Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence
Note: I believe that Kitteneatkitten is a sockpuppet. He's only had his account for a few weeks and apparently has a lot of vitriol for me that is unexplainable. It could even be infinity0 for all we know. Also, he accuses me of personal attacks, but can't provide any evidence of it because it never happened. RJII 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting evidence[edit]
Interesting to note that the only examples RJII can find of me making "personal attacks" are:
- Making a good-faith attempt to progress with the article [1]
- Being exasperated at his hostility [2]
- Ditto [3]
- Being frustrated at a vandal. [4]
Also interesting to note is that RJII even now refuses to acknowledge that he is extremely aggressive and uncompromising, instead accusing other editors (ie. User:Kitteneatkitten) of "a lot of vitriol" and sockpuppetry. I have exams and certainly no time to run a sockpuppet to annoy RJII, even if I had any desire to. -- infinity0 22:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Note to those bringing "evidence" against RJII[edit]
- Just a note. In case you haven't noticed. This arbitration case is against infinity0. I realize infinity0 has a buddy or two that are here to defend him, but that's not the way to go about it. Your best bet it to try to justify things that infinity0 did. Just thought I'd help your case --being the fair person that I am. RJII 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but by filing it you are laying your own behavior out on the table. I am merely providing evidence that supports Infinity's claim that you are hard to work with, which should be taken into consideration. Anyone involved with the Arbitration dispute is fair game for arbcom to rule on, and that includes you. And one of the people who accepted this rfa mentioned that your behavior should also be looked at. The Ungovernable Force 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You better believe I'm hard to work with if you're deleting sourced information, citing non-credible sources, and doing everything you can to maintain a POV article. Hell yes I'm hard to work with in that case. I won't compromise Wikipedia's sourcing and NPOV policy, and will fight as diligently as I can if someone tries to violate it. RJII 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, you and Infinity both probably believe you are defending NPOV just as strongly as the other, but you have different ideas of what that is (because you have different points of view). So instead of trying to battle it out with "The POV Bad Guy" so that you can present "The One Right Way", maybe you should try to see things from his perspective. I came into the anarchism debate gungho that all the stuff on An-cap should be removed, except maybe to say it's not a real form of anarchism, but I have since come to the conclusion that the NPOV thing to do would be to mention it, along with the criticism and controversy it garners from the anarchist movement (and an-cap is not part of the movement, you have said it yourself). I still don't think it's a real form of anarchism, but as a result of some intelligent and mindful arguments by some in your camp, including yourself, I changed my mind as to what would be the neutral thing to say. But trust me, going out and fighting with others isn't going to make them want to listen to your ideas, it will just make them more resistant and they will reject what you put into an article merely because you put it in the article. The one thing that really held me back from wanting to include it was your behavior (as well as the behavior of Hogeye), but I was able to overlook it. Many people can't though, and warring isn't the way to go about solving NPOV issues. Infinity had what seemed like a good solution when he suggested that the two of you get to know each other on a more personal level, so that you could better understand where the other was coming from, but you rejected him flat-out. You need to step down from your self-righteous position and realize that not everyone has the same beliefs as you with regard to what is and isn't NPOV. Just because someone's idea of neutrality is differenet than yours, doesn't mean they are out to get you, it just means you have different ideas of what is neutral. The Ungovernable Force 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- How dare you accuse me of bad behavior. My behavior has been fine --especially in the context of all the abuse and harrassment I've been getting from infinity and you. All this your talk from you of my "behavior" is just empty words. We both know who cast the first stone when you vandalized my user page with a "fuck you" for no apparent reason and have been on a crusade against me ever since. Don't try to twist it around to make it look like I'm the bad guy. I've been on my best behavior, and sourced my edits, and have adhered to the NPOV policy. And don't accuse me of "edit warring." I even have a very low amount of 3RR violations considering that I have logged almost 25,000 edits in over a year's worth of full time editing and have contributed a wealth of information to this encyclopedia. Any "warring" I engage in is a moral fight to maintain NPOV and credible sources --and it's mostly argumentation on talk pages. RJII 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I already acknowledged the vandalism! Drop that issue already. I admit, it was a bad mistake and I have never done it again. Like I said, you are incredibly frustrating and I vandalized your page out of stress and frustration caused by you. That doesn't make it ok, but I didn't just do it out of the blue. Basically, your editing caused enough stress to drive someone vandalize your userpage--clearly you're not too popular. Like I said, if you had maybe been nicer I wouldn't have wanted to do something like that, and perhaps others wouldn't fight with you so much. There are plenty of users whose ideas I don't like here on wikipedia, but your the only one I've had any serious ongoing problems with. It's not a matter of people not liking the information you introduce, it's a matter of people not liking you. I don't like a lot of things in wikipedia, but I don't go get upset at the people introducing it unless they do it in a way that warrants me becoming upset (such as edit warring, making personal attacks, being impolite).
- How dare you accuse me of bad behavior. My behavior has been fine --especially in the context of all the abuse and harrassment I've been getting from infinity and you. All this your talk from you of my "behavior" is just empty words. We both know who cast the first stone when you vandalized my user page with a "fuck you" for no apparent reason and have been on a crusade against me ever since. Don't try to twist it around to make it look like I'm the bad guy. I've been on my best behavior, and sourced my edits, and have adhered to the NPOV policy. And don't accuse me of "edit warring." I even have a very low amount of 3RR violations considering that I have logged almost 25,000 edits in over a year's worth of full time editing and have contributed a wealth of information to this encyclopedia. Any "warring" I engage in is a moral fight to maintain NPOV and credible sources --and it's mostly argumentation on talk pages. RJII 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, you and Infinity both probably believe you are defending NPOV just as strongly as the other, but you have different ideas of what that is (because you have different points of view). So instead of trying to battle it out with "The POV Bad Guy" so that you can present "The One Right Way", maybe you should try to see things from his perspective. I came into the anarchism debate gungho that all the stuff on An-cap should be removed, except maybe to say it's not a real form of anarchism, but I have since come to the conclusion that the NPOV thing to do would be to mention it, along with the criticism and controversy it garners from the anarchist movement (and an-cap is not part of the movement, you have said it yourself). I still don't think it's a real form of anarchism, but as a result of some intelligent and mindful arguments by some in your camp, including yourself, I changed my mind as to what would be the neutral thing to say. But trust me, going out and fighting with others isn't going to make them want to listen to your ideas, it will just make them more resistant and they will reject what you put into an article merely because you put it in the article. The one thing that really held me back from wanting to include it was your behavior (as well as the behavior of Hogeye), but I was able to overlook it. Many people can't though, and warring isn't the way to go about solving NPOV issues. Infinity had what seemed like a good solution when he suggested that the two of you get to know each other on a more personal level, so that you could better understand where the other was coming from, but you rejected him flat-out. You need to step down from your self-righteous position and realize that not everyone has the same beliefs as you with regard to what is and isn't NPOV. Just because someone's idea of neutrality is differenet than yours, doesn't mean they are out to get you, it just means you have different ideas of what is neutral. The Ungovernable Force 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You better believe I'm hard to work with if you're deleting sourced information, citing non-credible sources, and doing everything you can to maintain a POV article. Hell yes I'm hard to work with in that case. I won't compromise Wikipedia's sourcing and NPOV policy, and will fight as diligently as I can if someone tries to violate it. RJII 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but by filing it you are laying your own behavior out on the table. I am merely providing evidence that supports Infinity's claim that you are hard to work with, which should be taken into consideration. Anyone involved with the Arbitration dispute is fair game for arbcom to rule on, and that includes you. And one of the people who accepted this rfa mentioned that your behavior should also be looked at. The Ungovernable Force 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Any "warring" I engage in is a moral fight[...]. This is exactly what I was saying--you view wikipedia like a battleground where you are some righteous warrior fighting against the heathens. I'm sorry, but you are not infalliable, as should be evidenced by the numerous times you've been rebuked, attacked and told off by others, including a few admins. You've been blocked 10 times for various offenses, such as incivility, edit warring, 3RR, and violating your probation from one of your last arbitration cases (actually, it's 11, but one was overturned). [5]. That seems like quite a bit to me. You can accuse me of harrassment all you want, but Infinity and I have both tried to solve our problems with you in a productive way, but you first turned down him, than me. If you are unwilling to work on your own problems, then don't expect too much sympathy from anyone else. Infinity and I have acknowledged and apologized for most if not all of our indescretions, yet I have never seen you apologize or acknowledge your own role in any problems. It's always Infinity, it's always AaronS, it's always The Ungovernable Force, it's always whoever else you've blamed at other pages that I don't go to. You opened an arbitration case against Infinity, not the other way around, you're the one with 10 blocks, not me (I have zero), so don't talk about you being abused. As others have stated before, have you ever considered you're role in these clashes (other than to say everyone else is just out to get you)? I can assure you, there is no vast conpiracy against you (at least not that I know of). I doubt you just had the bad luck of running into all the jerks on wikipedia--you probably had something to do with attracting all this negative attention. The Ungovernable Force 05:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look. You have clashes with me because you have CHOSEN to have clashes with me. I have done NOTHING to you. I don't think "everyone is out to get me." Just you and infinity. Obviously. I have a lot of friendly relations on Wikipedia. You're the one trying to make it look like I can't get along with anyone. That's patently false. And don't take my words out of context. When I said I was in a "moral fight," I meant it was not a physical edit warring fight but argumentation over the Wikipedia policies. I'm saying any fighting I'm doing is simply to maintain the Wikipedia standard of sourcing and NPOV. Don't try to make it look like I think I'm in a fight of good against evil. That's not what I meant. When I don't allow others to engage in original research and non-credible sourcing, a few people get pissed off. Oh well. That's going to happen. And why you choose to attack me again and again and again in explicable. I've done nothing to you. RJII 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)