Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:26, 17 April 2006 editSchmuckyTheCat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,941 edits →[]: rm section line, indent reply.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:05, 17 April 2006 edit undoIdont Havaname (talk | contribs)8,502 edits →[]: Reply... if in fact Leyasu is evading the block from an IP (CheckUser?), then the block will need to be extended, since the IP would have also been violating the arbcom ruling.Next edit →
Line 72: Line 72:
: The issue has been dealt with already, and i have sorted the problem with Ryouga myself after already explaining elsehwere the conditions of my violation, . I also requested for an extension to my block from the admin that served my 48 hour block as is required by my violation. I also pointed out before that this is a one off to stem an all out flame war before it began, and that i already forsaw my extended ban and am willing to endure it to keep flame wars from even happening on Misplaced Pages. As such i ask this notice be stricken on the basis of the reasoning for violation. ] 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) : The issue has been dealt with already, and i have sorted the problem with Ryouga myself after already explaining elsehwere the conditions of my violation, . I also requested for an extension to my block from the admin that served my 48 hour block as is required by my violation. I also pointed out before that this is a one off to stem an all out flame war before it began, and that i already forsaw my extended ban and am willing to endure it to keep flame wars from even happening on Misplaced Pages. As such i ask this notice be stricken on the basis of the reasoning for violation. ] 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


: : I was a little uncertain on what to do when this began, so I did report the user. Currently we are amidst working this out so I just want to report that currently the issue is no longer serious. Thank you for understanding. --] 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) :: I was a little uncertain on what to do when this began, so I did report the user. Currently we are amidst working this out so I just want to report that currently the issue is no longer serious. Thank you for understanding. --] 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::: Either way, the block that ] set was still evaded by the IP address. Not only that, the IP address violated the 1RR set in Leyasu's arbcom case . So if the current block is being evaded, it should still be extended and applied to both Leyasu and the IP address, perhaps after we have done a CheckUser to confirm that it's Leyasu posting from that IP address (it's not fair to Leyasu if it's an impostor, for example). But since I was a party in the arbcom case, I think someone else should set the block, if it's necessary to set one (which, it would be, if Leyasu and 86.132.133.113 are the same user). I don't know if Ryouga has necessarily been baiting Leyasu to violate the ruling; if he has, then he should probably also be blocked. --] (]) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 21:05, 17 April 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    Shortcut
    • ]

    This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

    Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?

    This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.

    Enforcement

    Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their Arbitration case.

    Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes.

    Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized at poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.

    If an Arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforcable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on WP:AN/I and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the Arbitration case.

    Note to administrators: Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be constructed liberally in order to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.

    Using this page

    Edit this section. Please put new requests above old requests and below the sample template. A sample template is provided, please use copy and paste, do not edit the template.

    Be prepared with:

    • Diffs showing the violating behavior
    • Point to the final decision in their Arbitration case, a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER
    • Clear and brief summary relation of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.

    User:Leyasu

    Leyasu (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanctions of revert parole, personal attack parole and probabtion. The final decision in their case is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

    Leyasu (aka Ley Shade) is currently serving a 48 hour block for a breach (not the first) of revert parole. I have recently been engaging with Leyasu in an effort to get them to work with others at Wikiproject metal and on other metal pages. However, such efforts have not been going too well recently and User:Ryouga has just brought this to my attention:

    "I am unsure to whom I should tell this to, but in case you didn't know IP address 86.143.126.71 has been vandalistically reverting all pages I have made any edits to, and I am convinced this is Ley Shade. S/he has reverted and vandalised all the pages I have made any edits to, and dirtied up the page again from previous cleanups. This was obviously done as an attack against me. Please do whatever you can...I am sure we can expect to see more anonymous users appear and spring these attacks against my contributions. Thank you --Ryouga 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"

    After notifying Ryouga that I would bring this up here I then received the following message, apparently from Leyasu:

    "This IP is me, the other i do not know, nor do i make a habit of getting in revert wars using IP Adresses. However, i have a message for Ryouga, to which they should stop attacking and changing the articles, until i am unblocked and in a position to discuss the reasoning for the reverts with them properly. 86.132.129.203 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

    The contributions of the anon in question (26 reverts made in 67 minutes during Leyasu's current block) includes reverts to Children of Bodom and descendant articles (which Leyasu is currently blocked for reverting) , plus insulting edit summaries accompanying reverts to various metal articles which state "remove garbage" and in four cases "rmv more garbage by ryoga" - 2 examples: , , none of which make great reading.

    I have never been personally involved in a revert war with Leyasu, indeed a look at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Metal will show how hard I have tried to work with them. This is also a report (not an accusation by me) on behalf of a newer user who has been severely bitten. As I write Ryouga has just this minute informed me on my talk page of more reverts to his edits with the same familiar hallmarks, this time by User:86.132.129.203. This resulting diff from WP:AIV is also interesting.

    Reported by: Deizio 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    The issue has been dealt with already, and i have sorted the problem with Ryouga myself after already explaining elsehwere the conditions of my violation, . I also requested for an extension to my block from the admin that served my 48 hour block as is required by my violation. I also pointed out before that this is a one off to stem an all out flame war before it began, and that i already forsaw my extended ban and am willing to endure it to keep flame wars from even happening on Misplaced Pages. As such i ask this notice be stricken on the basis of the reasoning for violation. 86.132.133.113 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    I was a little uncertain on what to do when this began, so I did report the user. Currently we are amidst working this out so I just want to report that currently the issue is no longer serious. Thank you for understanding. --Ryouga 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Either way, the block that Ryan Delaney set was still evaded by the IP address. Not only that, the IP address violated the 1RR set in Leyasu's arbcom case . So if the current block is being evaded, it should still be extended and applied to both Leyasu and the IP address, perhaps after we have done a CheckUser to confirm that it's Leyasu posting from that IP address (it's not fair to Leyasu if it's an impostor, for example). But since I was a party in the arbcom case, I think someone else should set the block, if it's necessary to set one (which, it would be, if Leyasu and 86.132.133.113 are the same user). I don't know if Ryouga has necessarily been baiting Leyasu to violate the ruling; if he has, then he should probably also be blocked. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Instantnood

    Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for revert warring consisting of spelling and POV-reorganizations. The final decision in their case is here:

    Instantnood has continued his revert wars on a daily basis. Beyond just staring new edit wars, he continues to resurrect old ones from previous months - exactly the behavior the Arbcom sanctioned him for.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    This is a POV re-organization of the categories This is his fourth attempt to re-organize this (Chinese universities) category against consensus: January 2006 - , July 2005 - , March 2005 - . The other two categories have similar histories of his aborted attempts to re-organize them.
    Final decision: "those placed on Probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive" This is directly edit warring, disruptive, and a POV re-organization.
    Reversion of three other editors so far. Not quite a "war", but particularly troublesome in the POV pushing aspect of it by his insistence that Hong Kong isn't part of China.
    Final decision: "those placed on Probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive" This is directly disruptive, and a POV re-organization.
    • Estádio Campo Desportivo, 90% of all article edits are reverts by or against Instantnood over the inclusion of "China" after Macau.
    This is directly related to the findings of fact in the case "Instantnood has continued to edit war regarding naming issues."
    Summation
    I'd like to request that he be page banned, per the Arbcom sanction, from these articles/categories.
    This weekend has actually been particularly troublesome in Instantnood's edit wars. I chose these as an assortment, not a laundry list. If an admin went through his last two days worth of edits they would see a troublesome reflection of disruption to Misplaced Pages.

    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    The edits made to the universities category was instead to restore undicussed POV reorganisation by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei. Nobody insists that Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the People's Republic of China. Quite the opposite, I explicitly acknowledge the fact that they're, according to Article 1 in their basic laws, " inalienable part of the People's Republic of China ". The disputed matter was that whether they're administrative divisions. User:SchmuckyTheCat should have made all these clear upon filing this request, and should not provide inaccurate or even false information, which might affect administrators' decisions.

    As for the edits to the article on the stadium (Estádio Campo Desportivo), cf. user:Jiang's comment at #1, #2, #3. It's also related to Macao's status, i.e. whether or not it's an administrative division and/or an ordinary subnational entity. — Instantnood 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Beckjord

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord states that Beckjord is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year, and is also prohibited from editing Bigfoot and related articles. However, when the case closed. Beckjord clearly stated that he does not intend to abide by the decision , and has continued to edit in violation of his ban.

    Since being banned, Beckjord has made dozens of edits from various anonymous IPs in violation of his ban, including, but not limited to, the following:

    Bigfoot

    Talk:Bigfoot

    Jon-Erik Beckjord

    Talk:Jon-Erik Beckjord

    Now, some of these edits contain edit summaries stating that he will never cease and that no one on Misplaced Pages, not even Jimbo Wales, has the right to oppose him, just because of his claimed "expertise" in Bigfoot. This is contrary to many policies, including WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, among others. I have two points to make here:

    --69.117.7.63 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    The timer has now been reset. The ArbCom ruling is being enforced by a number of administrators insofar as the edits in question being reverted. He uses AOL for some of his edits; if you feel AOL will give you the time of day if you contact them, you could try arguing that he might be violating AOL's terms of service by continuing to edit at a site where he has been formally asked not to do so... "unauthorized use of a computer network", perhaps? But frankly that would be unlikely to get any result. -- Curps 08:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ultramarine

    Transferred from WP:ANI, removals of sourced material still continuing.

    I request enforcement of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine, which applies only to Democratic peace theory and one other article. This single editor has been consistently removing sourced statements, despite protests. Some of the material in question has been defended by multiple editors.(See Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 5#1. This practice was expressly deprecated by ArbCom; which required that we edit by consensus, without establishing private versions.

    That these edits also suppress the majority of the work done in support of DPT in favor of three scholars who uphold an extreme position, and also criticism of that position, is, I suppose, merely a coincidence.

    Previous removals:

    Septentrionalis seems to think he owes the article and that he decides the content. His version is selectively including mostly very old studies as a straw man for the theory. While excluding recent supporting research, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox5. It was Septentrionalis who started doing edits again after Salix Alba asked for a slow-down, and yesterday he did a massive revert of many carefully explained changes. The article needs to be trimmed from excessive details from irrelevant studies done in the 70s and 80s, which also Salix Alba agrees on. However, since Septentrionalis resists this, I have now only added the recent research. As this recent research is the by far the best documented advantage of democracy, documenting the role of democracy in preventing wars, mass murder, and human rights violations, it is important that Misplaced Pages represents the current status correctly.

    • I have never claimed ownership of anything. Removal of sourced statements of fact without consensus is deprecated, and is a violation of the ArbCom decision in this case. Ultramarine's additions are (while it will take some time to look at them), welcome. Septentrionalis 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ultramarine has, as in the example above, been removing sources from the 1990's. The common element is not their age, but that they disagree with the three authors he chooses to support. Ultramarine claims below to be increasing the diversity of the sources by these removals; this is bizarre. Septentrionalis 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. It should also be noted that Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages. Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.

    Regarding Septentrionalis only supporter, Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. Ultramarine 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    Septentrionalis absolutely does not want the readers to see and judge for themselves the pro-DPT arguments regarding possible wars. He always deletes even links in the main text to the article about the book Never at War so that readers should not be able to see the pro-DPT arguments. See also User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies. Ultramarine 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

    Ultramarine insists on giving undue weight to the peculiar arguments of three extremists, out of dozens of supporters of the democratic peace. But I do not ask the settlement of a content dispute; I ask the enforcement of a proceedural ArbCom decision.Septentrionalis 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    For my part I got driven away from editing the DPT article by the actions of both Ultramarine and Septrionalis. The arbritration failed in that it should have banned the two of them from touching the article again. Robdurbar 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    I apologize.
    That settlement would have been, if not desirable, acceptable. If I could count on Ultramarine not pushing his PoV on the article, I would be willing to leave it tomorrow; I only meant to spend an afternoon on the thing. I think if I had a few uninterrupted weeks to edit it first, I could make it a good article, now that I've done this much reading on the subject. Septentrionalis 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    This is the version that Septentrionalis created after editing the article for several months almost uninterrupted by other editors. The recent research after around 2000, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox5, is ignored. His version almost exclusively mentions old supporting studies, many of them from the 70s and 80s, as a straw man and critical arguments without mentioning the counter-arguments. As this recent research on the democratic peace is the by far the best documented advantage of democracy, documenting the role of democracy in preventing wars, mass murder, and human rights violations, it is important that Misplaced Pages represents the current status correctly.Ultramarine 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'll be honest: I don't have the foggiest idea of whether or not someone's in the wrong here. The subject matter is way too confusing to me. If I was the only admin, I'd probably block you both again for sterile revert warring. A week for each revert is the maximum permitted, that could add up rather quickly. I strongly recommend you both stop editing the article, and if you don't quit it then I will ask the ArbCom to make an additional motion banning you from the article. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    Let me know if you do; if it is not indefinite, I would support such a ban. I would like to know what third parties make of the article. Septentrionalis 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    I have added much new information from recent peer-reviewed studies in this very active field. I do not see how this can be sterile edit waring. Ultramarine 00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions. This is not the the case now. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful. Recent developments in this field still need to be added. Ultramarine 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This ungrammatical paragraph is, unfortunately, a fair sample of Ultramarine's prose.
      • When he does not write in this manner, he is cutting and pasting from published material.
    • His contribution has been described by a third party as a "spam of studies", a mere list, without secondary writing. It still is. He is also at least careless, and frequently inaccurate, in describing his sources; he often does not appear to have read the articles he cites, but relies on second-hand descriptions and abstracts.
    • His edits for the last couple days (during which I have abstained) have been massive rearrangements, and significant deletions. - Septentrionalis 03:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Septentrionalis obviously does not like that others correct the strange anti-democratic text he had created and guarded during several months. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. All my edits have been carefully explained. Many of the quoted studies can be read online, if anyone doubts what I have written. See User:Ultramarine/sandbox5. I have and will continue to correct errors and add recent peer-reviewed research, something not forbidden. Ultramarine 04:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    This is a personal attack, on two grounds.
    • The history will show that I have not guarded the text. Ultramarine has always been welcome to edit it; there was a time, and 400K of archives, when he preferred to complain rather than do so. He is not free to remove sourced statements from it.
    • The suggestion that I oppose democracy is libelous; in fact, I have been convinced that the democratic peace exists. Septentrionalis 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    I happened onto this tonight and I'm having a hard time reconciling the remedies as stated at Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine:
    Ultramarine, Pmanderson, and Robert A. are directed to work together to produce a consensus version. If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert.
    with the editing that's been going on at Democratic peace theory which is a fairly unilateral series of edits carried out by Ultramarine. Is this acceptable to editors that are more involved in this than I am? It seems to be contrary to the decision. Rx StrangeLove 06:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions which was reverted between. This is not the the case now. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful.
    I think that if you examine the edits since I started edited the article again, there has not been sterile edit wars. Instead numerous findings from recent studies has been added, adding the view of the majority of the researchers in this field. Something Pmanderson almost completely ignored in the text he had created during several months of unilateral editing and which selectively described the view of the critics. So there has not been sterile wars, but instead a constructive improvement, adding the view of the other side. Again, the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions was a mistake, which I regret. However, this is not the case now and I think that if the recent edits are examined it will be found that the article has been improved by also adding the view of the other side. Ultramarine 13:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:RJII

    (Moved from AN/I as RJII is banned from editing that page for three months. Essjay 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

    I request enforcement of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug

    • RJII has been trying to repeatedly force through the same point and content into An Anarchist FAQ. He continues making aggressive and tendentious edits such as and . 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, his comments at Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#Anarchist writers and Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#Editors say exactly the same thing.
      • - User:Aryah tells RJII the FAQ is open.
      • - User:Libertatia tells RJII the FAQ is not social anarchist doctrine.
      • - I explain to RJII why his edits are POV and inappropriate. RJII calls this explanation incoherent.
        • - RJII refuses to respond to my argument, instead calling it nonsense.
        • - RJII refuses to explain why he thinks my response and criticism of his edits are incoherent.
        • - RJII refuses to explain why he disagrees with my deconstruction of his edit.
        • - 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.)

    -- infinity0 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    This kid has been trying desperately to get me banned from Misplaced Pages, just because he doesn't like my edits. He's been harrassing me, and even stalking me to articles he doesn't even edit to delete my edits simply because they are mine (he even admitted it ), so I can't even avoid him if I try. He knows I'm on probation (which in my opinion, I should not be on --the arbitrators are apparently over-worked and didn't take the time to verify the charges against me), and so as a result he has been trying to take advantage of that probation (especially the vague "tendentious editing" probation). He's making claims of "tendentious editing" and POV hoping that administrators will see that I'm on probation, assume I'm the bad guy and give him the benefit of the doubt. Please do not fall for it. I am, and have always been, dedicated to providing sourceable information and writing in an NPOV manner; I'm even more careful about it now that I'm on probation. He's posted to the Administrator's Noticboard/Incidents several times to try to get me banned. This is just an extension of edit warring on his part. Instead of dealing with the sourced information I bring to the table that conflicts with his POV, he resorts to trying to take advantage of my probation, and the prejudice it tends to create in a person's mind about me when they see that I'm on probation, to try to get me banned. He's extremely unethical. Thanks for taking the time to understand. RJII 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Just for the record, here are the sources for those edits he referred to above. "It is produced by a small collective of people who work on the FAQ when we can (mostly in our free time, after work). This means that any e-mail sent may take a while to be replied to." And, that the writers are "social anarchists" (not merely "the main writers" but THE writers: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." Please let me know if you need any more sources for any other edits. Thanks. RJII 02:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Also, note that I am banned from editing the Administrator's noticeboard for 3 months. This is a result of me defending myself against similar charges from infinity0. It's inexplicable why I was banned from there by Essjay. All I can think of is he saw I was on probation and, from that, assumed I was the bad guy and should not be allowed to respond to the harrassment from infinity0. Or maybe he thinks I got a little too heated in my defense. Go figure. But, I am tired of being harrassed by infinity0. RJII 02:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, I banned you from ANI after consulting with quite a few other admins; you were disruptively commenting all over the noticeboard. You then proceeded to make personal attacks against myself and several others, and a two week general ban was applied. I moved this report here in good faith, under the assumption that you'd learned your lesson and would follow the rules; instead, I'm rewarded with further attacks on my character. I'm beginning to think another Arbitration case should be considered sooner rather than later. Essjay 11:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think that's true. As far as I know, I didn't make a personal attack against anyone. I'm certain that I didn't make one against you. I would really like to see quotes of this. I'm wondering even if you have me confused with someone else. RJII 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    RJII, you think you are without fault. You are on probation for a reason. I report you for many reasons. I have made this request based on things you have done, not things you have not done. You have repeatedly turned around my criticisms onto me. Stop acting like you are the victim. You have been very aggressive on many articles you edit, and it is impossible to build consensus with you. You ignore other editors' comments, not just mine, and you carry along editing the article as you see fit without taking into account even remotely the possibility that your edits are bad. You need to correct this attitude. -- infinity0 10:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

    Just for the record, I must say that I agree with most of RJII edits on the “An Anarchist FAQ”. Also, it seems to me that infinity0 is really trying to make it easier for himself to push through his point of view in this and other articles by banning his main ideological opponent. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    I tend to agree with Vision Thing for the most part, but I'm blocking him for 24 hours for being markedly discourteous. This has nothing to do with the article content, only user interactions. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    Just for the record. I disagree that there was anything "discourteous." I think you're really making a stretch with that. You should really be checking out infinity0's behavior --I'm considering filing an arbitration case against him for all his antics. RJII 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please do not make threats. If you with to open an arbitration case, then do so, that's your choise - but please don't threaten to do so publically. Thanks! Ian13/talk 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)