Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed decision

message: Lest anyone gets the wrong idea, let me make something clear here. I don't write anything about anarcho-capitalism in anything other than anarchism related articles anyway. I don't understand this restriction. Is it your belief that I'm an anarcho-capitalist? I've never claimed to be such a thing. It's an interesting subject just like every other form of anarchism, but I have no desire to spread anarcho-capitalism. I write about communist anarchism as well. This is an odd restriction, but it's fine because I have no desire to say anything about anarcho-capitalism in non-related articles anyway. I'm just concerned because the proposed decision appears to assume that I had been engaging in such a thing and gives a distorted impression of me and my activities. RJII 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, consider the article supply and demand. It is inappropriate to add either the anarchist or anarcho-capitalist perspective to that article. The question of how an anarchist society would handle the issues raised by supply and demand are very interesting, but should not receive coverage. Likewise whatever unique perspective anarcho-capitalist thought might bring to the subject should not receive coverage, not because the perspective might not be profound, but because the viewpoint is not significant. Fred Bauder 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so I suppose that would allow Rothbard to be sourced in non-anarchist articles about economic issues because his economics aren't unique to anarcho-capitalism --he's simply one of the theorists in Austrian school economics. He's just an Austrian who happens to be an anarchist. RJII 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I did not realize he was a working class revolutionary...Fred Bauder 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting false impression of RJII

message: Are the harrassment issues going to be covered? Clearly, infinity0 has been engaging in systematic harrassment of me to get me banned from Wikipedia by taking advantage of my probation. He even managed to get me banned for two weeks awhile back. I tried to figure out why I was banned but have not been able to find out. All I can figure out is that when infinity0 made a bogus complaint on Administrators Noticeboard that the administrator saw I was on probation and simply assumed I was a bad guy and therefore gave infinity0 the benefit of the doubt and didn't bother checking out what was really going on. As I pointed out before, he is on a mission to get me banned so he doesn't have to deal with my requests for sources, my push for credible sources, and NPOV. I've got this probation for "tendentious editing" that can be taken advantage of very easily by anyone who wants to try to get rid of me for no good reason. Sure, I could just change username and edit without anyone knowing I was on probation (like most people do) and I would be fine, but I have some integrity and let my history stay with me for all to see. Please look at why I filed this arbitration --it is about the harrassment issue. These complaints to administration from infinity are definitely not good faith complaints. They are done for one reason --to get me banned from Wikipedia so he doesn't have to deal with my attempts to make articles NPOV and well-sourced. (Not to mention his stalking of my edits --which he admitted to when confronted). (and also the personal attacks). RJII 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harrassment issues

message: I understand fully the point being made in this proposed decision and I am happy to go along with it. However, I am not aware that I have done what that point suggests I have done... but whatever. If the ArbCom really feels I need a formal "restriction" on something I don't do anyway, then I guess it doesn't really hinder me.
I actually agree with this proposed decision, and I have never thought of citing AFAQ on non-politics articles. However, does this imply that AFAQ *can* be used on anarchism-related articles? If so, could that please be an explicit finding of fact?
If I am placed on revert parole for one year, then surely RJII should be too? The vast majority of my edit wars have been with him. -- infinity0 19:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't twist this around. RJII 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism related edits 

message: The enforcement section currently states "...violate the ban on inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material..." for both users, yet the remedies that are likely to pass do not involve the insertion of anarchist material. As a result, shouldn't the wording be changed to "...violate any ban..."? 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement section needs rewording 

message: Given RJII's admissions of malicious intent, would it not be best to formally indefinitely block the account, and all of its sockpuppets and masters, instead of only for one year? -- infinity0 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit does raise questions. Fred Bauder 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RJII's recent comments

message: I allege that User:Vision Thing is a sockpuppet of RJII, based on several observations:
#Vision Thing registered on March 19 and immediately jumped into a discussion on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism, picking up where RJII had left off. 
#Vision Thing has been extremely active during the two periods when RJII was banned in recent months: 12-26 March and since 24 June. The periods of RJII's blocks and Vision Thing's highest activity do not entirely overlap, but Vision Thing has repeatedly reverted pages to versions supported by RJII (see RJII's block log and Vision Thing's contributions). The words "rv" or "revert" appear 40 times in the edit summaries of Vision Thing's last 500 edits - nearly 10% of his edits are self-confessed reverts.
#*Actually there are 65 (as of June 29), not including "rv v". -- infinity0 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sockpuppet