this is insanely disruptive.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

I made extensive attempts to try to get him to work co-operatively instead of aggressively User_talk:RJII#A_friendly_offer
I request him to stop continuing his aggressive editing: User talk:RJII#Source spamming
[35] - User:Aryah tries to explain to RJII that the FAQ is open.
[36] - User:Libertatia tries to explain to RJII that the FAQ is not social anarchist doctrine.
[37] - User:BlackFlag tries to explain the structure and writing of An Anarchist FAQ to RJII.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

-- infinity0 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

An Anarchist FAQ is not a credible secondary source for Wikipedia. I just recently had an experience where someone involved with the FAQ was editing Wikipedia. When I requested a source for his original research, he went an added his original research to the FAQ then came back an cited it. This is highly unethical. Fortunately, Wikipedia policy has some protections against this. It says that ""Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." I haven't done anything wrong. I'm just trying to maintain NPOV and make sure sourcing is credible. This is just another one of infinity0's NUMEROUS attemps to harrass and get rid of me. (By the way, I don't know who "Liftarn" and "Shawn" are that signed to "endorse" infinity0's "evidence" above. They have had no dealing with this matter. I've never seen them before). RJII 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Agreed. RJII might be brusque and uncompromising in his approach, but he's hardly alone in that attitude, and anarchism is a notoriously emotive subject. Nor is Infinity0 sufficiently without sin as to be able to cast the first stone here. What is more, RJII's complaint seems, by all accounts, to have substance. If it is true that BlackFlag has been citing material which he has (under a pseudonym) written and published to the web himself specifically to undermine another editor's edit (namely RJII's) - and he seems to have admitted to doing this (or at any rate not denied it in the face of a polite request to do so) then I think that action has far more scope to be the subject of an RfA. ElectricRay 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will not compromise the Wikipedia NPOV and sourcing policy, no matter how much resistance (RFC attacks, Administrator's Noticeboard attacks, Arbitration attacks, personal attacks, stalking attacks) I get from infinity0. ElectricRay is correct that infinity0 is not without sin. He engages in personal attacks against me, stalks my edits in various articles that he doesn't ordinarily edit and deletes my edits simply because they're mine (which he admitted to, though lying in the process by saying I stalk him),engages in extremely POV editing, and deletes sourced information routinely. Here is one example of a personal attack: "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)" (from the talk page of the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. I'll add more abuses and evidence of my claims here as I get around to it. There is a reason why his Requests_for_adminship failed by overwhelming vote. He's clearly an extremely disruptive (in a very bad way) Wikipedian. I don't know how I could be any more reasonable as I have been when dealing with his antics. It's absolutely ludicrous that infinity0 would be claiming I think Wikipedia is a "battleground." I don't think I've ever met anyone as unethically competitive on Wikipedia than him. He is intent on fighting every attempt I make to bring sourced information and NPOV to the table, and will use any means possible to try to get me banned from Wikipedia. That is what he's hoping. He wants his competition to be exterminated so he can maintain POV articles and delete sourced information with impunity. He was even reprimanded by one administrator on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents: "stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him." (jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)) This is just one in a long chain of contrived and belligerent attacks from him. Don't fall for his BS. RJII 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Addendum I see that the so-called "TheUngovernable Force" just accused me of being a disruptive editor below. That's laughable. 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": [38] 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 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that infinity0 has history of edit warring on articles dealing with anarchism and capitalism and in last three months he broke 3RR rule three times 1 2 3 (last time on the “An Anarchist FAQ”) . So he might be trying to use this RfC to discredit his main ideological opponent. On one instance he even called RJII “a dick” 4. It seems that infinity0 is the one who sees Wikipedia as battleground and that this is just another way for him to try to win the “battle”.

Also, I agree with most edits RJII made on “An Anarchist FAQ” and other articles and I think that they are becoming more neutral thanks to his effort. -- Vision Thing -- 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Brookshawn

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

In personal experience with this user, and investigating the cited evidence of some misconduct, I can say that this RfC is accurate as to my experienced nature with RJII --Shawn 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Shawn
(I'd sign but I'd only be agreeing with myself, still, -- infinity0 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Outside view by FrancisTyers

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

User thinks that Wikipedia is a battleground and has admitted this previously. See Tendentious editing section on his RfAr. To be balanced, I will concede that he edits in a controversial area (politics and economics), but unfortunately his "I will win"/"you will lose" attitude does not contribute to a harmonious editing environment. Also his "I am always right" attitude are detrimental to the project. See for example "Good move. Because you'll lose. A mixed economy is defined as a mix of capitalism and socialism." on the Talk:Mixed economy page.

I predict that he will (if he sees fit) respond to this with something along the lines of "But I am right". I would encourage onlookers to research the topic before coming to a conclusion.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by rehpotsirhc

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have encountered both infinity0 (talk · contribs) and RJII (talk · contribs), and I agree that, in this case, 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. infinity0's intentions regarding his edits are good, but but he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:NPOV policy.

It is true that RJII appears to have been skirting the edges of WP:CIV in some of his statements, and exhibits an unfortunate lack of patience. But this is fundamentally a disagreement over content, and doesn't really warrant an RfC. In fact, I think it's worth noting that whomever ends up certifying the basis for this dispute, the requirements for an RfC do not appear to have been met in any of the diffs posted. Standard back-and-forth arguments on the talk page of the article in question are not, in my view, adequate evidence of trying and failing to resolve an issue prior to filing an RfC. And infinity0's "friendly request" on RJII's talk page fails to mention any of their numerous conflicts and disagreements, instead taking the form of a rather insincere-sounding request to "get to know each other better." I'm trying to assume good faith here, but judging from the size and tone of the subsequent exchange, it seems as if infinity0 might have had plans to file this RfC in mind when he made the request.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Christofurio 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Exactly right. It's hard to read infinity's "attempts to resolve" without gagging at the phoniness of the sentiment. Likewise, when infinity was told that he had "sinned" and shouldn't "cast stones" his response was, "I'm not a Christian"! If he had been warned of his Achilles' heel, would he have thought it pertinent to reply "I'm not a greek"?[reply]
Thatcher131 15:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Endorse, except with respect to infinity0's "friendly request." I do not know enough about their prior history to take a position on that.[reply]
heqs 19:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Thatcher131

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have not read the diffs and have no opinion on the behavior of any user involved in this dispute. My comment relates to the use of An Anarchist FAQ as a source for the article An Anarchist FAQ. Under ordinary circumstances, editors should be extremely cautious in using self-referential sources. For example, editors of Coca-Cola should be extremely cautious in using sources that originate with the Coca-Cola corporation, and should find alternate sources for the same facts whenever possible. Therefore, even under the best of circumstances, the use of An Anarchist FAQ to source its own article should be avoided.

In this case, there are allegations that the editors of An Anarchist FAQ have altered the document to support edits on Wikipedia. Even if the allegation can not be proven in this specific case, the fact that both documents are "live online" raises the possibility of self-referential editing, that is, one document could be edited to better reflect the content of the other. An Anarchist FAQ can and should be cited wherever the wikipedia article summarizes its content. However, for related topics, including its history, contributers, importance, and future publication plans, An Anarchist FAQ should not be cited as a reliable source, due to the possibility of self-referential or deceptive editing. Furthermore, citations to documents posted at the mirror site infoshop.org, such as this one, should be moved to their original source to avoid the appearance of non-independence.

Wikipedia content should not only be neutral and encylopedic in tone but also should not be unduly influenced by the subject of the article. The use of An Anarchist FAQ as a source for An Anarchist FAQ undermines this goal.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Thatcher131 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
heqs 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I considered this option to permit the FAQ to be used as a source, but I don't know if it is technically feasible or even desirable, so I present it for separate endorsement.

If there are statements in the article that can not be sourced to anything other than An Anarchist FAQ, the citation should be to a dated, archival version that can be independently verified and is not subject to current or future editing, such as the versions distributed with specific releases of Debian.

Users who endorse this addendum (sign with ~~~~):

Thatcher131 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FrancisTyers 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're saying is that it can't be used as a secondary source about itself? I agree. But, it can certainly be quoted in the An Anarchist FAQ article to show what it says (a primary source). I think more importantly it needs to be recognized that it can't be used as a secondary source in OTHER articles to comment on the views of anarchist philosophers. It can only be used as a primary source to quote it as a reference to what the FAQ itself says and only in the article about the FAQ. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources RJII 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archived versions may not be available. However, I see nothing else wrong with this. -- infinity0 19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User: The Ungovernable Force

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Although I am not involved in this current dispute, I can attest that RJII is a disruptive editor. RJII has trouble working with other editors to solve disputes and instead engages in personal attacks and near-personal attacks. RJII also engages in edit wars frequently and seems to have absolutely no regard for the opinions of other editors. I will also say that Infinity0 is not perfect either, however, Infinity has made what seems like an honest effort to work their problems out, which RJII refuses to do (see [[39]] thread on RJII's talk page).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.