User talk:RJII

Welcome!

Hello RJII, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Check anarchism talkpage on Heider -- max rspct leave a message 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm not defending the New Deal in this instance. I just don't think it's economic fascism. But if you are so in favour of no government-owned corporations etc what do you think of the tax payers money given away in privatisation at the behest of private think tanks. Really RJ you should be more shocked at capitalist control and pilfering of the state. for example:
On the advice of the Adam Smith Institute, under John Major's Conservative Government's Railways Act 1993 British Rail was split up and privatised. This was a continuation of the policy of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government's privatisation of publicly-owned services. -- from British Rail

Remember it was Thatcher's gov that pioneered all that privatisation in US etc -max rspct leave a message

Is this what we should expect under anarcho-capitalism? [1] -max rspct leave a message 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it's taxpayers' money? (it has been paid for by ther taxpayer - max)In a privatization, the government sell the assets to the private sector. What does taxation have to do with it? RJII 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on they always get it for peanuts all over the world -- max rspct leave a message 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's sold for too much or to little, the result is that there is less government. RJII 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal status update - Anarchism

Dear RJII: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This is a status update regarding a mediation request that you are involved in, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism. I have written my initial view on the case and would be grateful if you would please consider what I have written there; in particular, I'd be grateful if you would please carry out the task I asked for to write a single sentence overview of what you think is wrong with the article, so that we can compare viewpoints to come up with a collective solution. Thank you very much for your participation. If you require any assistance relating to this matter please do not hesistate to contact me. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Property

I've been working on Property, adding Charles Comte, Proudhon, and Bastiat's theories. I'd appreciate your "peer review" and input. BTW, I think it was you who turned me on to Comte in one of your posts. Thanks. Hogeye 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out. RJII 03:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. Per your suggestion, I added a pertinent Proudhon quote: "By this method of investigation, we soon see that every argument which has been invented in behalf of property, whatever it may be, always and of necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property."[2] I guess you haven't read "What is Property," but basically he takes various arguments for property from past luminaries, and argues that they all imply that equality should prevail. Hogeye 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Could you add an e-mail address to your account so that I can ask you something relating to the arbitration case? Gazpacho 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncing RJII

You've said at the RfAr evidence page that you plan to cease using this user name soon. Before that happens, I have to ask: how do you say "RJII"? Is it Arjay-eye-eye? Arjay-two? Arjay-the-second? When I read it, I say Arjay-eleven in my head, like the phone connection. I mean no disrespect by asking this; it's honestly something I've thought about since I first saw your name. TomTheHand 13:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I say Arjay-eye-eye. It's an acronym. What it stands for will be revealed upon completion of the project. RJII 15:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, because I have to admit I've been extremely curious about it for a long time... :) As a fun idea, would you consider dropping clues about it beforehand to see if anyone figures it out? Just a thought... I think I might guess what one of the I's stands for. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not strictly an acronym if it's pronounced Arjay-eye-eye. An acronym should be pronounced as a word -- otherwise, its just initials. FBI is only an acronym if you say "fibbie," if you say "eff-bee-eye" its initials. Just my random bit of pedantry for the afternoon. --Christofurio 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalist authority"

I agree with you, in the context its weasil words. I think the poster was trying to say that an-caps support the boss' authority to control a workplace, work functions, hours, goods produced, production methods etc., as opposed to workers control. Stupid place for it, its non-cogent. Fifelfoo 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put it here instead of on Talk:Anarchism, because that page becomes enflamed rapidly, particularly with what I felt I needed to say to you. Sure I observe NPOV scrupulously. Mainly because I feel that the proper response to anarcho-capitalism is anti-fascism (good slogan actually). But that's a normative belief. And there are people who claim to be anarcho-capitalists in verifiable primary sources, and commentary about them in verifiable secondary sources. I'm quite happy with how the article is turning out (if only Libertarianism could address Libertarian Socialism with a two para "see also" bite). I've also noticed the quality of your edits, though I expect like myself, you are predisposed to expand some paragraphs without thinking of article balance simply because "what's written there isn't complete and so isn't correct" :). We're at 56kb, and the article seems to have improved greatly on past attempts. Looks good. Could be featurable in the next few weeks. Fifelfoo 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Altruism

Are not you sacrificing your time for the public good in editing Wikipedia? Perhaps you have a touch of altruism, too! Of course, if you are handsomely paid to do this, you should own up to it. The rest of us just have to make do. :-) Carrionluggage 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wikipedia out of altruism? No way. I'm in it for me. RJII 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

About that Communist you know. There are two kinds (at least): one kind tells you he is altruistic and you should be also in order that he can grab something from you. That kind is dealt with in George Orwell's Animal Farm. The other kind is a dupe of the first. But this chap you know - he must be a rare case today - I never hear of this stuff any more so I feel Ayn Rand's supporters are kind of beating a dead horse. Today's threats seem (to me) to be religious extremism and the approaching exhaustion of world resources. But to each her/his own.Carrionluggage 19:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is rare today -communism/altruism is pretty much moribund. Though pursuit of self-interest still has many detractors, I don't it's frowned upon as much today as it has been in the past. Maybe Rand deserves a little blame for that. RJII 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Voltairine de Cleyre quote on American individualist anarchism

Can you please stop misquoting??!!. -- max rspct leave a message 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misquoting. She said that when she was an individualist. RJII 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

She was describing the philosophy though not voicing her exact views -- max rspct leave a message 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job

That usage of "self interest" is just fine. Carrionluggage 02:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "project"

Well it sounds like you are just here to bait (troll) wikipedians whose political persuasions are 'counterposed' to yours. Aren't you just being disruptive or testing the flaccid Godwin's Law -- max rspct leave a message 23:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up. I enjoy personal attacks. They turn me on. RJII 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for defending the truthiness

thak you, for sticking up for real Amercians, as few of us as there are on wikipedia

.

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including possible merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Also, please remember to stay civil even to those with whom you disagree and to those who are not civil to you. -- Jonel | Speak 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Workshop page

You were informed of the /Workshop page in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJII&diff=32526173&oldid=32438425 Fred Bauder 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So I was. Sorry for jumping the gun. RJII 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct

Why don't you stop using wikipedia? You seem to have real difficulty in finding unbias sources and seem to support those with similar problems. Besides all the disruption. -max rspct leave a message 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dial 1-800-EAT-RFC. RJII 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you may find you will be stopped from using wikipedia unless you change your ways.Harrypotter 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And what "ways" is that? And, what do you mean? Is someone going to come and arrest me to make sure I don't get on Wikipedia? Are you going to join the special few who attack me without justification? You'd better have some good evidence of wrongdoing to back up your remark. What is it? What have I done? RJII 02:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you look at the posting immediately above mine, you may notice the word disruption appears. This word disruptive also appears in Wikipedia:Banning policy: "In some circumstances, an administrator may ban a disruptive user to get them to leave Wikipedia alone for a short time or stop editing a particular page."". Why would I need "evidence" to back up my remark, when the evidence is before your very eyes. I have no doubt that you are quite capable of mending your ways without tutelage from me!Harrypotter 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're taking a disruptive editor's (Max_rspct) claim as true. Well, let me tell you, he's full of it. All he does is personally attack me. And, if you watch his editing, he deletes sourced material. He'll violate the 3RR regularly. If you want to know what he was responding to, it's because I replaced a chart on the capitalism article because he was deleting it without explaining why. Then he has the gall to message me here and call me disruptive. He's very disruptive. A claim of disruption is not evidence, especially from someone with as little credibility as him. You should be more careful before you make assumptions like that. RJII 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem too ready to ascribe views to me without considering what other possibilities may exist in this world. I think that is what you might call "making assumptions". A claim of disruption is evidence that there are people who may try and have you banned. Perhaps you should point this out to our colleague max rspct, if you are so concerned about their behaviour.Harrypotter 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you told me to "change [my] ways." That's an assumption that his claim of disruption was true. RJII 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not tell you to do anything. I merely pointed out one amongst many possible consequences which could occur if you continue with your current behaviour. In fact I consider that you getting banned could be quite independent of whether or not max rspct's are true, as I do not believe in the Omniscience of the wiki GodKing. Perhaps you should read more Stirner, and then you might be able to better understand your Ego and your own . . . assumptions!Harrypotter 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, you suggested that I change my ways. The assumption is that I was disruptive and need to stop. RJII 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, check out New_Troll_point_of_view. My observation was based on the above mentioned posting and that it brough to mind a possible future in which you were banned. In fact all that I suggested was that "you may find you will be stopped from using wikipedia unless you change your ways". Harrypotter 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"New Troll point of view" hey? Who am I to bemoan natural law? RJII 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While things are protected...

I found it refreshing to edit on the libertarian wiki. I transplanted the last good version of the anarchism article there. You know, with the individualist/collectivist structure that we worked on after the last unprotect. I merged your Individual anarchism and American individual anarchism articles - that was obviously an edit war fork. Anyway, check these out:

Anarchism

Individualist anarchism

Hogeye 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

embarassing to have to bring this up, but...

Er, about your Wikipedia Defender barnstar... I see that it was awarded to you by Ghgfhfhfdh. Ghgfhfhfdh has 17 edits, all but one in talkspace or his userpage, and most of those in user talkspace at that. His awarding of a barnstar to you was his ninth edit. (FWIW, judging by the replication of identical misspellings and malformations, that was a copy-and-paste of the identical award given to Ghgfhfhfdh by an anon AOL proxy, surely in error as Ghgfhfhfdh was at that time sixteen minutes shy of his first edit.)

Don't be embarrased! It's not your fault! I'm sure that until now you were unaware of these troublesome facts, and of course will swiftly return the tainted object to the pool, as there are only so many to go around. Herostratus 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I just figured he wanted to be anonymous. RJII 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, but that's not a very good precedent... we're supposed to have transparency and stuff here... Herostratus 06:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. RJII 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anonymous giving of awards was countenanced, who knows but some cad might give himself an award, for instance. I would think that surely rather than risk being thought of in such company one would renounce and remove such an award. Herostratus 10:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. You think I gave it to myself. Well, if you want to think I gave it to myself, feel free. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks. I certainly don't need a medal to make myself feel important or worthy. And, I don't need you to bother me anymore with your bogus concern for my public reputation. RJII 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that you gave it to yourself, but others might. I did, however, point out its tainted origin, expecting that you would of course remove it at once. To display a tainted award is akin to wearing an unearned combat ribbon -- no person with a sense of shame would do so. Perhaps it would be best to let you continue to display the object, its exposure as a sham now mocking rather than ennobling you to all who view. However, I don't think that would be fair to those have fairly earned awards, so I must ask you, as Wikipedian to Wikipedian: please remove it. Thanking you in advance for your speedy compliance, Herostratus 00:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're taking Wikipedia a little to seriously. Maybe it's time for a break. (by the way, I deserve a medal for everything I've done for Wikipedia. One couldn't give me enough medals to compensate me.) RJII 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You deserve something. Whether it's a medal or censure is unclear. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your work, as I'm not familiar with it. Returning to the matter at hand, since you won't comply with my request, will you agree to my (or our, if you wish to participate) taking this before a disinterested third party and be bound by his decision? Herostratus 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Why should I unnecessarily give someone else authority over me? Now go away and stop bugging me. RJII 06:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, sir, I propose to bring you up on charges. Herostratus 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To make myself crystal clear, I intend to enter a Request for Abitration on this matter. Have you anything to say? Herostratus 14:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#2.1 User:RJII, improper display of an award. You are invited to comment there. Herostratus 15:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How old are you? RJII 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

An-cap FAQ

When making a list of anarchist links, I noticed that there was no anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Sure, there's a wonderful Anarchist Theory FAQ by Bryan Caplan, but that's about anarchism in general. So, drawing upon my Wikipedia experience, I created one. Please make comments or suggestions on my Talk page. Behold! I give you ...

The Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

Hogeye 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I like it. Of course there are some things I would change, but that's your work --not Wikipedia. Weird that there wasn't one out there already. RJII 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman and criticism of socialism

Hi, you had Economist Milton Friedman says "Hardly anyone today, from the far left to the far right, regards socialism in the traditional sense of government ownership and operation of the means of production as either feasible or desirable. Those who profess socialism today mean by it a welfare state." in the intro to the Socialism article. I'm not sure it is the right place for it, particularly as there is a specific section on criticism, and indeed an Criticisms of socialismarticle. You might want to put the quote on the Milton Friedman page too. Cheers! MrTrev 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't really looking at it like a criticism but a definition --an economists noting how people use the term today. RJII 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In which case, you might want to use more than one economist's views, and gather views from across the political spectrum - the views of one economist are only representing his POV, other economists will have different POVs. MrTrev 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would take care of that. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative thing. RJII 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stem Cell

I've left some comments for you on the stem cell talk pages. Thanks,--Nicholas 12:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 03:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug

This arbitration case has closed. RJII is placed on personal attack parole, probation, general probation, and is cautioned regarding POV editing. Firebug is counseled that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that perfection is not to be expected. These remedies (where applicable) shall be enforced by a block of up to one year. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A year? LOL! RJII 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What a scam. The arbitrators should be ashamed of themselves for condemning me for "POV" editing. I'm always careful to provide sourceable material to Wikipedia. There is no rule in Wikipedia against putting in information that may happen to favor someone's "POV." So what? As long as it is true information, it's good for Wikipedia. I'm proud of what I've done. I actually deserve medal for my informative contributions. So some POV-inclined people that wanted to censor me found a few personal attacks found after scouring over a years worth of voluminous discussions. Big deal. That that's the extent of any wrongdoing (and the attacks were well deserved). The judgement is bogus. RJII 20:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will remember WP:Civil, and refrain from commenting. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Anarchism

I have protected Anarchism due to the edit history yesterday which appears to show repeated removal and insertion of the same information. Be warned that such behaviour is not productive, and that we have policies in place, such as the three revert rule and edit warring which proscribe against such actions and allow admins to block people in violation of such policies. Please continue to discuss the issue on the talk page, being mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. In order to build a consensus it might be wise to advertise at the pump, WP:RFC or pages related to the dispute or the article in question. Once a consensus is established, please respect it. To request the page be unprotected, either contact me or use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Steve block talk 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I would like to unprotect the page, but I want to check their will be no more conflict regarding the infoshop sourcing. Are we all now happy that the opinion being sourced from infoshop can also be sourced from other sources, and that it is now acceptable to use infoshop as a source in this innstance, given the direction at WP:RS, which allows partisan sources if used only to source opinion and if not used as sole source? Do we have an agreeable compromise on that issue? Thanks for your good natured debating of this issue. Steve block talk 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does the FAQ say that paying wages for labor is coercive? RJII 15:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that the basis of your dispute? Steve block talk 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's two-fold. That and that the FAQ is not a credible source. RJII 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made comments at Talk:Anarchism which I would appreciate your response on. Steve block talk 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? Harrypotter 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. But, I've made a serendipitous discovery in that article. I had been wanting a 19th century dictionary definition of socialism, because it wasn't clear why some the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves socialists. And there it is. Now we can see why some of the 19th century individualists anarchists called themselves socialists --nothing to do with abolition of private ownership of the means of production or embrace of collectivist principles: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Thanks a lot! RJII 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

There is a consensus that the Anarchist FAQ can be cited, as long as it is cited openly, and that the FAQ in its entirety supports a summation that they criticise anarcho-capitalists for their approval of capitalism, since the writers of the Anarchist FAQ believe capitalism is coercive, for example wage labor which they refer to as wage slavery, and thus this coerciveness is contrary to the Anarcgiust FAQ writers view of anarchy and is therefore a basis for criticising anarcho capitalism. Regardless of your agreement with that consensus derived position, I would like to know if you will accept that the consensus exists. Steve block talk 13:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Referring to wage labor as "wage slavery" is not the same thing as saying it's "coercive." It's not meant literally. Everyone knows that the individual is free to leave his job without being arrested and forced to work. It's about exploitation, not coercion. RJII 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What everyone knows is beside the point. Do you agree that consensus has agreed that the Anarchist FAQ argues that wage slavery is coercion. This isn't about what you or I think, only what the writers of the Anarchist FAQ, no matter how right or wrong, believe. Our duty is to present information to the reader and let them decide what is right and what is wrong. Find a source which makes the case that wage slavery is exploitative, and amend the text to note that although wage slavery is thought of as explotative, the Anarchist FAQ argue it is coercive. Steve block talk 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't agree that there is a consensus. And, I don't agree that that FAQ says it is coercive. Is that your evidence? That it calls it "wage slavery"? RJII 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you don't agree there is a consensus? Steve block talk 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't see one. RJII 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly helpful. Could you list people who have objected to the above outlined consensual position at Talk:Anarchism. Steve block talk 15:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Me. And the only people I can tell who think the FAQ says wage labor is coercive is Infinity. Then you come along to arbitrate (which I appreciate) and agree, and that makes two. I don't see that as a consensus. RJII 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay... so, do you then object to the following text, including a direct quotation from the FAQ, which would then be a primary source:

• Anarcho-capitalists argue that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. This view has been countered by writers of the Anarchist FAQ,[cite] who believe "that for choice to be real, free agreements and associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination". replacing the statement "Opponents argue that the relationship between workers and employers is a form of authority; anarcho-capitalists disagree, arguing that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) [31] and that it is essential to anarchism for them to be abolished."? I'm going to post this at Talk:Anarchism to get a broad opinion. Steve block talk 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. As long, as we're noting that its the writers of the FAQ that have that opinion. But, still I wonder who actually wrote that statement and whether they're a credible source. It's very unclear who the author is. It was my understanding that a credible source had to have a named author. RJII 18:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not according to WP:RS, which allows primary sourcing of the opinions of a larger like-minded group. Enough people have chipped in that the site is allowable as primary source. Steve block talk 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. RJII 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I'm trying to establish a position both sides are happy with. Infinity0 wants to amend the text; the amendment proposed is at Talk:Anarchism#A compromise position at the bottom of that section. I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the amendment so we can get some sort of consensus and then I will unprotect the page. Steve block talk 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

The page is now currently semi-protected, the state I found it in. I have amended the text to address a spirit of compromise I saw exhibited. I would ask you to respect that text in the short term, and also not to engage in edit warring. Any reversions you wish to make, please use the talk page first to get agreement before making them. Steve block talk 14:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, I'm posting you this notice because I remember you recently editing the Capitalism article. I moved the "criticisms" section and other criticisms embedded in other sections and their responses to Criticisms of capitalism. Atm the ordering of the sections isn't very logical, since all I did was moved separate sections. Please help, and/or comment at Talk:Capitalism#When_to_split_off_criticisms. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

I suggest you take a breath, relax and step back from Anarchism and Talk:Anarchism. Can you source for me the self descrition of the authors of the anarchist faq as "social anarchists"? Steve block talk 19:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism" Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? They whole FAQ is from the perspective of communist/syndicalists. It's very relevant to state what they're POV is, especially since they have no academic qualifications. We agreed to use this is a primary source, so it's needs to be made clear that they're not speaking for ALL anarchists. And, then, not necessarily all "social anarchists" but just the ones that wrote the FAQ. RJII 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker link

Right, sorry... the front page just read like advertising. I guess my disgust triggered my anti-advertising reactions too quickly. =p Infinity0 ^talk 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

You are blocked becasue of your violation of WP:3RR, specifically your removal of the following text:

Similarly, individualist anarchists were also opposed to this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism (but were not opposed to private ownership of the means of production). For example, Benjamin Tucker argued for this distinction to be "wiped out" so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers". He advocated a deregulated market where he felt wages would be driven up to their "natural rate" on four occasions. The violation occurred over the following edits: [3], [4], [5], [6]

I would also ask you to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with regards recent edit summaries and comments on the talk page. If you continue edit warring on this page longer blocks will be considered. Steve block talk 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The guy said "grow up" to me in his edit summary. That's the personal attack. I don't consider my responding, "Who needs to grow up?" as a personal attack. But, at least you blocked him; it was well deserved. But, you blocked me for "vandalism"? What?! [User:RJII|RJII]] 15:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found out on his user page that he's only 16. That explains a lot now. RJII 15:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're blocked for violation of the 3RR. It appears I used the wrong template, and have amended that, I apologise. I will rectify that anon. You have made numerous comments on Talk:Anarchism which to my mind violate WP:CIVIL. I would also note retaliation is no defence.Steve block talk 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should start reporting Infinity for personal attacks and 3RR violations. I feel like such a baby reporting things like that, because I can handle it, but if that's what it takes to keep myself from being blocked maybe that's what I have to do. RJII 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not blocked because of incivility or personal attacks. You are blocked because of violating the three revert rule. I am advising both you and Infinity0 to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Calling someone's edit bunk and a distortion isn't nice, nor is implying someone can't read. But I can accept you don't believe you are being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, I can accept the two of you are robust enough to argue in such terms, I would just advise you to refrain from retaliating or escalating such comments, then you should have nothing to worry about. I hope you will accept my minding you of the two policies as a well meaning attempt to keep the temperature cool. Steve block talk 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. It was definitely getting out of hand with all the back and forth editing. RJII 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am starting an arbitration case against you for violation of NPOV, NPA, and CIVIL. Requests_for_arbitration#RJII (3) Infinity0 ^talk 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'll start one against you as well. RJII 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring at Anarchism

If the edit warring does not cease at Anarchism I will have no option but to block the two participants. Do not blindly revert: discuss and build a compromise at the talk page. Steve block talk 22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Banned from anarchism

I have banned you from Anarchism for two weeks, per your recent arbitration ruling. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally unjustified. You are banning me based on a mere REQUEST for arbitration from "Infinity" who has been edit warring. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? You're out of line, buddy. RJII 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And, then you let that "Infinity" kid who has been causing all the disruption go scot-free. What a joke. How do I appeal this? RJII 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I decided to block you for 48 hours for incivility over there. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What "incivility" are you referring to? I demand proof. RJII 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And, I resent what you put up in the Anarchism talk page: "The user...has edited this page inappropriately." It's not true. RJII 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The admins are often arbitrary in their decisions and or often they listen only to the one first making complaints. In all likelyhood infinity requested assistance first. It has also been my problem that people delete without discussion, insert highly pov unsourced or uncitable material, and delete anything you put in...which causes a great deal of hostility...and then it only gets worse once an admin comes in with a crappy biased ruling and provides no evidence for the course. (Gibby 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Image Tagging Image:CapitalismUnknownIdeal.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CapitalismUnknownIdeal.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

Yes, thank you. By the way, you do good work. Thanks Hmains 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. RJII 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

FDR

Please stop wasting your time and mine by putting your grossly ideological and irrelevant stuff in this article. It will always be deleted, if not by me then by someone else. I don't think you have much understanding of what NPOV means. Adam 22:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time trying to stop me. I'm putting in sourced and important information. Truth is not POV. And, there's more to come. RJII 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Truth most certainly *can* be POV, if facts which advance an ideology are systematically emphasized and those which detract from it are deemphasized. --Jasonuhl 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, that's not what I'm doing. I'm just bringing forth information that isn't in your college textbook. RJII 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Hi, you violated 3RR at anarcho-capitalism. Because you used a deceptive edit summary in the fourth revert I will block you for 48 hours and consider blocking you for up to a year for violating your probation. Cheers, —Ruud 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A "deceptive edit summary"? What?! It was a truthful edit summary. [7] I was noting that I was adding the word "sometimes" as a caeveat so the information could be put in, as was discussed on the article's Talk page! [8] You can only put so much detail in the edit summary. It explained the edit FULLY on the talk page before making it. RJII 04:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm challenging this. I reported infinty's violation, in order to avoid an edit war. It seems whenever I fight back against his disruptions I'm penalized for it, so this time I chose to simply report his violation. And, you're penalizing me now. This is a travesty of justice. I challenge you to provide the diffs proving that I violated the 3RR. RJII 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the diffs at WP:AN/3RR. —Ruud 03:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hhere is what you provided: "Here are the diffs: previous version, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. —Ruud 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)" [9]

Those diffs do not indicate a violation of the 3RR. They clearly show 2 reversion --"3rd" and "4th (that last one is even technically not a reversion --I added the word "sometimes" in the last to help accomodate Infinity's complaints). The 2nd alleged revert is not a revert, but the addition of 4 sources to back up what Infinity deleted. The 1st alleged revert is an insertion of something a full 4 days after it had been deleted!! RJII 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I even left his last edit there in good faith, just so I could avoid edit warring and breaking the 3RR. I was trying my best to do the right thing by reporting the violation instead of edit warring back, as I had done in the past. And, you want to ban me for this?! Who can I appeal this to? RJII 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that from Ruud's Talk page that he's only been an administrator for a few days. Maybe that's why he making this error. Maybe he doesn't understand what reverts are. Also, he should check the article's Talk page. He's dead wrong is saying that I made a "deceptive edit summary" --the edit summary was truthful and I even explained it in more detail on the Talk page before making the edit. RJII 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody give me some assistance here. I've clearly been wronged. RJII 03:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANCE

Please unblock me, as I have improperly blocked by an administrator in regard to the above matter. I clearly did not do what I was accused of. By the way, this came about as a result of ME reporting someone else for violating the 3RR. Thank you. RJII 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon, thanks very much for the unblock! But, it still says I'm blocked when I try to edit. Maybe you did something wrong? RJII 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's working now. Thanks again. I was starting to lose what little faith I had left in the system. RJII 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't get back to you; I was doing this peculiar thing called "sleeping"... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

FDR 2

Don't think I've lost interest. I'm a bit busy atm, but when I get time I will come and remove all your silly edits from this article. Adam 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't put in "silly edits." You need to back off and stop harrassing me. I will continue putting in sourced information. If you want to try to censor it, that's your prerogative. But, mark my words. You won't win. RJII 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Adam 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community. RJII 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community had you indef banned, then you made a sockpuppet, so unless we're talking about a different wikipedia, not sure what you mean--205.188.117.14 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell falsehoods. I'm never been banned for anymore than a like 24 or 48 hours for 3RR and minor things like that. And, you could count them on one hand. I have a great record on Wikipedia for such a heavy editor. RJII 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly the sockpuppet, not the origional--205.188.117.14 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The original? Everyone is an original at the RJII. RJII 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, it seems many people disagree with you, and think many of your edits are POV. Can't you just sit back and realise that maybe, MAYBE, you ARE being too POV? They can't all be wrong. -- infinity0 17:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits aren't POV. They'e truthful and sourced. Nothing POV about that. The problem is that there are a few who would rather certain information be shielded from others, and they can't stand me bringing information to light. And, if you want to talk about POV, look at your own writing. Don't you dare accuse ME of POV pushing. RJII 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop being so defensive. You are on probation FOR POV editing. And since when are POV and truth mutually exclusive? I am trying to help you; you're too stubborn to admit your own mistakes, but to think that everyone else who attacks you is wrong is unrealistic. -- infinity0 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm on probation because a few people got together to try to ban me from Wikipedia because they couldn't get around my honesty and sourcing. They failed. You tried to get me banned as well. You failed. So, you're "trying to help me"?! LOL! I don't need nor want your help, kid. I'm doing just fine. From the look of your recent attempt to become an administrator, it looks like you're the one that needs help. The Wikipedia community overwhelmingly rejects you: Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 RJII 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, for now. If you read the oppose votes most of them are quite helpful, actually. "A few people got together to try to ban me" - and why would they try to ban you if you hadn't done something wrong? -- infinity0 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why else? To prevent me from preventing them from POV pushing. If all other attempts at censorship fail, try to get the person bringing information to light banned. And, if that fails, try to become an administrator. Your attempt to become an administrator failed because the vast majority agrees that you are very disruptive. We in the Wikipedia community don't trust you to hold any power whatsoever. RJII 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you are the only person I have ever been in an edit war with. "To prevent me from preventing them from POV pushing", is a very paranoid attitude, as is thinking my request for adminship was to try to get you banned :S. Read There is no Cabal. -- infinity0 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was rejected for biting vandals and the two 3RRs. Nothing about power abuse. -- infinity0 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look. The Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 clearly shows that you've very disruptive on Wikipedia and you should NOT have administrator power. The consensus is that you would abuse your power. We don't trust you. Case closed. Now stop bugging me. RJII 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Set theory

Set theory. If claims A and B are mutually exclusive, then when P claims A, they do not necessarily claim B. In this case,

• P is me
• A is "AaronS has good judgement".
• B is "The other votes have bad judgement".

A and B are mutually exclusive. Me saying AaronS has good judgement does not mean I say everyone else has bad judgement. -- infinity0 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the word "disruptive" doesn't appear in that text. "abuse" comes up twice, and that is me promising specifically NOT to abuse power. Most of the oppose votes were because of the two recent 3RRs I had with you. -- infinity0 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, can I borrow your time machine? Funny how your "reply" to my second "comment" above has a signature date earlier than my comment. :| -- infinity0 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Look. The Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 clearly shows that you've very disruptive on Wikipedia and you should NOT have administrator power. The consensus is that you would abuse your power. We don't trust you. Case closed. Now stop bugging me. RJII 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And, now you're buddy is trying to become an admin. We can't let that happen. RJII 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

I think you may have the wrong idea about Utilitarianism, which is the leftist view (not that you are a leftist)...its just utilitarianism has been distored from that line "greatest utility to the greatest number"

Basically, and originally, this was achieved through limited government and free trade, not centralized authority and restricted trade (which they would have argued lessened utility to the greatest number and would have benefited fewer people.

Utilitarianism was originally used to argue free markets.

Free market thinkers kind of abadoned it after the hijacking but we still keep one important thing, an understanding of what utility is.

Think about it, do you increase societies happiness by protecting jobs with trade barriers?

Absolutly not, at best society is no better off (But that is assuming zero transaction costs which is an impossibility). Society most certainly improves its utility when you open up to free trade where consumers have the greatest access to the greatest number of goods at the greatest competitive prices.

To them the greatest number benefit and only a few are hurt (aka those who used the coersive arm of government to control and protect their capital through protective measures...)

See utilitarianism aint ALL bad :P(Gibby 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

But, utilitarianism doesn't necessarily protect individual liberty. Mill realized that. That's why he explicitly stated that individual liberty shouldn't be violated. Bentham and Mill are in a different league on this. As far as I know, Bentham never expressed concern about the majority violating individual liberty for the greater good, so to speak. RJII 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well thats because the greater good was free market limited government where the ability, so they would have assumed, to violate individual liberty was extremely limited. Basic violations would simply include the ability for the government to remove peoples ability to coerse one another while also removing the ability of the government to coerse or to protect the coersion of others. If i'm correct on the interpretation Mills' dispute was more rhetorical or then a misunderstanding (or perhaps a realization that this view could be abused...as is what occured.(Gibby 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh and I'm not a utilitarian...i don't believe that free market limited governments will cause much harm, if any at all. If we entered free markets no one will be harmed...as I do not define the loss of ones ability to coerce others as harm, but rather such people are being made equal to others. Thus thoughs who use government to protect and achieve their ends at the expense of others own prefrences (tariffs etc) are not harmed because we end their ability to harm others. Thats not exactly utilitarian but I do believe free markets increase societies utility/happiness (Gibby 07:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Right, I get your point. Utilitarianism COULD align with protecting individual liberty, there's just no necessity that it prescribes protecting it, and that's why it can be dangerous. Utilitarianism says: maximize good consequences for society. That could conceivably requires sacrificing the individual liberty of some for some subjective "greater good." And, that's where welfare liberalism starts coming in. Mill was on the cusp of that turn toward collectivism, but he was still a classical liberal because he did explicitly advocate unviolable individual liberty --which is essentially what classical liberalism is --individualism. RJII 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism tag

Are you ready to remove the top tag from that article? I think it is as good as we'll get it for now, apart from the section I put a npov tag on, which I wish to have someone else's opinion (ie. User:BlackFlag) before we remove that tag. -- infinity0 18:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No way. It's still very much POV. RJII 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Because of a large amount of edits that fail to follow WP:NPOV on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, per your arbitration case, I am going to ban you from editing the aforementioned article for two weeks. Thus, your ban there expires on March 24. You are, of course, allowed to edit its talk page, and are encouraged to engage in discussion regarding your problems with the article. If you violate the ban and edit the article before March 24, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cheers. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally unjustified. The complain came from "infinity" right? The kid that's been edit warring. How do I appeal this? The RJII 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave a note on WP:ANI. The discussion is currently near the bottom of the page. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to look at what infinity has been doing in that article have you? Extreme edit-warring and POV editing without sources. RJII 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity isn't on probation. You are. I'm not going to judge the content dispute; I merely noted that you were on probation for this sort of thing, and did disrupt the article pretty badly.If you have an issue with Infinity's behavior, please follow the proper channels, or contact another admin. I refuse to get any more involved than I am now. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. Because I'm on probation, it's just assumed the complaint is true. It's false. And, I'm going to show it's false by responding to each complaint on that page with evidence. RJII 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

What's up with [10]? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Drunk girlfriend. RJII 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great party! ;-) --AaronS 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, two people one of which was an admin I believe already chastised me for that edit. The Ungovernable Force 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, you're not ungovernable. Don't ever vandalize my user page again. [11] RJII 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just noticed that myself. The situation should be considered dealt with and closed. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it closed. I want justice. RJII 05:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't ever done it again and I agreed it was a bad mistake on my part. Anyway, as I said, two users, User:Adrian and User:Herostratus have already commented on that issue and it is closed and over, as borghunter just said as well (making three). The Ungovernable Force 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment isn't enough. You deserve to be banned. This is the first time I reported it. You just tried to get me banned a few minutes ago. You're out of your mind if you think I'm going to accept your bogus apology (not that it's even an apology). RJII 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the community will consider it adequate, I promise you. You'll waste your energy pursuing this petty matter. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Too late. I've made up my mind to pursue it. He just tried to get me banned. I'm not going to sit back and take his harrassment. RJII 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'm done with this conversation until you can either apologize to me, Aaron and all the rest of us for the myriad of unkind things you have said or until an admin comes knocking at my door. If you want to report me, go ahead, but it was a long time ago and I have never made another edit along those lines towards you or anyone else. Everyone makes mistakes, and the reason I tried to get you banned is because you appeared to be threatening an edit war. Whatever, maybe your girlfriend really did get into your account, but anyway, your threats are just retalliation against my suggestion that you be banned (which you have made clear yourself). And stop accusing me of harassment. The Ungovernable Force 05:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not going to stop accusing you of harrassment. You vandalized my user page with a "fuck you." [12] That's harrassment. Why would I be apologizing to YOU? Get real. RJII 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, and he apologized for it. You might find interacting with other editors easier if you learned to do the same with regard to your own mistakes. --AaronS 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't apologize to ME a long time ago. RJII 23:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you make an issue of it a long time ago? --AaronS 23:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I usually let personal attacks slide. I can handle it. The reason I'm bringing it up now is that he just tried to get me banned. It's called retaliation. RJII 23:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that really a good motivation for making this into a big dispute? --AaronS 23:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You bet. Now there's a record of him making a vandalistic personal attack. I'm happy. Hopefully it will get in the way of any future attempt to become an administrator. RJII 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. First of all, everybody makes personal attacks from time to time -- especially before they learn that, on Wikipedia, it never does any good. I think that Infinity0 has shown that he regrets making the personal attack, and it is clear that he has improved his behavior. A capacity for humility and an eagerness to learn and grow are admirable traits in any person. I don't think that very many people will take your complaint seriously, since it's clear that you aren't making it for the best of reasons. Considering that, along with the fact that past transgressions don't negatively affect an RfA if the editor has changed his or her behavior and remained consistently good for quite some time, I don't think that your plans to block Infinity0's efforts will be successful. --AaronS 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Me? No, it's The Ungovernable Force he's talking about. -- infinity0 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I got confozzled as a result of your recent RfA. What I said still applies, though. --AaronS 23:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Nobody regrets making personal attacks on here for any reason other than it keeps them from getting what they want. It's certainly not out of concern for the other person. Moreover, most people that want to be an administrator have got some serious issues. Aren't there better ways to raise one's self-esteem instead of seeking to wear an administrator badge? That seems like a pretty pathetic way of providing oneself of a sense of mission in life. Maybe infinity will become an adminstrator one day --maybe when he turns 18. But, he's not going to be an administrator while I'm here. When I finish my job, I'm out of here and I won't be back (I'm just tying up loose ends now). You all go on playing your little nerdy games of a make believe society with its own hierarchy, elections, courts, and what not. I won't be part of it. RJII 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My god, it must be so dull getting paid to argue with 16 year olds, eh? -- infinity0 23:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem with Wikipedia. You have to deal with people that don't the same level of background knowledge. Too much effort has to go into educating opposing editors. RJII 23:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

When the master treats the slave well, the slave doesn't want to be free. I pity you. -- infinity0 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Probation ban

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#RJII_placed_on_probation as clarified on RfAr (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#RJII_probation), I am banning you from posting to the Administrators Noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof for a period of three months. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Now I've heard it all. Others can complain about me, but then I can't complain about anyone else. Because I'm on probation, I'm the bad guy without question. Anyone is free to harrass me and vandalize my user page ([13]) with impunity for 3 months. Great system. RJII 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite fair, either, even though I contributed evidence against you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It just goes to show how the whole administration/arbitration thing is a big joke. The system needs reform. RJII 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Probation General Ban

At the same time your ban from AN/ANI was announced, a dialogue was opened on a general ban under your probation. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI. Three administrators: myself, Ral315 (talk), and BorgHunter (talk), have agreed on a two week general ban, and I have set the block. Please take this time to consider carefully your activities on Wikipedia, and how you could avoid further bans. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Power freaks. I've done nothing wrong. I have nothing to consider. Might as well make it a lifetime ban. You administrators have don't have a clue of what you're doing. You've defaulted on your main mission --to keep information from being supressed. I've been relentless in bringing information to Wikipedia that has been supressed. You're part of the problem. RJII 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Essjay has stated no justification for banning me. He has none. RJII 21:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got nothing to consider at all, huh? --AaronS 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not one thing. I fact, I reaffirm everything I've said and done. RJII 21:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad -- I hope for your own sake that you aren't like this in your day-to-day life, too. You seem like an intelligent person, but you're never going to fulfill your true potential if you don't live an examined life. --AaronS 22:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no clue how big of a footprint I've left in Wikipedia. The anarchism articles are just a small part. It couldn't have been accomplished by playing nice guy. The Project is pretty much finished. Next, it's back to the business world where the same tactics apply. RJII 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if you have left a big footprint -- in whatever shape you're being paid to leave it in -- if it fails to live up to encyclopaedic standards, it will be washed away soon. You're building castles in the sand, RJII. --AaronS 22:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are very few here as dedicated to honesty as I am. I don't enter in information that's not sourceable. But, what I've done goes beyond raw information. I've integrated information in a way that wasn't present when I got here (intra-article and inter-article). Wikipedia is more intelligent now, you could say. I've weaved a substantial matrix that's not going to disappear. To the contrary --it will build upon itself, and is doing so as we speak. There's no way you could defeat it. You wouldn't know where to start. And, it's not intellligence for the mere sake of intelligence. There is a purpose. Something is to be acheived by the reality that it shapes, or more properly, that it reveals. RJII 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one second RJII--might as well make it a lifetime ban. I don't know what this project is you keep alluding to, but I have a feeling it has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. The Ungovernable Force 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Being a vandal [14], I don't think you have much credibility. RJII 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, we've all seen that diff a zillion times now. We are aware of it. Give it a bloody rest. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My my, you sure are protective of that guy. RJII 02:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you're harassing him. It's wearing a bit thin. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, RJII. -- infinity0 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban log

Okay, I've noted that the block was overturned myself. [15]. Dmcdevit·t 05:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Source

Find a source that says wages and wage labor are two different things. RJII 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"the specific form of the work relationship which is described by the idea of wage labour" - wage labour is a work relationship, not a method of payment. -- infinity0 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source that says wages paid for labor and wage labor are not the same thing. RJII 17:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking at the screen just so that your blind spot was just where my source was. In any case, the source calls "wage labour" an idea. If "wage labour" is "labour paid for by wages" the source would instead say "the work relationship caused by wage labour." But it doesn't. It acknowledges that wage labour is an idea which describes a work relationship - totally different and separate from just "labour paid for by wages". -- infinity0 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're grasping for straws. The "idea" of wages being paid for labor is the same as the "idea" of wage labor. RJII 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because the "idea of wages being paid for labour" cannot describe a work relationship - it's an idea which describes "wages being paid for labour," which is not a work relationship. -- infinity0 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! RJII 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I greatly admire your usage of "LOL" in ending discussions. -- infinity0 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to that. It was simply a bizarre statement. RJII 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The "idea of wages being paid for labour" is an idea which describes "wages being paid for labour." It is a method of payment, not a social relationship related to work. Wage labour describes the relationship between parties; "wages being paid for labour" is only the economic aspect of that. In other words, "wage labour" includes but is not limited to "wages being paid for labour". They are distinct concepts. -- infinity0 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Say whatever you want, but the fact remain that you have absolutely no sources saying that wages and wage labor are not the same thing. Certainly, if this were true someone, somewhere, would have said that they're not the same thing. But, you're the only one that has said this. This is flawed "original research" on your part. RJII 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The source above says that wage labour and wage are not the same thing. If you want a source that says explicitly, then find me a source saying the sun is not the earth. -- infinity0 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not say that. You're making the claim that wages for labor and wage labor are not the same thing. The terms are used interchangeably. RJII 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not. All the sources I have given use only "wage labour" and not "wages for labour" "labour paid by wages" or any other substitute. -- infinity0 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. "wages for labor" and "wage labor" are not at all the same thing -- the first is the wages, and the second is the work. Why does anyone need a reference when they obviously aren't the same. We might have to argue about "wage labor" and "labor paid (for) by wages", but that's not on the table. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone that can say something conceptually coherent. But, even then, it's still two sides of the same coin. Wages for labor may not be wage labor, but labor for wages is wage labor. And, if a person is paid a wage, it's for labor --that's the whole idea of a wage. Wages and labor are inseperable. RJII 00:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the article should be merged. RJII 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for tendentious editing at An Anarchist FAQ

I've blocked you for 48h for your edting at An Anarchist FAQ as per your arbcomm parole Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#RJII_placed_on_probation. Please take the arbcomm decisions seriously William M. Connolley 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys have go to stop using this "probation" against me. You're just assuming I'm the bad guy because of that. It's absolutely insane. Prove that I have done anything wrong in that article. I'm doing everything in my power to not edit war or do anything improper (per my probation). This is totally unjustified. Should I just edit under another account? This is ridiculous. I demand to know exactly what I did wrong. "Tendentious editing"?! RJII 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOCK.--The Ungovernable Force 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, I'm not one of "those guys". Or am I? Since I dont know what you mean by it, its hard to know.

Your probation: while it exists, take it seriously. We mean that (ah, thats who I am: one of the people who take the arbcomm seriously).

3RR: as far as I can tell, you haven't broken 3RR. But you have most certainly edit warred; you have not done "all in your power" to avoid it. I suggest (seriously) that you swear yourself to WP:1RR as a start.

What you did wrong: I've told you. Part of your problem is that you don't see your behaviour as problematic; thats what got you to and in arbcomm in the first place. Review your edits.

And... if you want to impress people with your desire to be good, "demands" and "insane" are a bad idea. Just a hint. Oh, and evading your probabtion with socks would be a very bad idea: don't do it.

William M. Connolley 19:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean I've edit warred? How have I edit warred on that article? I honestly don't see it. I have not been "edit warring" on that article. Take a look at it. I've been engaging in HEAVY discussion and keeping my edits pretty infrequent --they haven't violated the 3RR or come close to it. I even put an NPOV tag on the article precisely so I wouldn't have to edit war. I thought that's what I was supposed to do. This is crazy --I report someone from being truly disruptive and then I'm banned for it because you're just assuming I'm edit-warring. RJII 19:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Its always a bit of a hint if you and essentially one other editor are editing, and you think the other has broken 3RR. Even if you haven't, technically, you are still edit warring. I'm afraid that you lack of critical self-examination, or self-conciousness, seems to me to be exactly the sort of behaviour that brought on your arbcomm William M. Connolley 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're the one guilty of inadequate examination. You're just assuming that I'm edit warring on that article. I reported infinity0 for violating 3RR to AVOID edit warring. It's clear to anyone who examines the article that I am not "edit warring." I am engaging in heavy discussion with intermittent edits that are sourced. RJII 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you said you were blocking me from that article, but you've blocked me from editing all of Wikipedia. RJII 21:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What's more is I've been blocked from Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents so I can't even report a disruptor or respond to any accusations from someone that accuses me of something (no reason was ever stated --all i did was respond to a false accusation from infinity0). You guys are paralyzing me without justifiable reason. I've been an extremely valuable asset to Wikipedia and I want to continue contributing. You're tying my hands up so I can't do anything. If there's nothing concrete to accuse me of, there is always "tendentious editing." It make no sense. You're working counter to the aims of the encyclopedia by what you're doing to me. I'm here to provide information and have provided a VOLUMINOUS amount of information and intelligent integration of that information to the encyclopedia. If you're trying to drive me off Wikipedia you're doing a good job. (and by "you guys" I mean administrators) RJII 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were also banned for posting a month old vandalism charge on my part to the WP:AN/I to retaliate against me, after an admin had already told you not to post it to AN/I. I'm sure you haven't forgotten that yet. The Ungovernable Force 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that William M. Connolley 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SO, I REPORT SOMEONE FOR BEING DISRUPTIVE BY VIOLATING THE 3RR RULE AND REPETITIVE VANDALIZING OF A DISCUSSION PAGE, AND I'M THE ONE THAT GETS BANNED FOR 48 HOURS AND HE GOES FREE??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM??? STOP USING THE "PROBATION" AGAINST ME. "TENDENTIOUS EDITING" IS VAGUE. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY CAREFUL THAT EVERYTHING I PUT INTO AN ARTICLE CAN BE SOURCED AND THAT I WRITE IN AN NPOV MANNER. YOU HAVE CRIPPLED MY ABILITY TO EDIT ARTICLES. NO MATTER WHAT I DO, I'M DAMNED. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE ALL HE HAS TO DO IS POINT OUT TO AN ADMINISTRATOR THAT I'M ON PROBATION AND ACCUSE ME OF "POV" AND A BLOCK GOES ON. I DEMAND THAT MY PROBATION BE LIFTED. YOU CANNOT EXPECT AN EDITOR TO WORK UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. RJII 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't shout if I were you. It only makes things worse. From email: you don't seem to understand: the block is for your behaviour on the anarchist article, but applies to all articles. William M. Connolley 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What "behaviour"? That's the question. I was editing that article to the best of my ability by sourcing and sticking with NPOV (which I have always done in my history on Wikipedia) and not violating the 3RR. Show me what behaviour you're talking about. What did I do wrong? If I am banned for how I edited that aritcle, I don't understand how I can edit Wikipedia. What did I do wrong? As far as I can tell, you just banned me by assuming I was edit-warring because I reported infinity0 for the 3RR and deleting my comments from the Discussion page. But, I reported him to prevent an edit war. RJII 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought --nothing. I didn't do anything improper. RJII 23:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A friendly offer

RJII, I'd like to have a serious talk with you. We have been going against each other for the past few months, and I don't think it's doing any good. If we got to know each other better we might be able to work together more easily. Are you willing to have a friendly chat with me, say on IRC? -- infinity0 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You've been using my probation against me to try to get me banned when you have been engaging in edit warring; and unfortunately most administrators fall for it. We nothing to talk about. I'm not going to relent on trying to make sure articles contain all relevant information and are NPOV. Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned, but it would be a disgrace to you and a disgrace to the Wikipedia mission. RJII 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Only because you have been ignoring it like it doesn't exist. I am willing to start afresh, if you are. Could you consider giving it a try? If we knew each other better we might hesitate to be so nasty to each other all the time. -- infinity0 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No I have not been ignoring it like it doesn't exist. I've been very careful to make sure everything I put in an article is sourceable (as I always have, which is why the probation for was unjustified (other than maybe for "personal attacks")). You're just trying to get rid of me because you don't like the information that I'm putting in the articles. You fight tooth and nail against SOURCED information, consistently. Then you go run to administrators and claim I'm pushing "POV" in hopes of getting me banned from Wikipeda because you know there is this vague probation against me for "tendentious editing." Now, I'm banned from Administrator's noticeboards so I can't even defend myself from your bogus claims. And, I'm sure you'll take full advantage of that. RJII 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to get rid of you. I'm making this offer so that we can edit together withOUT having to go through constant heavy disagreement. You really need to be more self-critical. Stop thinking you're right all the time. Your banning from the Administrator's noticeboard had nothing to do with me, frankly. I didn't even comment to support it. -- infinity0 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just stay the hell away from me. RJII 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm always going to be here, whether you like it or not, and you're always going to be here, whether I like it or not. So why not try this out? You've tried out this "competition" thing, why not try co-operation? -- infinity0 12:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Try what out? You try it out. Stop trying to take advantage of my "probation" (which I should not be on) by trying to get me banned from Wikipedia just because you don't like the sourced information I put in an article. RJII 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, other editors don't like what you write so it's their fault. Could you think on the possibility that there is something wrong with what you write? Let's try the different approach that I suggested above - co-operation instead of competition. -- infinity0 23:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What "other editors"? You and a few others with who apparently have a similar POV. I put in sourced/sourceable information and write in an NPOV manner. Whether anyone "likes" the information it or not should not matter. You're the one that needs to start "cooperating" by being ethical instead of trying to get me blocked just because you don't "like" the information I bring in. RJII 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to cooperate with Infinity? They're trying to make an effort to work with you and all you can do is criticize. Maybe if you tried to work on a solution to your conflict, Infinity would not report you so often for violating probation. Just a thought. The Ungovernable Force 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to "cooperate" with him. After what he has done to me I have zero respect for him. I'm supposed to turn around and pretend that he's my friend? I don't trust him one bit. What he needs to do is start behaving ethically. (And, the same goes for you. I never even received an apology from you for vandalizing my user page with profanity. So, both of you guys need to back off.) RJII 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you rather do: attempt to resolve your differences with Infinity or engage in a perpetual edit war with them? Because those seem to be your only options.--The Ungovernable Force 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want you messaging me. Do you understand? You vandalized my user page with profanity [16] and never apologized for it. I don't believe for a second that you have my best interests in mind. Stay out of my affairs. Thank you. RJII 04:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that must be the most linked diff on all of wikipedia now! BTW, I did apologize:

I haven't ever done it again and I agreed it was a bad mistake on my part. Anyway, as I said, two users, User:Adrian and User:Herostratus have already commented on that issue and it is closed and over, as borghunter just said as well (making three). The Ungovernable Force 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You even acknowledged it:[17]. Whether you considered it sincere or not, you admitted that I apologized. How do you expect to contribute to this encyclopedia if you aren't even willing to try and solve problems with other users? This is a fair question. The Ungovernable Force 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I forgot. You did apologize after being coaxed by an administrator. You didn't apologize on your own. I don't think you're sincere, at all. You've even been contemplating initiating more harrassment against me, as is indicated on your talk page [18] in your conversation with infinity0, which proves to me that you're not sincere. So, let's just part ways here. I don't want nor need your advice. So long. RJII 05:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[19]. And take a closer look at my userpage because nothing there supports your claim that I'm contemplating harassment--I am saying that my edits were not harassment and were totally justified. You need to be responsible for you edits and I frankly don't understand why you are so unwilling to even consider working things out with Infinity or myself. The Ungovernable Force 05:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to work out. Just stop harrassing me. Edit the encyclopedia like a responsible person and leave me alone. RJII 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite your apparent righteous indignation, RJII, no amount of accusing other editors of irresponsibility, malevolence, or bad faith will change the fact that it is your behavior, not the behavior of the vast legions of "commies" out to get you (I find it interesting that you think that we all have a similar point of view; I can assure you that I am not an anarcho-communist or anything close to a communist), that is causing this rather silly wikidrama. You have made no effort to change your perspective or attitude, which has resulted in many people becoming fed up with your bully tactics and swagger. I suggest that you take to heart the concerns and criticisms of your peers and attempt to view them as human beings as opposed to ideological enemies. --AaronS 13:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It doens't have as much to do with ideology, as about 2 or 3 people doing everything unethical they can to prevent sourced information from appearing. And, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You and your buddy infinity need to start behaving like responsible editors. If something is sourced, especially sourced by multiple sources, it needs to be allow it in, instead of complaining to administrators, filing arbitration cases, etc, etc. All I can say is thank God that both of your requests to become administrators failed. RJII 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Karma, RJII. You caused many people a hell of a lot of stress, such as User:Firebug. You ever thought about that? Now, though, I'm willing to end this. As I said before, if we get to know each other personally, we'll find it easier to understand each other and therefore work with each other. You don't have to pretend I'm your friend, just don't think of me as an enemy. -- infinity0 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to know you "personally." All, I desire is that you stop the harrassment and behave ethically instead of what you have been doing. And, what do you mean I caused firebug "a hell of a lot of stress"? What kind of bogus claims are you coming up with now? Don't you dare talk to me about "karma." There was reason that your request for adminiship failed by overwhelming votes against you. You have not been a responsible editor. Quite to the contrary, you've been extremely unethical and disruptive. Don't try to twist it around. RJII 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt any run for adminship on your part would end any better than Infinity's. At least infinity has tried to settle disputes, whereas you just want to keep them going. The Ungovernable Force 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to be an adminstrator. I've got plenty of self-esteem without that title, thank you. I'm not keeping any dispute going. The only thing that can stop the disputes is to stop trying to prevent me from putting sourced information in articles. For instance, I've been enganged in a dispute for quite awhile now with infinity in the An Anarchist FAQ article. Among other things, I'm trying to let it be known that the Anarchist FAQ was written by social anarchists and he's fighting from that being made known. And, he's been fighting it in the face of a direct quote from the FAQ: "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." Now, he's relented a bit by allowing "mostly social anarchists" though he has no evidence that it was written by anyone other than social anarchists. He engages in this kind of behavior in one article after another. Then he tries to get me blocked over it, because there's no other way for him to fight the reality of the sourced information I present. So, don't be surprised if he posts to the Administator's Noticeboard that I'm "POV pushing" and that I'm blocked as result of gullible adminstrators falling for it (especially since I'm even blocked from responding and defending myself against his accusations on the Noticeboard.) RJII 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what the dispute is about because in case you haven't noticed, I have not been active with edit (warring) on anarchism articles recently because I don't want to be a part of it any more. I'm merely upset that when the person you are edit warring with makes what seems like an honest effort to get to know you (and thus decrease the likelyhood of an edit war) you turn them down. Put that stuff behind you, it's in the past. You can't seem to let go to anything. Editing peacefully is more important than proving everyone is out to get you. Just give Infinity a chance. If they continue edit warring after you try his solution proposal, then you can get upset an all that, but for now just try it. Also, you have made bogus complaints on AN as well, which was also a reason you were blocked from there, so please do try and look at your own behavior as well because no one is perfect. The Ungovernable Force 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you're making bogus claims about me. I was not blocked from Administrator's Noticeboard for making "bogus complaints." No reason was ever given for the block. My guess is that someone saw I was on probation (which I shouldn't be on) and so assumed I was a bad guy and therefore should not be allowed to contest accusations. You need to get your facts straight before you start throwing accusations around. RJII 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was a discussion and two diffs were provided as to why you were blocked, including your posting of my month-old vandalism diff to get me blocked, after already being told by BorgHunter that it would be a waste of time. I will find the page later because I have to get going. (From The Ungovernable Force, but I'm not logged in) 165.196.83.160 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The block was unjustified. There was no statement on why I was blocked. And, I should have a right to complain about you vandalizing my user page and seek remedial action. You got away with a clear case of abusive vandalism. RJII 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Informal comments from an observer

I've been casually following some of this wikidrama and I hope that I can offer some constructive comments to persons involved. While I think that RJII should keep cool it also looks to me that he has not received entirely fair treatment from some admins recently. I suggest that they also review the situation and see that it might not be hard for someone in RJII's position to feel somewhat ganged up on. I am not really involved enough to make more specific comments than that. Sincerely, Heqs 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Fortunately, a few people understand what is really going on here. Unfortunately, the administrators couldn't care less. RJII 23:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some do. You don't exactly make it easy, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. RJII 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments like yours don't make it easy for people like me to take messages like the one you left on my talk page seriously. For instance, your edit was reverted because the spelling was atrocious, it was filled with weasel words, had no citations or verifiability, and now, I find out, you're on ArbCom probation. Not all edits need an explanation. In your case I feel it was obvious. Good day. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: That was for me. He's upset that I posted a message on his Talk page requesting that he explain his reverts. [20] (This was the revert: [21]) Notice the comment "now I find out, you're on Arbcom probation" --this is the kind of treatment I get because of that ridiculous probation. I did nothing wrong --requesting that someone justify their reversions is a very reasonable and proper request. RJII 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, you deserve to be on probation? It isn't easy to put someone on probation from what I can tell. The Ungovernable Force 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I've considered the possibility. But, after weighing the facts, I'm confident that the judgement was wrong. It was claimed I engaged in "original research" when that was NEVER shown to be the case. No sources were ever requested by any of the arbitratrors to verify the claim of "original research" from those trying to censor me --which was extremely irresponsible of them. I don't enter information in Wikipedia that I do not link a source to, or that I can bring up a source for quickly if someone requests one. I'm on probation for "tendentious editing," which is ridiculous. Anyone can claim I'm engaging in it, and there's no concrete definition of what that is, and I can be banned for it (for "up to a year"). You can see just above where I was banned for 48 hours for "tendentious editing" on An Anarchist FAQ but the administrator who banned me could not tell me that I did wrong. I'm on probabation because a couple people wanted to try to get me banned from Wikipedia, because they couldn't get around my sourced information. Now, that probation is being exploited by anyone who doesn't like information I put in an article. I work in controvesial subject areas, so naturally people are going to get upset when some information conflicts with their POV. What's not excusable in using my probation in the unethical way it's being used to try to censor me. I should be taken off probation, so that I can edit without wondering if I'm going to be banned for what I'm doing out of fear that it's going to be construed as "tendentious editing." Then, you come along and vandalize my user page --I complain about it and I'm the one that gets banned because they find out that I'm on this silly and meaningless "probation." I complain about infinity for violating the 3RR and deleting my comments from an article's discussion page, and I'm the one that gets blocked when the administrator finds out I'm on "probation." The list goes on... RJII 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what original research or NPOV are. Either that, or you do and willfully ignore them. You yourself have admitted -- nay, promoted the idea, even -- that the most "ethical" (as you seem fond of this term) way to edit is to push one POV while others fight back with their own. The result, you argued, would be a neutral article. So, what POV are you pushing? Or do you not follow this "ethical" schema? --AaronS 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said that. I said that when people contest each other's POV that the result is a well-sourced article. By "contest," I mean requesting sources and deleting information that is not sourceable. If there is one side pushing a POV (and there will always be POV pushing on Wikipedia) then the article quality is going to suffer. If there is someone with an opposing POV contests what the other is putting in an article, then the quality of the article is going to go up through the addition of sources and deletion of unsourceable material. That's how Wikipedia works to create quality articles. The problem arises when someone refuses to accept sourced information - especially when they resort to try to get the person putting the information in banned from Wikipedia in order to pretend the information doesn't exist. (Moreover, I find it really interesting that I was put on "probation" for "original research" and "tendentious editing" when pretty much all the information (other than inconsequential minutia) I put in Wikipedia during that time is still there to this day and is being built upon as we speak). RJII 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An Anarchist FAQ

In an effort to remove the npov tag, I hope you can express your opinion on the article version represented in this link at the talk page. Thanks. Steve block talk 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Source spamming

Please don't spam one source you found which supports your view into all the articles you deem relevant - they are filled with enough citations already; and your addition right at the start of the section, displacing the other content, is undue weight. -- infinity0 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. I can put any relevant credible source I want in any article I want. Stop fighting against sourced information -doing so maintains a false reality. RJII 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read and understand the wikipedia policy on NPOV, and undue weight. Adding the sources the way you are doing is violating that and gives readers false impressions. -- infinity0 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, get off my back. I an not violating any policy by putting a source in article. RJII 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are violating undue weight with your selective citation of one view. For example, in "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" you added a source you found yesterday to the introduction, which was unneeded as there was already a source there with the same view. You also added a link to an anti-socialist essay to that article, which was already used as a referece within the article. Also, please stop making weasel edits, such as removing "by the people" from Socialism. -- infinity0 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not violating "undue weight." You're violating NPOV by deleting sources when you don't like what they say. There was no source in that article saying that anarcho-capitalism is a recognized form of anarchism. This is the mainstream view. Stop trying to overshadow scholary views with the views of radical anti-capitalist anarchists. And, stop being disruptive. RJII 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sources when they give undue weight to a certain view is not violating NPOV. Please stop selectively inserting sources. Inserting sources does not make your edits automatically NPOV - how and where you insert them needs to be taken into consideration. There is already plenty of sources in that article. Please do not give that opinion undue weight by over-sourcing it. -- infinity0 14:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Using one source to represent the truth is also undue weight, RJII. You do not give the context and what he means by "recognised"; you are inferring your own interpretation and misrepresenting the source, as well as over-citing sources. -- infinity0 14:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do give the context. I give the fuller quote in the reference list which obviously you haven't even bothered to look at. Stop violating "undue weight" by censoring source that are not radical anti-capitalists. These anarchist articles need more mainstream opinions from scholars. Stop violating NPOV. RJII 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the "fuller quote". That is one sentence. There is already a source from Carl Levy, who isn't a radical. You are giving undue weight by inserting that source, because it is not needed in the article. The introduction is fine without the source. By inserting it straight into the beginning is undue weight, because you push to the front line one single source, which may be heavily disagreed with. Again, I suggest that you read and understand NPOV policy, especially undue weight. The way you are presenting information, even though it is sourced, violates undue weight precisely because you are inserting it in an inappropriate place, and in an unnecessary manner. -- infinity0 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the NPOV policy. You're violating it. Don't try to twist this around. There are 4 anti-anarcho-capitalist source in the intro. With my addition there are now 2 sources in support of anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism. You need to pay more attention. RJII 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits just to make a point [22] [23]. You "additional note to readers" is especially unneeded as the source is on the article already. -- infinity0 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have explained very thoroughly why your insertion is undue weight. Your adamant denial of reason and your retaliatory accusation is illogical unsupported. Your source is in the wrong place and similarly your justification of the numbers shows that you don't understand undue weight. This is not an equal numbers ratio. Appropriate weight is given to the majority and minority views. -- infinity0 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one violating NPOV and undue weight. You're deleting a source from scholar and leaving in at least 4 sources from radical anti-anarcho-capitalists and only 1 source that says anarcho-capitalism is indeed anarchism. The sources you choose are obviously not reliable since they're opposed to anarcho-capitalism in the first place. You need to review our policies about sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight. RJII 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a fallacy. You are suggesting that everyone who thinks a-c isn't anarchism is biased; but you ignore the counter-argument of the vice-versa scenario. You are also suggesting an opinion from a scholar is more relevant than an opinion from an actual anarchist in an article on anarcho-capitalism. A source from a scholar is a false appeal to authority. You say "social sciences" scholar as if that makes him qualified and unbiased to comment on anarchism. His page doesn't even mention social sciences; and that subject spans not just anarchism, so he may not be an expert on anarchism. -- infinity0 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He certainly is an expert on anarchism. That's why his article was chosen for the Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy in the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy series. He's a professor in Philosophy from the Research School of Social Sciences at Australian Nation University in Canberra. So, you have no leg to stand on. RJII 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, 1 of the supposedly "anti" references is a mere etymological dictionary definition. 3-to-1 is a good enough ratio; in the real world anarchists outnumber a-capitalists by a far greater ratio.

You're deleting sources and leaving the intro of the article unbalanced from POV perspective. You delete all but one source saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and leave in at least 4 sources from anti-anarcho-capitalists disparaging anarcho-capitalism. That's very POV. Please review our NPOV policy. Now, stop bugging me. Thank you. RJII 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make weasel edits like this one: - [24]. You know very well that wording is POV and weaselly. Please stop repeating your arguments, such as the reply above. I have answered them thoroughly and shown why your insertion of that source is undue weight. Please stop dodging the point, and realise and understand it, and change your behaviour accordingly. Please stop making those kind of edits. -- infinity0 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, my wording is not "POV and weaselly." My wording is NPOV and I provided a very credible mainstream source, unlike that shoddy sources you provide like the "Anarchist FAQ". Stop deleting sourced information and making articles POV. RJII 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating the same things over and over again. Perhaps you missed my last reply; here are the points:

• You are suggesting that everyone who thinks a-c isn't anarchism is biased; but you ignore the counter-argument of the vice-versa scenario.
• You are also suggesting an opinion from a scholar is more relevant than an opinion from an actual anarchist in an article on anarcho-capitalism.
• 1 of the supposedly "anti" references is a mere etymological dictionary definition. 3-to-1 is a good enough ratio; in the real world anarchists outnumber a-capitalists by a far greater ratio.

[25] - this edit is weaselly. It serves only to attack the FAQ, and gives no useful information to the reader whatsoever. -- infinity0 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not "weasely." It's a true statement. Stop hiding the truth by deleting information. You do that a lot. RJII 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Denial of "weaselly" with nothing to back it up. Your edit is a true statement which implies more than it says - that is where the POV and weaselly lies. A true statement is not necessarily NPOV, since readers are not machines and infer more from the statement that a statement actually says. Do you understand this? Since you are not responding to my points, please stop making those kinds of edits. -- infinity0 15:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn how to edit NPOV. Obviously you have a very flawed interpretation of NPOV. I suggest you review our policies, since, you're the one violating the policies --not me. RJII 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring my points. Please answer my points or ceasing editing in the manner they describe. -- infinity0 15:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed all your points. They are wholly without merit, as I have shown. RJII 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have bolded the points you have ignored. Please stop ignoring people when they point out major flaws in your editing. -- infinity0 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your "points" are non-points. I have already shown them to be so. They show a patent ignorance of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Please review those policies so you can learn to become a more NPOV editor. Thank you. RJII 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are they non-points? You have not answered any of them, instead continuing to ignore them and adamantly stating that you are in the right. -- infinity0 15:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed answered them. Please re-read all the above. You've been flagrantly violating Wikipedia NPOV policy by deleting sourced information --and from very credible sources at that. You're edits are highly POV, and your sourcing is terrible, and you engage in "undue weight." Please review our policy on NPOV. Thank you. RJII 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you're lucky I haven't filed an arbitration case against you about all the POV pushing of yours by deleting sourced information. Maybe I should. RJII 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideal lead

Please have a think about submitting your ideal lead for the article An Anarchist FAQ to the talk page, remembering the three key policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Steve block talk 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. RJII 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I'm allowing a lot of leeway here, but I want to remind you of assuming good faith, resolving disputes, WP:3RR and edit warring. Take a look at the history of An Anarchist FAQ and have a think about how your actions and edits could be viewed. Steve block talk 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Laissez-faire

Which portions do you dispute, so I may obtain the relevant citation? Do you really believe that I need a citation to prove that China controls its industries? If so, I will provide it there. Quoting Friedman is to much a promotion of his theories which are not the only ones out there and I dispute much of his rhetoric; as mere speculative nonsense that has been proven wrong over and over again by history and by the wholesale sale of our children's capacity to own their own future. Let me know which you dispute so that I may provide the citation. Good work by the way on what you have done so far, other than some of the Friedman promotion. --Northmeister 03:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like a source showing that the Chinese government "controls or owns" the industries in Hong Kong. It's a false statement. That government controls industry less than the US government controls industry. Hong Kong has been allowed a lot of autonomy and has a very laissez-faire economy. Also, I'd like a source for your claim that those conservative/welfare state systems "resulted in economic 'miracles' of industrial growth general well being across their respective societies." "Miracles" is very POV, you know? RJII 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I concede on Hong Kong; although that is a veneer on the Chinese governments part and Hong Kong became successful while still a colony of Britain and from sale in the USA. On the economic miracles portion, the sentences need cleaning up or copy-editing still which I will do; and your right 'miracles' is a POV word and another should replace it. But I will provide sources for Japan, Germany, France, and USA economic growths during the same period of that in France was called the "Thirty Glorious Years" prior to 1970's-1980's laissez-faire drives. --Northmeister 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to provide sources that there was economic growth in the long term. Of course there was. The question is whether there would have been more growth had there been laissez-faire. And, that's something we can never know with certainty in retrospect. So, it shouldn't be pushed that intervention was the cause of economic growth --because you can't prove that either. RJII 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the sources ready but I think the way that it is now is fine. Just as a side note; if you look to France, Germany, and Japan today who have pretty much kept much of their economic interventionism and then look to the United States which has not (especially regarding trade); you will see two trends. Where those countries are economically strong in a long-term sense; our nation is not. Had we followed the advice of our own history (1861-1929) while adding later developments by FDR in the New Deal and using the MITI system of Japan - Dirigisme of France - and some points of Social Market in Germany - America would be able to hand the ownership of the country to our children and would not be suffering massive debt and welfare burdens. Whether Colbert of France, Mercantilism of Elizabeth I, American System of Lincoln, McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt; intervention and protection have shown historically to grow nations; whereas free-trade and laissez-faire create 'third-world' nations with more wealth to the few, destruction of the middle class/working class, and creation of a poor class unable to save. Modern Germany, Japan, and France (under Dirigisme) offer the solution, collectively with our Lincoln, Hamilton, Carey, McKinely, and Progressive T. Roosevelt's 'New Nationalism' approach. History is the great teacher; of good and failed policy; if we only listen and learn. God help us if my country continues on this insane laissez-faire privatization whole-sale sell-off of our children's right to create, own their own resources and country. Sorry, just a side note that doesn't have much to do with the article at hand. --Northmeister 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like your opinion in the present dispute between Will Beback and myself. The thing I find most wrong is outright deletion of material without going through discussion. As you can see above, I am more than fair and admit to a point made as I did with you about Hong Kong. Will Beback has a history interrupting editing in this manner and then contributes nothing of substance to the article. Maybe you agree with his assertions or not; but I need your input on that which he disputes - so I can answers specific disputations rather than a broad 'everything you added' needs a source. Could you weigh in and add your opinion even if you agree with Will Beback so that I know which edits are in question to answer to? --Northmeister 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out. RJII 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Northmeister 19:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

For these edits, which constitutes being markedly discourteous to other users in violation of this ArbCom ruling, you are blocked for 24 hours. Feel free to continue editing after the block expires, but please try to be more civil in future. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That's ridiculous! There is nothing uncivil or "discourteous" about that, at all --and it was almost a week ago. I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. Every little thing I do is being scrutinized to such an insane degree. It's absurd. That probation against me really needs to be lifted, because it's clearly being abused to persecute me for no good reason. (You guys need to stop falling for infinity0's tactic of taking advantage of my probation by complaining to unsuspecting administrators). You "adminstrators" are determined to drive "RJII" off of Wikipedia yet, aren't you? Don't be surprised if RJII doesn't show up one day. RJII 03:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to 3o

I see some of your points, but really, the amount of citing you are doing, while commendable ion some places, *comes across* here as POV pushing; lighten up on it a bit and your work will be perceived with much greater credibility. Also, I am not amused by the popup-spam link on your user page.Bridesmill 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, but I think you have it wrong. My contributions toward NPOV'ing the articles I've dealt with on this encyclopedia have been enormous. If bringing information to the table that some would like to keep hidden under it is "POV pushing" so be it; without that information the enyclopedia is not as truly NPOV and valuable as it could be. Probably the greatest thing about Wikipedia is there is no requirement to be politically correct --all notable viewpoints are permissible. Though, apparently, some would prefer there to be such a policy and seek to censor all information that conflicts with their established, and socially approved (and peer approved), belief system. Those are the individuals an iconoclast like me has to wrangle with, in a days work, to get the information out there --so that humanity can benefit from the information it's been missing due to it having been controlled and filtered by the self-imposed authorities. I'm not going to "lighten up" one bit. I'm what Wikipedia is all about. RJII 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And you aren't reading what I wrote - I'm not arguing that you are publishing or what you are publishing - it's the link-spamming of the references that doesn't help further your cause (or the link-spamming on your user page). Curiously, WP is in itself a reasonably successful iconoclast - and making it the target of iconoclasm - well, that would actually make you a friend of 'the man' then, wouldn't it? Bridesmill 20:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming of what references? I don't know what you're talking about. RJII 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems to cite your wonderful contributions as much as you do, RJII. Lots of people do well on Wikipedia and are commended for it and recognized for it. There is no conspiracy. --AaronS 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RJ, sorry if you don't understand. I'm talking about you citing the same ref a gadzillion times and not using any other refs. You can't talk about how great something is and only use itself as a ref. And if you do, you shouldn't overdo it. Just trying to help. But if you don't want input then why ask for 3ro?Bridesmill 17:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There must be a misunderstanding. I haven't been using that FAQ as a reference to how "great it is." I've been using it as a reference for it being written by "social anarchists." I'm the one who has been making sure that the FAQ is not used as a secondary source. And, I haven't asked for "3ro" as far as I know. I don't even know what "3ro" is. RJII 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mushroom that buys a round of drinks

I have enjoyed your clashes with Infinity0, which I've just stumbled across. For what it's worth, I think you're right, in the main, but in my experience leavening ones approach with a little humour works wonders. Keep up the good work. ElectricRay 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. RJII 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

So, what do you mean by it's not an editorial? You keep hopping over there and editing it.. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references Neat and under those circumstances it should not be there -- max rspct leave a message 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar

On your page you have this quote:
:'Wolves which batten upon lambs, lambs consumed by wolves, the strong who immolate the weak, the weak victims of the strong: there you have Nature, there you have her intentions, there you have her scheme: a perpetual action and reaction, a host of vices, a host of virtues, in one word, a perfect equilibrium resulting from the equality of good and evil on earth."' -Marquis de Sade

Although I agree completely with the sentiments of De Sade's statement, was he suggesting that wolves are evil and lambs good? Kind of questionable for a point in his assertion of good and evil on earth. I get the point. I just don't get the 'wolves and lambs' thing as an argument for his statement. The only good or evil that I can find on earth came with the evolution or invention of people. thewolfstar 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That is his premise, of sorts --that wolves are evil and lambs are virtuous. He makes no real moral distinction between a wolf disembowling a man, or a man eviscerating another man. Both instances are examples of the way of Nature. Now, he's using the terms "vice" and "virtue" in a polemical way. Violence and savagery is evil, and civility and tenderness is virtuous --simply by popular understanding. In a more fundamental sense, he doesn't hold that some things are good and some are evil but that "what is, is right" --whatever happens is in accordance with Natural law --nature can never be subverted. If Nature opposed man to committing "evil" against other men, then it would not have put that desire in man. Hence, "We are no guiltier in following the primative impulses that govern us than is the Nile for her floods or the sea for her waves." Fundamental to the function of the universe are the practices of both "vice" and "virtue" --without both of these, the universe would cease to function. And, whatever man does is as much in accord with "natural law" as is what wolves do. And, from observation of what happens in Nature, Sade concludes that "natural law" prescribes that the strong dominate or immolate the weak. RJII 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

American Liberalism

Hi there. I think you should slow down a bit on all the tagging and proposed moving of the article. Let us use the talk page to discuss what needs to be done first before we got slapping tags all over. I realize you are frustrated. I want to explain that Classical Liberalism is a specific set of beliefs that is seperate from Progressive Liberalism. HOWEVER, American Liberalism deals soley with the liberalist movements and style of liberalism in the United States. I think that expanding the article is a good idea. And I also think that you are a little confused about what Classical Liberalism really is. American Liberalism, as put forth by our founding fathers is based on Classical Liberalsm. In our articles we don't seek the mention every single person who might have a different view on the specific brand of liberalism. Instead we aim to provide an accurate overview of what American Liberalism deals with at the core. If you have any questions, ask before you do anything or I might have to ask that we get an admin to help us out. I know you're concerned and i'm excited to work with you :) --Shawn 02:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Liberalism" is a very broad philosophy that includes classical and modern/social forms --whether in America or anywhere else. Confining discussion of liberalism in America to only modern/social liberalism makes no sense at all, unless the title of the article confines itself to that. Do you dispute that people who called themselves "liberals" prior to Roosevelt were American liberals? They opposed the welfare state. They are as much American liberals as social/modern liberals but have a different philosophy. And, classical liberals still exist in America. RJII 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you might have inadvertantly misinterpreted my words. you can't really divide "Classical Liberals" from "Modern Liberals." Classical doesn't mean old liberals. It's a specific ideology that is incorporated into American Liberalism, of which the article American Liberalism could use more commentary on. Further, the term "American Liberalism" isn't meant to encompass ALL forms of Liberalism in the United States. It is a specific name. Just as American Justice doesn't encompass all forms of Justice or does American Conservatism encompass all forms of Conservatism. I'm not trying to exclude any information, I am trying to define what American Liberalism is. And this is not a "List of American Liberalist Sects" it is a specific sect of liberalism in the united states--Shawn 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that classical liberalism is under the umbrella of modern/social liberalism. That's my point. Liberalism includes both forms of liberalism. But, read the intro of the article. It defines American liberalism as modern/social liberalism is defined. It is excluding non-social liberalism in America. RJII 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion back to the Talk:American liberalism page, ok? --Shawn 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been opened on you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2. -- infinity0 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I have better things to do. This is just another one of your attempts to get rid of me for my insisting on NPOV and credible sources. Good luck. RJII 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding An Anarchist FAQ as a source for other articles; I'm not sure why it follows that "It's not a credible secondary source by Wikipedia standards as far as being qualified to comment on the work of anarchist philosophers." 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? You might want to argue that it is better to cite the published view of a named scholar rather than a fluid internet FAQ, but that doesn't mean the FAQ is inherently unusable. If there is a split within the anarchist movement over a topic you could cite both groups and describe their differing views. If there are articles where the opinions of different political philosophies are given, it seems to me to be reasonable to use it the AF to illustrate what this group of anarchists thinks about the topic. I think that is well within the spirit of the section of RS that you quoted, although I would still prefer that the reference be to a dated archival version, though. I'm not sure how the AF is being used elsewhere on wikipedia that bothers you so much. Thatcher131 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been dealing with a user "BlackFlag." When he puts original research in an article, I request a source for it. So, he goes and puts the original research into the FAQ then comes back and cites it. Apparently, he helps run the geocities.com site that hosts the primary version of the FAQ. The FAQ is not a credible source to comment on anarchism. Read the Wikipedia policy [26] --the sections about personal and partisan websites. Fortunately, that policy protects from this sort of thing. It cannot be used as a secondary source. RJII 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the Anarchist FAQ a compendium of referenced anarchist thought, a place for anarchists to write down their original theories, or a little of both? Thatcher131 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing

[27] - what are you doing? Nobody has said AFAQ can't be used as a primary source. -- infinity0 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't understand what that means. To use the FAQ as a secondary source means to use it as a source about anarchism. To use it as a primary source means to use it to show what the Anarchist FAQ says, in the article about the FAQ. Maybe read the articles secondary source and primary source to get an idea of what this means. RJII 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Don't mention it. Nil carborundum, as they say. ElectricRay 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. RJII 19:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to be an anarchist when you live at home with your folks! ElectricRay 23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:RFM-Filed