Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RJII 2

message: 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)

message: (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. -- infinity0 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response to Thatcher131

message: 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. -- infinity0 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to rehpotsirhc

message: 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. -- infinity0 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsupportable accusation? He gave a direct quote of a vicious personal attack by you. RJII 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Response to Vision Thing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You watch yourself. RJII 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response to claim by TheUngovernableForce