Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision

It concerns me that a couple of people continue to characterise this as a dispute between Neutrality and Rex. There were six other people signing the request for a temporary order, and I'm quite offended by the characterisation that we would all "need to be banned". I've reverted Rex a grand total of four times, IIRC. I believe I've been pretty civil, as have numerous other people who have tried to reason with him. If there are issues with Neutrality's conduct here, then fine - but deal with that seperately, please.

That said, to be fair to Rex, his conduct outside of the John Kerry-related disputes hasn't, as far as I've seen, been overly problematic, so Fred's proposal makes enough sense. Ambi 05:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom re proposed findings of fact

Rex071404 filed a cross-complaint against me, based solely on my having supported the Request for Arbitration. I answered that charge in my "Statement by affected party". Now, the first proposed finding of fact appears to contain one or two different charges against me, ones not previously called to my attention. I don't know the procedure well enough (this being my first arbitration) to know whether these are just passing observations, or points upon which some decision against me might be based, and whether I'm supposed to answer them, etc. I'd appreciate some guidance.

The proposed finding states that I, along with others, "have in the heat of the US Presidential election focused on the article John Kerry and carried the issues of the campaign into the encyclopedia article in detail. See [1] and [2]"

1. If "focused" means it's on my Watchlist, and that I've devoted a lot of energy to it, of course that's true. In fact, I joined in the RfAr precisely because, since Rex's arrival, I've had to devote way too much time to the John Kerry article just to keep it from turning into an anti-Kerry diatribe. On the other hand, if "focused" means that my sole objective at Wikipedia has been to advance a political agenda -- which is close to what Rex admitted about himself -- then it's not true. Despite the huge drains on my time and energy occasioned by Rex's conduct, I've also spent time during this same period on editing nonpolitical articles, on identifying VfD candidates and voting on others (along with a CfD), on cleaning up vandalism, and on a bit of newbie-helping here and there. Is there a serious charge against me of overconcentration on John Kerry, so that I should be citing these other edits on the Evidence page?

2. If carrying campaign issues "into the encyclopedia article in detail" means too much detail, then again I have to know if I should be responding. I agree that not every detail goes in. It's a judgment call. There was too much detail about the SBVT (an anti-Kerry organization), detail that I thought belonged in the SBVT article. Therefore, in this comment on Talk I proposed summary language for the John Kerry article. My draft was accepted (by everyone but Rex, of course), and the making of this change helped remove detail clutter and focus the main article. On the other hand, I'll confess that my suggestion expressly included leaving in Hibbard's attack on Kerry. Similarly, after the ArbCom had blocked Rex, I argued in this comment for the "anti-Kerry" position of leaving in Elliott's attack on him. I tried to put politics aside (yes, I'm for Kerry) and make my best judgments about whether each fact did or didn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedic summary of Kerry's career. I thought Hibbard and Elliott's anti-Kerry statements qualified, i.e., were not excessive detail. On a side issue, when Rex made this comment that the text on Kerry's family background was "too minutiae oriented", I was the one who took the time to draft a slimmed-down version and create a stub for Kerry's grandmother where the rest of the genealogical information could be dumped so as to remain available to any reader who wanted to pursue that aspect (see my proposal to remove much of the detail). Is it nevertheless being charged against me that I inserted too much pro-Kerry detail? If so, may I be informed of the particulars? JamesMLane 06:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It has been very helpful. It will be taken into consideration. Fred Bauder 13:33, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

The first remedy

I'd question whether the ArbCom has the power to order such a thing. Secondly, it's awfully vague - it basically amounts to a directive to "fix all its problems", and I can't remember the ArbCom ever ordering such a remedy before, nor can I understand how this is supposed to be workable. We know the problems with the article. That's why we're here. We all want them fixed too, but I'm pretty uncomfortable with this. Ambi 06:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Fix all its problems" is a Wikipedia policy already in place for every article. So in a sense we would be just reiterating a general order. What is different is that users are encouraged to revert attempts to re-insert blow by blow accounts of what is now happening in the campaign into the acticle. Those who persist and engage in edit warring, regardless of political orientation, could be banned for the duration. That is not to say that these events are not significant. But the details, if they belong in Wikipedia, belong in separate articles. Fred Bauder 11:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

That said, what do you suggest? Fred Bauder 11:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

That is entirely sensible. That is, however, not the way I read this:

1) Rex071404 and the users who have been involved with him in the controversy regarding the editing of the article John Kerry are directed to restore that article to an encyclopedia article which sets forth John Kerry's biography and background, replacing detailed blow-by-blow accounts of current affairs which relate to the 2004 Presidential election campaign with brief summaries along with links to particular controversies which have arisen during the campaign, for example the detailed information about each wound suffered and act performed by John Kerry during his tour of duty and the story related by each witness might be replaced by a brief reference to the fact that a controversy has arisen during the campaign regarding his actions and medals together with a link to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Ambi 12:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It needs to be read together with:

Enforcement

1) Edits by any user which carry an unreasonable degree of detail into the article, John Kerry, subverting its nature as a general summary of John Kerry's biography and background may be reverted by any other user. Users who repeatedly restore such detailed material which in the opinion of any Wikipedia administrator represent the intrusion of the Presidential campaign of 2004 into the article may be banned from editing the article until after the election. Refusal to respect such a ban shall be grounds for banning the user from Wikipedia until after the election.

Fred Bauder 13:57, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Most or all of the stated goal has been accomplished. The blow-by-blow about the dispute over Vietnam events has largely been moved to the SBVT page. The events themselves are reasonably included in a Kerry bio and would properly be there even if he weren't running for President. I've suggested on Talk:John Kerry that "the story related by each witness" should indeed be moved -- some crewmember quotations remain, I favor moving them to SBVT -- but that the article should keep information about each incident, taken from the official medal citation and attributed thereto. Kerry killed one man (Silver Star incident) and saved another's life (Bronze Star incident); such events belong in an encyclopedic summary of a person's life. As for the wounds, I think the current level of detail is right. We have only a few sentences about each incident, what happened, and the nature/seriousness of the wound. The pruning of genealogical detail, which I mentioned above, has also now been accomplished. In short, editing is proceeding in good order since the ArbCom blocked the problem user.

The problem with the proposed "Enforcement" paragraph is that editors can reasonably disagree over how much detail is too much. Such disagreements are now being handled in the normal fashion: polite discussion on Talk, plus edit summaries that explain and inform. The proposal would create a dangerous situation in which even one administrator, who happens to disagree with a contributor about the appropriate level of detail, could unilaterally block that contributor for months. I realize the block would apply only to this article but the stigma would still be significant.

My response to Fred's question of "what do you suggest?" is that the ArbCom should simply direct that the current temporary block on Rex071404 is extended until the polls close. That's all. There's no reason to believe that the article presents an extraordinary situation that requires any further measures. The biggest remaining problem is that the editing process could benefit from the participation of more people who favor Bush but who act responsibly. That goal is likely to be more hindered than helped if there's a set of special rules in place just for this article. So, my suggestion is a Return to Normalcy. (Oops, sorry, that's POV, Harding was the first sitting Senator to be elected President.) JamesMLane 14:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Notice that no problems have happened since Rex was blocked from the Kerry articles. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Such problems are more likely to reoccur in the future, as election day draws near. I think it would be prudent for the arbcom to provide the community (by means of the admins) with some facility for handling any future issues. If such special rules are unneeded and unused, we have only wasted our own time, I hope. Martin 01:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane suggestion

JamesMLanes says: "the article should keep information about each incident, taken from the official medal citation". Ok, that's all well and good, but as the records show [3] in regards to the Silver Star, there are three different "official medal citation[s]". How would you propose to handle that? Rex071404 04:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Rex's latest edits on Neutrality

This latest edit [4] illustrates the extreme POV that Rex has consistently been trying to insert into the John Kerry and related articles and it also typifies the sort of irrational argumentation (mascarading as logic) that he uses to justify his POV as some sort of irrefutable, self-evident truth. To base an argument upon a litany of statements such as "Kerry himself does not claim ... " or "Kerry himself does not deny ..." is precisely the sort of preposterous nonsense that numerous editors (not all of whom are Kerry supporters, by the way) have been dealing with. A basic tenet of logical argument--simply because a person does not refute or deny every allegation made against does not prove the allegation true. Wikipedia is not the place to string together circumstantial evidence in an attempt to "prove" a POV. An article can report such that such a POV exists, but to go further than that is simply indulging political mud-slingers, IMO. older≠wiser 16:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course non-denials are not in and of themselves proof. However, 1st hand statements from eyewitnesses such as Admiral Schachte are and unless denied on a 1st hand basis, remain superior proof to anything that's out there. This is a basic tenet of the validity of evidence and the truthfulness of facts. In a factual analysis, un-rebutted facts are presumed to be true. It is therefore incumbent upon Kerry to rebut the facts. If he does not, we can infer that he has conceded to the truth of them. This is eminently logical and appropriate. And even if you disagree, characterizing my thoughts as "preposterous nonsense" is precisly the kind of spiteful bile which I have been up against throughout this entire process: Snide "know-it-alls" implying that I can not think or am otherwise defective. Do not again call me "irrational". You are no expert on what is and is not "rational" and such comments are only intended to offend. Please stop it. Rex071404 17:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not claim to be an expert on what is or is not rational, but I can recognize preposterous nonsense when I see it and I will point it out when I do. I do not feel there is anything I need to apologize for . older≠wiser 17:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) I moved this reply from my talk page where Rex had pasted the same text before I realized he had also put it here. Speaking for myself, though I suspect many would agree, I would greatly appreciate it if you did not paste copies of the same text in multiple places. Write want you want in one place and then you can provide links to that elsewhere. older≠wiser 17:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edits by Neutrality

Rex071404 posted this example of a disruptive edit by Neutrality: [5]. This edit is quite remarkable in that Neutrality deleted one fascinating story and replaced it with a second. Fred Bauder 11:02, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Rex's edit belonged at John Kerry VVAW controversy. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • But I don't find it over there. So you just deleted it? Fred Bauder 16:49, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • The issue of the medals is discussed in John Kerry VVAW controversy, which is where consensus (one that I didn't agree with personally, for what it's worth) decided it should go. I don't know how much of that material Rex personally wrote, but I don't know how significant that is if the issue itself is fully covered. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course not. It's there, under "Demonstration at the Capitol". [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please take note

This edit [6] which Fred refers to above, was done by Neutrality at 16:01, 24 Jul 2004. It was not until 07:12, 31 Jul 2004, which is a full week later, that the VVAW controversy sub page was created. [7]. And, it was several more days before any of the text which Neutrality deleted arrived in some form on the VVAW sub-page. Now if you plot this time line against the list of reverting edits which I listed as evidence against Neutrality, we see that between 24 Jul 2004 and 27 Jul 2004 is when Neutrality was reverting me heavily and significant number of these reverts by Neutrality repeatedly kept deleting the text of mine which Fred refers to above. Also, on 27 Jul 2004 the page was protected and it was still four more days after that, that the VVAW sub-page was even created. I venture to say, had I not kept re-inserting my material to the point that Sysops took notice of Neutrality's reverts against me and locked the page, Neutrality would have simply have had succeeded in trumping my edits and no VVAW sub-page would have ever been created. For example, if I had just quit the John Kerry page on say 25 Jul 2004, since I was the only one being reverted and deleted with repeat gusto by Neutrality, it would have only been my edits that would have gone missing. And, if the edits are back-tracked, it becomes plain to see that the VVAW sub-page (grotesquely pro-Kerry though it is) would never have even been created. This is because the entrenched Neutrality aligned editors had free reign for weeks prior to my arrival and the effort to include details about the bona-fide controversies which exist regarding Kerry's medals, was mostly being advanced by me. Interestingly enough, for example, now it's coming out in the news as inescapably true that the 1st Purple Heart wound was indeed self-inflicted and not during combat. Anyone who cares to look can go back and see how intensely the pro-Kerry editors fought me even over my modest efforts to accurately describe the minor nature of that wound. Well guess what? I was right. The wound was minor. It was self-inflicted and it was not under-enemy fire. This is a critical fact which makes clear that Kerry's 3-Purple Heart exit from Vietnam was not earned. It was partially based on fraud and the fact that a significant number of people, including an Admiral who was with Kerry that day [8], dispute Kerry's version of events is very germane to any BIO or Wiki article which goes into detail about Kerry's wounds. Neutrality and his cohorts invited this controversy by including too much wound detail in the 1st place. That said, it's absurd to think that simply because they got to the John Kerry page 1st, that they should be allowed to have final say. Of course, unfortunately, that is the case at this juncture. On the other hand, perhaps the Arbitrators have seen enough and now recognize that my edit rights to John Kerry should be restored and Neutrality's should be revoked. Rex071404 05:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You make your point until you start asserting that a bunch of tenditious assertions are the "truth". Let me ask you though, What do you think about the John Kerry page now? Fred Bauder 12:45, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Fred; Unfortunately, there simply are times where reporters of fact are faced with conflicting sets of facts and are left with only (4) choices:

• Report none of the conflicting facts
• Report all of the conflicting facts
• Report only those facts which support a particular logical premise
• Report some combination thereof, perhaps allowing various opposing views to be equally presented

This is so for us too, because writing an Encyclopedic article requires a logical flow to the narrative or else it becomes incoherent.

Now in regards to Kerry's 1st "wound", the facts surrounding this are germane to any BIO or article about him because:

• The 3 Purple Heart total was a predicate requirement to leave Vietnam early
• Kerry voluntarily invoked the "3 and out" procedure.
• By doing so, he was able to leave early.
• However, he now is selling himself as meritorious of being voted for largely on the basis of his Vietnam service.
• This begs the question: Precisely how worthwhile was his service. Ie; Is there enough positive evidence in his service to garner the support of a rational voter who is looking to cite "service" as the merit which Kerry suggests it is?
• But, if indeed Kerry previously confabulated his account of the circumstances of his 1st Purple Heart, doesn't that mean that his early exit was partially based on fraud?
• And if so, how does that square with the idea that his "service" in total, was so meritorious that he ought to be president?
• Here are some facts:
• Kerry himself does not claim that the 1st wound happened while they were under fire
• Kerry himself does not contend that the 1st wound occurred as a result of enemy fire
• Kerry himself does not deny that the 1st wound was accidentally self-inflicted
• All of the official documents support the view that the 1st wound was extremely minor
• Kerry himself does not deny that Doctor Leston treated him
• Kerry himself does not deny that his at the time superior, Grant Hibbarrd told him that the "wound" did not qualify for PH.
• Kerry does not deny that he somehow went behind Hibbard's back and got it another way.
• This is not a criminal trial: Kerry does not have "the right to remain silent". Rather, the contrary is true. Since Kerry is in essence "taking the 5th" on these issues, we the people are free to draw an adverse inference from that. If facts are arrayed against you and you don't respond with a counter to them, those facts are presumed to be true. Kerry has not personally (nor has he had his personal spokesperson do so on his behalf) responded, therefore I take certain adverse facts to be true. I will not simply leap to conclusions based on self-drawn inferences and suppositions which are built on or drawn from misleading leaks by the Kerry campaign. Unless and until Kerry himself contemporaneously addresses this issue of the 1st Purple Heart himself, I certainly conclude that the word of a retired Admiral (one with no dog in the fight at that) is evidence enough (even by itself) to accept as a true fact, that Kerry's 1st PH did not meet the proper guidelines and is therefore undeserved.
• Anyone who wants to persuade me otherwise would have to show:

1. 1st hand proof of what the PH rules were at the time of the wound - this means it must be a direct reference to the exact government rules. Not some paraphrased quote from a pro-Kerry news article. These rules must suport Kerry's contention of deservedness.
2. Kerry himself must come out and personally delivery an account of the facts from the day of that "wound". This account must contradict Admiral Schachte [9] and it must include his complete actual military records and personal diaries. Further, those records and diaries must support Kerry's version in that they must show: Admiral Schachte was not present when he says he was to see Kerry wound himself. If Kerry cannot do this (or something reasonably close to it), there is no reason to believe the current pro-Kerry view that the 1st "wound" was valid for PH purposes. This is the "truth" to which I refer.

As for the John Kerry page itself, the last time I looked, it was still too editorially toned towards supposing that excess minutiae about Kerry matters - so much so that it reads like an obsessed sycophant wrote it (and it is poorly laid-out page-wise). Also, the other key pages such as VVAW and (especially) SBVT are so out of whack in favor of Kerry it's farcical. Please note that my ban does not extend to SBVT but I have nonetheless steered clear because the same pro-Kerry crowd who opposed me on Kerry are firmly encamped there too. Frankly, I feel that the stratagem of shunting the "criticism" of Kerry's medals/service to the SBVT page, but then aggressively attacking the SBVT themselves on that page is a disgusting display of the typical pro-Kerry editor's SOP, which is: Put twice (or more) the amount of material in which attacks Kerry detractors than supports them. But of course there's no POV there - HA! Rex071404 16:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see this also. Rex071404 17:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And this Rex071404 17:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In response to "If facts are arrayed against you and you don't respond with a counter to them, those facts are presumed to be true. Kerry has not personally (nor has he had his personal spokesperson do so on his behalf) responded, therefore I take certain adverse facts to be true."

You are welcome to take whatever you wish to be true. However, Wikipedia is not permitted to take allegations to be true simply because they have not been formally countered. For example, the UK royal family routinely refuse to comment on any and all allegations made against them, but Wikipedia could not take the position that all such allegations were true. Martin 23:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a false comparison. The truth is that Kerry does address via comment many allegations. It is also true that he has at times in the past made certain representations about his Vietnam service. And in fact, both he and his supporters - with his full knowledge , are touting his service heavily. And yet, in response to bona-fide allegations made by reputable sources, what is the Kerry team's reply? Attack the messenger! Suffice it to say, it would be a lot more believable if Kerry would simply address the various criticisms being advanced against his medal-receipt track record. Since he does not, the only facts in evidence are the allegations against him. We are not to able report silent denials. If Kerry will not deny, then only the allegations against him will be reported. That's his fault, not mine. Rex071404 01:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as a bystander to this whole dispute, I must say I find this approach hard to fathom. Rex's view seems to be that any allegation made against Kerry, no matter how fanciful, must immediately be publicly refuted by him, even if doing so raises the allegation to unjustifiable prominence. On the other hand, if Kerry disputes the credibility of the claim he is "attacking the messenger". By Rex's logic, SBVT must objectively be engaging in a "smear" campaign, simply because Kerry has said so and they have not explicitly denied it. The reason, one presumes, why Kerry addresses some criticisms and not others is because the ones he addresses are of sufficient prominence to potentially damage his standing. If he does *not* address a criticism, to me that appears to be evidence, in Kerry's mind at least, that the allegation lacks credibility. Anyway, I don't know what this has to do with anything, though it is perhaps illustrative of a general editing approach. My apologies if my comments are out of place. Lacrimosus 01:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This sentence "The reason, one presumes, why Kerry addresses some criticisms and not others is because the ones he addresses are of sufficient prominence to potentially damage his standing" said above by Lacrimosus, precisely illustrates what I call "pro-Kerry bias". My answer to the contention that "one presumes" certain things about Kerry is simple:

1. Not everyone is is willing to "presume" facts which are not in evidence. I for one am not.
2. Even if I did presume, it certainly would not be along the lines of Lacrimosus's presumption.

Here's a presumption for you: What if the reason Kerry does not reply is because he can't? In other words, what could Kerry's reply be if indeed the allegations about his 1st Purple Heart are true? The answer is simple: He could do nothing but admit he lied. And if he does that, he is admitting that his early release from Vietnam was obtained through fraud.

Interestingly enough, Lacrimosus would have us presume that Kerry decides to answer or not based on what could "potentially damage his standing". This is EXACTLY what I am claiming that Kerry is doing: He is refusing to address these questions because he does not want to "damage his standing".

The difference between my presumption and Lacrimosus's presumption is the weight we place on the ramifications of the 1st Purple Heart potentially being false. Since Lacrimosus does not presume it possible that Kerry could be lying, Lacrimosus never reaches the point where he considers that Kerry might indeed be lying precisely because the consequences of an admission on that point would be so devastating. I, on the other hand, have weighed the facts, using the exact same principle that Kerry's primary motive in answering/not answering is to not "damage his standing". And based on my analysis, I presume that Kerry is lying because a successful lie on this point gains him the most and because the unrebutted evidence is so strong.

The basic difference between my presumption and Lacrimosus's presumption is that Lacrimosus wants to presume in Kerry's favor and I want to presume that Kerry is tailoring his comments to seek advantage. Using Lacrimosus' own principle, I feel that my presumption much closely hews to the underlying motivations of Kerry. Rex071404 02:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lacrimosus, in my opinion you have nothing to apologize for, having quite accurately explained how most people would view the swirl of charges and countercharges in a campaign. Rex's attitude is captured by his comment above, "Anyone who wants to persuade me otherwise would have to show: ..." (and then setting forth his criteria). Rex is free to base his vote in the election on whatever criteria he chooses, but he is not free to lay down standards of proof that any contrary comment must meet before it can be taken into account in drafting the article. The test is whether something will give the reader significant information, not whether it will persuade Rex. JamesMLane 02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But, JamesMLane, the question remains: Are we going to knowingly publish information which is on the face of it more likely false than not? The preponderance of the unreubutted evidence about John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart is that Kerry is lying. Why are you unwlling to discuss the preponderance of the evidence to a logical conclusion? After all, if Kerry is lying and did commit fraud to flee Vietnam, that is of extreme importance because this simple fact alone could swing the election one way or the other depending on how it's reported. Doesn't the import of this issue weigh heavily enough on you to make you want to invest the time to make a best efforts determination if Kerry lied or not about his 1st Purple Heart? Rex071404 02:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Nuremberg Trials established that planning, initiating and waging a war of aggression can be treated as a crime that merits the death penalty. Under that standard, I believe that George W. Bush is a war criminal. Anyone who wants to persuade me otherwise would have to show that Iraq committed an act of aggression against the United States.

Now, having stated my personal opinion, I certainly don't think that my opinion has the slightest bearing on what should be in the article about George W. Bush. You may be right that, faced with the decision whether to re-elect Bush, some people would base their decision on whether they think John Kerry lied about something in Vietnam, but your evident support for the charge against Kerry is just as irrelevant to Wikipedia as is my support for the charge against Bush.

So, for purposes of this article, NO, I don't feel compelled to "invest the time to make a best efforts determination if Kerry lied or not". Right now, the relevant passage of the SBVT article (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth#First Purple Heart) reports that Zaladonis and Runyon say they think there was enemy fire, that Schachte says there wasn't, and that Zaladonis and Runyon say Schachte wasn't there. In short, the article provides the facts. Any reader who wants to make a determination about Kerry's veracity has been given the means to do so. Wikipedia, however, should not do so.

You choose to characterize two veterans' first-hand accounts as "information which is on the face of it more likely false than not". I, of course, think it's no such thing. The key point, though, is that we're publishing the information that this is what two of the eyewitnesses say. That's not false, it's indisputably true. This is what they say. If, as you contend, their position is so obviously false, it will be obvious to the reader, right? JamesMLane 03:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply to JamesMLane

The error you make is your effort to suppose that the contentions of these three persons is the sum total of all the available evidence. There is more than that and what I have said is that the preponderance of the evidence leans more against Kerry than not. As for wanting to look into it, that's only important if you want to avoid wrongly assuming that Kerry did deserve the 1st Purple Heart. At this point it really doesn't matter anyway. The SBVT people have focused on Kerry's lies and fakery and have clamped on like a pit bull. These allegations are indeed the "tipping point" which has begun the end of Kerry's credibility. If he does not release his full military records and diary (which he has not done) he will be unable to restore credibility on this. The very fact that Kerry is content to let his supporters and detractors duke it out in a "pissing contest" of allegations and cross allegations even though it's clearly hurting him with vets in key states [10] let's me know for sure that the alternative - releasing all the full records and directly addressing the charges themselves, is far worse. I am simply amazed that you seem unwilling to apply the correct political calculus to this. The issue about the 1st Purple is simple: If Kerry lied about that, his Vietnam exit was fraudulent. Suffice it to say, the allegations about the 1st Purple Heart are an absolute dagger at the heart of his credibility with Vietnam veterans. The point of all this is that there are many, many former grunts who are well able to surmise that Kerry gamed the system for the "3 and out" medals - and they resent him for it. The two things vets resent Kerry for the most is the gaming of the system for the "3 and out" medals and his 1971 slander against vets alleging war crimes. These are his two Achilles heels with the vets and he can do nothing about it. Having said all that, perhaps you should read this for a nice summary of the other evidence (other than what Admiral Schachte is also saying). Against the many pieces of evidence undercutting him, Kerry offers only denials through his campaign staffers and the word of two former crewmates. This is what I mean about "preponderance" of the evidence - there is more against him on this point than for him. In fact Admiral Schachte's comments are simply the coup de grace. Now as to your silly "Bush=War Criminal" comments, please take note:

1. Saddam invade Kuwait, our ally.
2. That invasion was an illegal crime of aggression
3. We justly drove them out in the Gulf War
4. At the end of that war, Iraq was under military and economic sanctions
5. This went on for more than 12 years
6. Saddam and Iraq never fully complied
7. Iraq was firing missiles almost daily at our "no fly zone patrols"
8. These no fly zone patrols were part of the original sanctions
9. The original negotiated cessation of hostilities required Saddam's compliance
10. He never fully complied
11. USA along with UK and others, invaded Iraq to depose the leader who refused to comply: Saddam
12. This was done under the authority of the original sanctions against Iraq
13. Even though no further UN agreement was required, Bush sought it anyway
14. It was only after France, Russia and Germany (in order to hide their complicity in the oil-for food scandal and sweetheart oil deals) objected to a ratification of the pervious authorization, did we invade.
15. Since no ratification was necessary, our Iraq invasion was legally sound.

Here are some links:

• link
• link
• link
• link

And of course, if Bush is a "war Criminal" so too is Senator Edwards:

• link

Some asked for a "vote" And they got one link (Kerry and Edwards BOTH voted yes)

• link

Food for oil scandal: here, here and here

Also, my contentions being advanced against Kerry are based on bona-fide allegations from reputable sources which have not been debunked or rebutted.

Are you saying that there is even one legal scholar of good repute anywhere in the world still advancing the "Bush = war criminal" charge on a basis that has not already been rebutted? If this is what you are saying, you are wrong. Various US legal scholars have debunked all Iraq-related "Bush = war criminal" charges - both domestic and international. I challenge you to send me even one link which proves otherwise.

Suffice it to say, I offer real allegations against Kerry, you offer false musings about Bush. I am not persuaded by your line of reasoning.

Rex071404 06:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest that this page is not a place to discuss the relative merits of evidence surrounding Kerrys medals nor a place to discuss if Bush is a war criminal nor even a place to discuss the contents of the wikipedia articles upon those subjects? Iain 13:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed -- and that, Iain, is precisely my point. Rex persists in telling us what lines of reasoning he personally does or does not find persuasive. I was trying to give him some perspective by pointing out that people differ over many issues related to the 2004 election. I hoped my example would make clear that I wasn't singling out Rex's views about Kerry as being irrelevant, because I was characterizing my own views about Bush as being equally irrelevant. Rex responded by arguing against the substance of my view of Bush. He also reiterated his arguments about how he personally assesses the weight of the conflicting evidence about Kerry. So, evidently, my attempt to explain my point to Rex has been a failure. JamesMLane 22:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad and Wikiquette

Firstly, thank you, Fred, for getting things going with this again. But I've got to say that it seems a bit unfair to be admonishing Bkonrad and Rex equally for violations of Wikiquette.

While Bkonrad may have been impolite at times, I honestly don't see how, at least in this area, he can even be considered to be in the same ballpark as Rex. It would appear that there may be a handful of posts in which he may have lost his cool. On the other side, however, you have repeated violations of Wikiquette, over several weeks, in the face of numerous warnings. It seems very unfair to tar the two with the same brush. Ambi 13:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although I have not looked at the edits of the others involved in this case I will probably add most of them to that finding. You are correct that there are differences in degree which ought to be reflected in any proposed remedies and enforcement measures. Fred Bauder 12:13, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Power of the Committee

Members of the Committee,

I believe that your honourable Committee may be about to exceed the reasonable limits of its power. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision, it is suggested as follows: "Edits by any user which carry an unreasonable degree of detail into the article, John Kerry, subverting its nature as a general summary of John Kerry's biography and background may be reverted by any other user. Users who repeatedly restore such detailed material which in the opinion of any Wikipedia administrator represent the intrusion of the Presidential campaign of 2004 into the article may be banned from editing the article until after the election. Refusal to respect such a ban shall be grounds for banning the user from Wikipedia until after the election."

In his vote, Daniel Mayer writes, "We should not be limiting what people who are not part of this arbitration may do." I would find myself in agreement. Policy states, "The arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to arbitrate." This clause appears to indicate, in my opinion, that the committee has no jurisdiction except where a specific request has been made. The complaints and counter-complaints filed by the parties only involve each other. They do not involve any third party. Consequently, I submit that the Committee has, at present, no jurisdiction over these third parties.

Moreover, the Committee is not empowered to make policy; it can only interpret present policy. By declaring a punishment for an offence which is yet to be committed by users who have no "criminal records," the Committee engages in a policy-making or legislative act which is beyond its proper boundaries. It also engages in policy-making by granting powers to Administrators.

The Committee also violates the principle of due process (which I feel applies because policy declares that "sensible 'real world' laws" should be taken into consideration). The proposal empowers Administrators to become judges, juries and executioners in their own right. Each Administrator could arbitrarily impose a punishment as grave as a two-month ban. There are absolutely no standards to govern the conduct of any Administrator; everything is left to the mere "opinion," and that too of "any Wikipedia administrator"—not a panel of Administrators where power can be checked, but a single Administrator.

Hence, I respectfully submit that the proposed measure encourages arbitrary exercise of power, and exceeds the Committee's jurisdiction. -- Emsworth 01:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think your objections are well taken. A different remedy more narrowly crafted to the questions presented needs to be put forth. Fred Bauder 12:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

While relying on the opinion of a sole administrator may seem unreasonable, the penalty (not being able to edit the specific article for the next few months) is very mild for anyone who is interested in positively contributing to Wikipedia. Admittedly it is much harsher for anyone who might seek to edit Wikipedia to promote an external agenda, but such non-contributors do not concern me. Martin 01:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Objection to proposed finding of fact about the complaining witnesses

I take strong exception to the second #5 under the "Proposed findings of fact": "The compaining witnesses in this matter because of their numerical majority felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs despite its societal significance."

That is not even close to a correct statement of what I, as one of the complaining witnesses, felt (or feel). First, I don't enshrine the views of a "numerical majority", as is alleged here. (I have on occasion pointed out to Rex that he was the only person taking a particular position, against the judgment of everyone else, but I don't think I've implied that a majority vote was the be-all and end-all. On occasion, my comment has been in response to a claim by Rex that there was a "consensus" for a view that, in fact, only he supported.) Second, I've always tried to be fair to the anti-Kerry POV. Nowhere in the Evidence or in any of the other pages connectected with this arbitration do I see any support for the implication that I haven't been fair. It's frustrating to find this kind of criticism surfacing for the first time in the proposed findings. I feel like I'm fighting with shadows:

• The only specific charge against me was in Rex's cross-complaint, where he alleged that I joined in bringing the arbitration proceeding prematurely. I've given my answer to that. I've never been put on notice of any additional charge against me.
• Although it's now being implied that I was unfair to a point of view of societal significance, I haven't been provided with a single link to an edit of mine that allegedly reflects this unfairness. Don't I deserve the opportunity to explain why I made the disputed edit?

My comments don't apply to the first version of #5, which says only that Rex felt that everyone else was being unfair to him. I don't know to what extent his disruptive conduct is to be excused on the basis of his perceptions, but at least that version doesn't imply that his perceptions were accurate. I respectfully suggest that the other version would take the committee somewhat far afield from the matters that have been properly presented to it for resolution.

While that version remains up for consideration, though, I'll do what I can to provide some general evidence on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence page. JamesMLane 22:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: I've provided some evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Evidence against one version of item 5 in "Proposed findings of fact". The table of contents of that Evidence page has become confused. When Rex inserted his response, under the heading "Rex responds", he used only one equal sign on each side, making his headline nice and big but throwing off the organization. My new section should be on its own, not as a subsection under "Rex responds" -- I certainly don't want to give the impression that what I've written is part of Rex's response. The problem could be fixed by changing "=Rex responds=" to "==Rex responds==", and changing his subheadings from == to ===. This simple and sensible change would be better coming from Rex or from a committee member, though. If I were to change anything Rex wrote, I would surely be subjected to one of his typically vehement denunciations. JamesMLane 02:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll look at the page, and fix it if no one else has. What you propose would not be too bad if you did yourself but I think it is best for everyone including us to avoid editing others contributions to any of these pages if it can be avoided. It upsets people. Fred Bauder 12:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Question for the Arbitrators

Under the proposal as of now, would Rex's temporary injunction still stand? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It stands until the final decision (unless we should decide otherwise first). Fred Bauder 00:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

My concern, and I think Neutrality's as well, is whether the final decision would include any block on Rex's editing of Kerry-related articles. As I read the current text of "Proposed remedies" and "Enforcement", there is nothing that would continue the block. In fact, some of the proposals refer to future edits to John Kerry by Rex071404, which implies that the block would be lifted.

At present, both Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Texans for Truth are protected, as a consequence of edit wars involving Rex. I hope the committee will consider continuing the current block at least through November 2, after which we can hope things will cool down a little. JamesMLane 01:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Undeserved characterisations and findings of "fact"

I've just been alerted to this finding of fact - 6) The compaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance.

I'd question on what basis this is justified, and what evidence that has been submitted that supports this conclusion. At the very least, I believe the statement should be qualified, if there are indeed any people that did act this way.

The anti-Kerry perspective of course, has an equal magnitude of importance to any other. For those of us on both sides of the political divide who are here to see a neutral article, rather than to try and sway public opinion of someone either way, we accept this as a must. As I've stated numerous times, Rex is not the only one holding an anti-Kerry, pro-Bush view in this. Both Cecropia and VeryVerily hold the same view, and I don't believe I've had any problems with either of them. They hold different views, and where I've had to, I believe I, and others, have been able to work with them in order to create a better article, regardless of our differences in opinion. I'm being accused of silencing other viewpoints because I happen to be in the majority here, yet I have no issues with two of the three anti-Kerry users. Strange, that.

The Committee has already proposed findings of fact and remedies that have opposed the turning of John Kerry into a blow-by-blow description of mudslinging efforts. Yet this has, in a large part, been caused by the complaining witnesses being willing to work with Rex, and to try to accomodate his (often extremely biased) point of view. Take Lyellin for example. Lyellin stepped in and proposed numerous compromise versions, trying to work in Rex's specific concerns, and dealing with no small amount of abuse from him for doing so. Yet he, too, is included in this insulting description of "fact".

It's apparent from the evidence page, even as shown by Rex's last post this very morning, that Rex has trouble distinguishing between undisputed facts, and his own conclusions about someone's character from them. But despite this, many of us have taken the time to try and accomodate Rex's perspectives re: these "controversies", and have at least attempted to alleviate his concerns.

It does complicate things that Rex is greatly outnumbered, but that is no excuse for this behaviour, and in any case, there are at least two other users with the same point of view that have been able to discuss the issue reasonably and rationally, and have received the same from at least a significant portion of the complaining witnesses. I believe that at least several of the complaining witnesses have put in countless hours trying to reason with Rex, and do not, as this finding of "fact" puts it, "[feel] that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance".

In the end, I'm left rather offended by this, and I believe that several other users, such as Lyellin, have even more reason to be so. We've spent weeks attempting to deal with this particular mess, endured vast amounts of personal attacks, and now we're subjected to this unwarranted and undeserved attack on our characters and reputations. Ambi 09:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have slightly modified Finding of fact 6. Of course, we cannot know how you actually felt. Regardless of whether this finding of fact is accepted by the other arbitrators the point is that being in a majority which results from Wikipedia's peculiar characteristics creates more responsibilities than opportunities on the point of view front. Fred Bauder 12:59, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it creates responsibilities. The point, however, that I'm making, is that this (even with the slight toning down) still accuses us of breaching said responsibilities, and that as even Rex isn't attacking about half of the complaining witnesses, that this would seem to be somewhat strange. Ambi 13:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am also rather disturbed by this proposed finding of fact, even with Fred's latest minor rewording. Where is the specific evidence? Speaking for myself only, my objections to Rex were always based on his manner and not based on the content of what he was arguing for (yes, I did often disagree with the substance of what he said, but my objections to him were based on his behavior). He was rude and uncivil and had difficulty distinguishing substantiated facts from opinions and allegations. Frankly, I think this proposed finding is offensive and inserts an unfounded allegation without any specific evidence. older≠wiser 13:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with Fred on the general principle that the majority has more responsibilities, while also agreeing with Ambi that applying that principle in this fashion, even in the toned-down version, constitutes an accusation against several contributors. (By analogy, we could all agree that the committee should decide cases on the merits, yet you would justifiably take umbrage if I asserted that, in a particular case, the committee "may have felt that Americans deserved preferential treatment". The "may have" doesn't soften the charge all that much. Of course, we're not being accused of anything as serious as abusing a committee position, but to those of us who are genuinely committed to the Wikipedia project, and who believe that an Arbitration Committee decision will have great credibility with the community, this proposed finding is still a serious concern.)

To convey Fred's point without unfairly dumping on the users who brought this particular complaint, what if this proposed finding were replaced by a new proposed principle, along the lines of: "Participants who find themselves in a majority which results from Wikipedia's peculiar characteristics thereby have greater responsibilities for the fair presentation of opposing points of view." Invoking such a principle in this context still carries some implication that it needs to be mentioned, and thus at least hints at the idea that some unspecified edits of ours were biased, but at least it's not such a direct slap in the face as the proposed finding. JamesMLane 14:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that a significant minority consisting of millions of people within the United States not only agree with Rex but would probably go even further. He is not that idiosyntric in the conclusions he draws despite characterization of "his (often extremely biased) point of view" while insisting that your own edits are not biased. Tangling the article up with the current election campaign takes it outside the area of reasoned observation and argument into the perceptions and conclusions people have. Fred Bauder 14:57, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

This 'fact' is not accurate. I for one did not, and do not, feel that way. Is there evidence to the contrary? I would not object to a finding that points to actions, as those can be discussed objectively; motives and feelings cannot. Wolfman 15:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that this proposed finding contains a pretty clear implication that the complainants, by lodging this complaint against the abusive behavior of a specific individual, were attempting to censor a minority viewpoint. I can reluctantly accept the finding that essentially equates the incivility of myself and Rex, because in the instance cited I was impolite in labeling Rex's argument as preposterous nonsense, even though I feel there is a actually a considerable imbalance in the degree of incivility that Rex and I have displayed. But am I very disturbed by the implications of this proposed finding. older≠wiser 15:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven’t yet responded because the magnitude of what has been suggested has taken a while to sink in. One of the reasons we brought this complaint against Rex was because he did not assume good faith and continually accused other editors of being part of a pro-Kerry cabal and conspiring to censor his POV. Now the Arbitration Committee is considering making Rex’s insult a finding of fact without a single bit of evidence put forth to support it. Words can’t express how demoralizing it is for hard working editors who’ve had to put up with Rex’s attacks for months to have ArbCom potentially accept and repeat Rex’s libel. There are many problems with Rex’s behavior that have nothing to do with politics, most notably the stream of insults documented on the evidence page and his overreaction and edit warring over minor points, such as the grammar issue noted in his temporary editing ban. There are screens and screens of archived talk pages which testify to the fact that the editors who have been attacked by Rex have continually tried to work with him despite his attacks and behavior. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From where I stand, reaching consensus means that reasonably presented views, even if in the minority are to be given a best efforts attempt by all editors towards inclusion. Consensus decision making is not supposed to entail simply "out-voting" the minority voice. Rather, than a single color or striped view, a blended view is a consensus view. Now admittedly, my anti-Kerry/pro-Bush views are well known (mostly because of my talk page comments - not my edits). However, my edits still ought to have been viewed in the light of how they would read in the article itself - by a typical person not how my co-editors feel about me and my views. NPOV is attained when the end result of the article is fair and balanced. It is not attained by putting a fine-tooth strainer to every aspect of every edit. Frankly, some edits will indeed be more pregnant with meaning than others. But, if on the whole, balance and perspective is achieved, then an article can rightly be deemed to be NPOV. Personally, I am persuaded that my opponents here so suspect me and my motives, that they cannot grasp that some of my edits, such as the one discuseed at length here [11] were really no big deal and that the opposition to them is indeed making a mountain out of a molehill [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fred is of course correct that millions of people would agree with Rex. To apply that fact to two specific editing issues that have been discussed in some detail:

1. With regard to Kerry's Silver Star, we had available to us the pro-Kerry statements of Short, Thorson and Sandusky, whose statements are significant because they were eyewitnesses, and the anti-Kerry statement of Elliott, whose statement is significant because he was the superior officer who recommended Kerry for the medal. Millions of Bush supporters would be happy with a ProBushopedia that reported Elliott's criticism of Kerry but omitted the rebuttals from the crewmembers. Millions of Kerry supporters would be happy with a ProKerryopedia that did the reverse. In terms of constructing the article, the obvious NPOV requirement is that, wherever the controversy is covered (be it in John Kerry or, as later occurred, spun off into a daughter article), all of the significant sources of information (Elliot, Short, Thorson and Sandusky) should be presented, as clearly and fairly as possible. The proposed finding seems to equate my editing with Rex's. This easy equivalency may seem even-handed but it ignores the crucial fact: Rex's proposed version was the ProBushopedia that quoted only the anti-Kerry witness. My proposed version was not the ProKerryopedia that suppressed Elliott's views, but was instead the NPOV version that was fair to both.
2. With regard to Kerry's trip to Nicaragua, we see the same thing. Yes, millions of Bush partisans would have no qualms about an article that made a totally unsubstantiated charge against Kerry (that he negotiated on behalf of the United States). Other millions would probably delete the whole section, believing, as Gamaliel argued, that it makes Kerry look like a chump; and those same millions would cheer for an unsubstantiated accusation that Bush took a bribe while he was Governor or cheated on his wife or whatever other mud anyone wanted to throw. Here again, Rex has supported the ProBushopedia version, of throwing the mud at Kerry without any evidence, whereas no active editors have actually supported the ProKerryopedia version of deleting any reference to the Nicaragua trip, or of deleting the Reagan administration's criticism of it, or of deleting Ortega's subsequent conduct that many people thought reflected badly on Kerry.

Naturally, the committee wants to be fair to both sides. That goal shouldn't lead to a phony equivalence of saying that there was one side (Rex) making biased anti-Kerry edits, up against a majority (the complaining witnesses) making biased pro-Kerry edits. That's simply not true. I'm not claiming that I or anyone else avoided all bias at all times, but to compare our occasional lapses with Rex's relentless POV-mongering is unjustified. JamesMLane 19:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I vigorously endorse the above statement by JML. Kevin Baas | talk 19:34, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I am well, shocked by seeing this finding. Doublely so because it just seems to be a complete undermining of everything else taht went on, and all the work that so many editors have done not only on the cited pages, but new ones as well, to create NPOV. Please, read through the talk pages, read through the copious archives. Look at all the compromise versions, from me, from James, from so many others, and ask how in the world we can say that the majority was just bowling over the minority here. Lyellin 21:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

From my vantage point, the majority did indeed run roughshod over the minority. Of course, my reactions to that (in the early going) were not always too as nice edit summaries and talk page comments go. Even so, I do feel that many of these conflicts under review here utimately stem form the majority abusing it's power to overrule. "Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of a majority of participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision." [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We understand how you feel, Rex, but the matter at hand here is how Lyellin, JamesMLane, BKonrad, etc. feel, specifically, whether or not they "felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance.", and whether or not the Arbitrators have a right to make such an assertion, among other things. Kevin Baas | talk 23:21, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I believe that the vast majority of us, if not all of us, have indeed attempted to "resolve and mitigate the objections of the minority". We've seen numerous attempts at rewrites to try and work through Rex's specific objections. We've seen pages, and pages, and pages of dialog. Supporting the underdog is one thing, but this is just an insult to those of us who have honestly tried to resolve this. Ambi 23:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Counter Complaint

Rex has laudably retracted all counter-complaints. [12] How does that affect these proceedings, and the authority of arbcom to impose sanctions or restrictions on the complainants? Wolfman 15:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been following the dialog between several of my accusers. Primarily based on a few particular comments I read, I have a few minutes ago striken [13]my overture of toning down the charges and counter-charges. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Outside View

This is what the decision looks like to me: because one person does injustice to many people, those many people get sanctioned, and the one person goes free.

Do you think they pose a threat because they have larger numbers? Is this an attempt to combat that threat? That's paranoia.

ya, sure, many people have stronger views than rex, but this isn't about pov. this is about NPOV. And just because some people think that people need to hear testimony from someone who wasn't there more than testimony from someone who was there, and one person tries to make it that way, doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. And it doesn't mean that those who object - those who think we should work towards npov - are "ganging up" on a person for a personal attack, and that they therefore, deserve sanction. no. that is an injustice if i ever heard it. i highly disagree with the proposed decision. it is in direct contradiction with the proposed finding of fact. Kevin Baas | talk 18:06, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Relief

So far, we've not seen any suggestion of any permanent relief from Rex's persistent edit warring. Since this arbitration started, he's been involved in edit wars on at least five more articles, and I can't say I've seen anything much else in the way of contributions from him. I point the commitee to this latest edit, in which Rex unilaterally makes a small, but clearly POV change, and then, when Neutrality reverts him, re-reverts with the edit summary "rv - neutrality there is a discussion underway at talk. please join it and wait for answers before you revert this again. Thank you". When we started here, his edits had been limited to John Kerry, but now we've seen a pattern of similar conduct on a wide range of articles.

So I'm inclined to ask - is any strong action going to be taken here? I'm wary of drawing comparisons, but it seems that RK is going to banned for four months for very similar behaviour. The only differences I can see between the two cases is that we haven't had to put up with Rex for as long, and that unlike RK, Rex hasn't made any major contributions outside of his edit wars.

With the way things have been going, I believe unless some action, be it in the form of a ban or some sort of parole, is taken to stop his edit warring, that many articles will continue to be protected over attempts to insert bias, until some action is taken, be it in this case, the second case which is about to be heard, or future ones that seem to be almost inevitable if something isn't done here. Ambi 14:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to add that there was no "discussion" going on on that talk page — only his personal objection, combined with a POV rant. He insists on reverting changes he finds distasteful, and even placed a {{NPOV}} notice on the page. By the way, the article was a featured article and was recently on the Main Page. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to us. I think with Rex not editing John Kerry but free to edit in other areas looking at the nature and tone of those edits gives us a good chance to evaluate how broad our relief needs to be. Fred Bauder 14:55, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, the edit which Ambi complains of, is being addressed quite nicely via dialog. I am meeting my duty to talk there. But the party who reverted me, Neutrality is not enaged in the dialog on that talk page at all. In fact, he falsely claims there is no "discussion" underway. Please look at the talk page history and notice the absence of any edits by Neutrality regarding the point under discussion currently [14]. Frankly, I simply do not see how anyone can take the complaints of Ambi or Neutrality on that [15] particular page seriously when a) Ambi is not even one of the involved editors and b) Neutrality did again what he usually does against my edits - revert them repeatedly without discussion. As it stands now, I am suggesting the word "consequential" instead of "disruptive". This is clear evidence of my trying to reach consensus. And for the record, I began the dialog there prior to my noticing this additional complaint here. Also, please take a look at the history of some new pages I recently started [16], [17], [18]. Notice how it was either Neutrality or Gamaliel - two of my chief ongoing accusers who came in behind me, with massive edits and reverts and no talk page dialog. Also, I am pretty sure Gamaliel cannot be satisfied on anything. For example, I recently started a page called Eights and aces. Gamaliel quickly redirected it [19] to List of slang names for poker hands and then, when there was an obvious typo of "eight" instead of the plural "eights", kept deleting the text which referred to it - even though, by having done the redirect himself, he was fully aware of the correct spelling. All of that was done by him with no substanative talk page dialog. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I redirected Rex's one sentence stub at Eights and aces to List of slang names for poker hands because Dead man's hand was redirected to the list, as are I believe all the entries on the list. I believe my edit summary of "redirect to List of slang names for poker hands as per Dead Man's Hand" sufficiently explained this and I believe that this did not require "substantive talk page dialog" as I was merely following the example of other, similar entries on Wikipedia. I don't know why he brings the redirect up at all other to complain that someone like me dared to change something he edited, because he can produce no argument against what I did.

As far as my edits to the list, I believe most of them are sufficiently explained in the edit summary and thus I don't feel needed "substantive talk page dialog". (True, I did not initially use an edit summary as I truly thought the change was minor. I explained myself in later edit summaries.) Rex made no attempt to respond to reasoning of these edit summaries and reverted me three times without any talk page dialog at all. He did not bring up this spelling claim to me at my talk page, in the talk page of the article, or in an edit summary, instead he bizarrely brought it up at Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy. I should also point out that he has raised no objection to the edits of User:Whosyourjudas who also changed Rex's edits to List of slang names for poker hands without any "substantive talk page dialog".

The only reason I ended up at List of slang names for poker hands in the first place was not to "stalk" Rex (I was there first, for what it's worth) but because I had just watched The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance again and wanted to see what Wikipedia had to say on the subject of the Dead man's hand. Frankly, I wish I had never noticed Rex's Eights and aces stub as every encounter I have with him is frankly quite draining and perhaps next time I will just let an article of his just pass on by without bothering to make any corrections. That, in fact, is precisely the problem with Rex on Wikipedia, not that he represents and strongly advocates a particular POV, but that he yells so loudly and fights so long over the most insignificant point. He even has knock down drag out fights against long established Wikipedia practices and policy so even referring to them is futile as he'll just continue to argue and complain regardless. When we get to the point where editors will balk at making edits because they are afraid Rex will explode, then we're at the point where Rex's behavior is a significant problem that must be addressed. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In regards to Gamaliel's statement "they are afraid Rex will explode", I can only say that to me, this typifies his adversarial mindset. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting this edit and this edit on Talk:Ann Coulter. Indeed, I believe this was the sort of behaviour that Rex swore that he would refrain from around the time of the temporary order. This shows that, even today, he's still doing the same things as on the Kerry article itself. Ambi 01:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What strikes me about the Lawrence v. Texas article is that instead of using the characterizations of the import of the decision which could have been obtained from the decision itself and especially from the dissenting opinion (or reports of the decision) Rex himself is engaging in analysis of the situation, characterizing the decision as "disruptive". Certainly some language could have been found in the dissenting opinion or opinions which would have said more or less the same thing but in an authoritative way which then could have been attributed. These reports of cases can, by the way, be found in any major public library. Probably there is enough in journalistic reports of the dissent. As to Ann Coulter, she is in essence a troll, as we understand trolling being intentional stirring up. That her Wikipedia article and attempt to edit it reflect her nature is to be expected. Fred Bauder 13:21, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

It is true that I tend to write from a pre-though-out perspective, one which tends to be conservative. And though I may be missing something here, that's what I took as a lesson from this NPOV quote: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder. Suffice it to say, of those who understand the interplay of the precedent setting ramifications of Lawrence v. Texas with the consitutionally mandated reciprocity of state marriage contracts - at least the ones (reported about) who've spoken up from among the 60%+ who oppose gay marriage, virtually all consider the legal leverage gained through this decision to be "disruptive". Even so, perhaps this was too esoteric of a point to make. But nontheless, when the starting point sentence was "Some suggest that 'Lawrence v. Texas' may eventually come to be seen as one of the more important decisions by the United States Supreme Court.", the entire thought was speculation anyway, so I saw no reason why inserting the speculative point of view of 60% of Americans, was an editing error. I'd like to hear more back from others, particularly Fred Bauder about that. Also, as for the section of text as it sits now, the only problem I have with it is that it quotes a less than well known group for the "con" side. I'd prefer something else, perhaps from ACLJ [20] or CWFA [21] but I'd want to look into it to find a more appropriate quote than the "moral 9/11" quote.[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think progress was made. I guess in response to replacement of "important" by "disruptive" both characterizations are more or less self evident but come from us rather than from commentators. Fred Bauder 18:24, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

My response would be that instead of seeing something wrong, so putting in another wrong (speculation both times), instead take out the first problem. Lyellin 18:47, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I contend that "disruptive" is correct as it is what the majority of Americans consider gay marriage to be. On the other hand, I am not trying to dictate to the others here. The new consensus version is acceptable to me. Frankly, I feel that if Neutrality had bothered to dialog the way this group did, there would have been no revert battle - not as far as I am concerned. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may contend this, but it is clearly not neutral. You didn't dialog before making changes. You made a unilateral, biased change, posted on the talk page, and then expected him to dialog before you'd "allow" him to remove it. So instead of raising the issue on the talk page and coming to an acceptable compromise (as it seems has now been done), you've first started an edit war and caused page protection, and wasted everyone's time. Ambi 00:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well same thing is going on with Neutrality who in the last edit I looked at described the decision as one of the most important cases ever decided. I would beg to differ. Fred Bauder 01:35, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

As would I, but that wasn't the sentence that Rex changed here when he started this latest battle. Ambi 01:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, your literalism here is blinding you to the bigger issue - it's axiomatic that as edits are made that subsequent ones, due to intervening edits, will not have the same starting point. The edits Neutrality made were indeed aimed at addressing the same issue of "importance" which my edits originally sought to modify. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Everyone here seems to be missing the point I raised which was: I feel that my initial edit to "disruptive" did not require prior discussion because as I have explained, it is the view of 60%+ of Americans. Even so, let's say for the sake of argument that my usage of "disruptive" existed as being valid only in my own mind. Even with that as the case, my edit - when it was made - was made on a basis of being understood by me as being valid. In other words - in good faith. This being the case, when Neutrality came along and disputed my edit with a reversion (not a subsequent edit) he turned my efforts from being a mere edit to a controversy. And it is at that point - a reversion that Neutrality was by rights, obligated to dialog. To me it's obvious that reversions are by their nature more controversial than edits and as such, carry a higher burden to dialog each of them than edits do. This is especially true when a user (such as Neutrality did here) reverts another four times in a very short period of time. Also, for the record, it should be noted that (at least as best as I can remember) most (if not all) of the revert battles I have been in did not orginally start with me making the 1st revert to the text in dispute. Rather, it was an edit by me, followed by a reversion by someone else which was the sequence of events. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. When are edits made by anyone who believes that their own additions are not valid?
2. Just because the majority has one opinion does not mean you are allowed to insert POV material, which "disruptive" clearly is and "important" arguably is... I like the compromise material entirely because of this neutral language... justifying by appealing to mass opinion is one of the most basic fallacies there is.
3. "Neutrality was by rights, obligated to dialog"? But this rule does not apply to you? I established concensus (even by you I might add) and once I made the change, you reverted me without any dialog but rather a lame edit summary. See here.

oh that's right, but I'm merely a sockpuppet, don't bother addressing what I actually say. --kizzle 04:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, you are missing the point. This "revert" war occurred primarily because there is no communication between Neutrality and myself. Suffice it to say, of those comments you make about my edits here (above), several of them could easily have been made on this page by Neutrality at any time prior to his fourth revert - the one which prompted the temporary protection of this article. You are simply missing the point if you don't see that Neutrality has a long term pattern of reverting me repeatedly without dialog. Could this be because as he often states - he thinks I'm a "troll"? Perhaps. Likewise, you assert that I have expressed suspicions about you perhaps being a "sockpuppet". Indeed, I have suspected that and I still do. If you notice though, I do answer your inquires and dialog with you. This is more than can be said for Neutrality's dealings towards me. Also, the revert against you by me which you cite, does not in any way approach the pattern of reverts against me by Neutrality. Comparing the two is fallacious reasoning. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While the pattern may not approach Neutrality's, you still engaged in exactly what you are complaining about Neutrality, just because he does it more does not make you innocent. You do answer inquiries and dialog in a general sense, but the example I cited contains no dialog by you before your reversion. Practice what you preach before you go throwing stones. If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, name who you think I'm a sockpuppet of or keep quiet.--kizzle 15:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, I never suggested who I thought you are - only what. And frankly, if you were not stalking me by following my user contributions list, you would not have found my citation of you as an example to Fred Bauder. It's one thing to raise a potential example - as I did to Fred. It's quite another to come out and directly accuse, which I have not done. You are making an error by butting in on a dialog which is none of your beeswax. Also, I do not agree with your assessments and I am now asking you to stop intruding on my ongoing dialogs with others. Thank you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

for the record, look at: User_talk:Kizzle... I did not stalk your user contribution list, some anon-ip forwarded it to me. And I don't appreciate slander no matter where it is. --kizzle 16:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, I asked you to please butt out. If you want to converse with me, please comment on my talk page, not here. You are not a party to this arbitration case. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, this is a Wiki. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING written anywhere on Wikipedia is public -- there should be absolutely no expectation of privacy in communications on pages here. If you want to have a private communication, you should do so by email. And anyone is welcome to participate in a discussion on any page (provided of course they are reasonably on topic). older≠wiser 16:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, arbitration pages are open to the public - anyone can comment (and are encouraged to do so if they have something to add). →Raul654 16:55, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am merely asking Kizzle in regards to those comments of his which are directed solely at me - to please post them on my talk page. I don't think that's too much to ask. And that in no way bars him from posting here. Rather, what it does is help the continuity of the dialog on this page stay intact. That said, if Kizzle won't do me that courtesy, I'm left with no option but to ignore any direct comments or questions from him to me, if posted here - which is what I intend to do from this point on. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So on a page devoted towards Rex and actions he has taken, because I have named him, he is going to ignore me because they are personal messages? Anything I have written on this page while addressed to you, Rex, is highly relevant to this page, and furthermore is intended to update the parties involved in your behavior since then, thus I think my edits are extremely appropriate here. If you ignore what I say from now on, believe me that's fine with me, but I just want you to know I am not going to just sit idly by and let you push people around. Neutrality stopped discussing with you and simply reverting because he/she gave up trying to dialog with you. Ask yourself, do you think he/she does that to anyone else? Many people who you have edited with are on the brink of the same thing, with several users who want you off this site permanently until the election is over. I myself think this is a bit harsh, and all I ask is the ability to dialog in the first place. Almost every page you are involved with has some sort of NPOV/protection dispute. I personally right now am waiting for an answer to my dialogue, no, more like begging you to merely discuss on Texans for Truth so that we can actually edit that page, but it seems you are happy to leave it in the protected state you have put it in. And I don't believe that someone who on another person's page calls me a sockpuppet has any right to ask direct contact from me in resolving this issue. Thus, I restate:

While the pattern may not approach Neutrality's, you still engaged in exactly what you are complaining about Neutrality, just because he does it more does not make you innocent. You do answer inquiries and dialog in a general sense, but the example I cited contains no dialog by you before your reversion --kizzle 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, to increase chances of actual dialogue, I will now refer to Rex in the third person instead of directly addressing him as he requests. --kizzle 17:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

so, Rex? What say you now? --kizzle 16:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle comments

It's evident from his comments that "Kizzle" has bone to pick with me. This is why I asked him to direct his comments which are specific to me, to my talk page. I think that is a reasonable request. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I knew Rex wouldn't answer. --kizzle 06:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have. But if "Kizzle's" comment reflects his true thoughts, then it's clear that "Kizzle" is commenting here only to "prove" himself "right" not truly dialog. This has been apparent to me for some time and it's why I asked Kizzle to dialog with me on my talk page - not here. I'll note for the record, that Kizzle has not done that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 14:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again. Someone who accuses me of being a sockpuppet on SOMEONE ELSE's page has no right to ask direct contact of me in resolving this. and if Rex thinks i don't want to dialog, he should prove his point and answer my questions, just scroll up like half a page, or try the one still at Texans for Truth. Record noted. And just an update for anyone who is concerned, we are at attempt #14 by my rough count to get Rex to say specifically why he put the NPOV tag up on Texans for Truth... still waiting for an answer. --kizzle 16:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The sentence to which "Kizzle" refers, can be found on Fred Bauder's talk page here. If anyone cares to see my dialog with Fred there, they are welcome to do so. As for "Kizzle's" complaints about Texans for Truth, I urge anyone who is interested, to review the accompanying talk page there and decide for yourself if "Kizzle's" tenacious haranguing of me about that here, is warranted. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

tenacious haranguing? :) and btw i love the quotes around my name...makes "Rex" able to keep up the sockpuppet accusation without actually saying it. The one thing I do agree with "Rex" is that people should come to the Talk:Texans For Truth talk page and decide for themselves. I leave "Rex" to have the last word on this page, as I want to halt discussion to draw more attention to the goings-on at TfT. --kizzle 20:23, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand you at all, Rex. You'll spend acres of text trying to explain why you won't answer something instead of just answering the simplest of questions. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, the "questions" being posed at TfT are loaded in that they ingore my already standing answer, which is: I fully intend, if possible, to make the TfT page approach similarity to the SBVT - especially in regards to the "rebuttals" which are imbedded all over the place at SBVT. The "problem" is that I refuse to prognosticate what edits I might have to make to get to that end. And my refusal to attempt such a guess is simple: I won't know for sure until the page opens and I see what the anti-Rex editors there have up their sleeves. Frankly, I am puzzled as to how you can say you don't grasp this answer. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He doesn't grasp the answer because that is not the question posed to you.

Question: If you are not claiming that there are any conflicts, does this mean you no longer have a problem with the article? Do you still consider it POV?

Your "Answer": "I fully intend, if possible, to make the TfT page approach similarity to the SBVT"

--kizzle 21:12, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled by his reponse. He doesn't want to show his hand yet. Rex seems to think this is a poker game and not a collaborative editing process. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True consensus editing ala Consensus decision making would entail the group of editors who outnumber me making a better effort to subsume my ideas and suggestions - as demonstrated by my edits - than they do. Frankly, what I have have experienced from time to time on various pages is not "collaborative editing", but mob rule - albeit nicely perfumed by the self-congratulatory agreement of the majority. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your collaborators have asked you the same question about your concerns about the article 14 times and you did not respond. Collaboration is a two way street, not a poker game. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, since you obviously won't concede that the "question" which has been asked 14 times is loaded, I'll ask you one: "Have you stopped beating your wife"? Yes? Aha! You admit that you have beaten your wife! No? You are a wife beater! That's roughly equal to the silly "gotcha!" scam you guys are running against me at TfT. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not loaded. Do you still have a problem with the article? Do you have a reason to keep the POV notice on it? If so, what are those reasons, particulary? If you can't answer that- you are imagining a loaded question. Kizzle's Goal is to remove the POV tag... not accuse you of anything. Lyellin 04:15, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain this again for the 15th million time: SBVT is harsher on the SBVT people than TfT is on the TfT people. I plan to bring these into parity. SBVT's attacks on Kerry are muted throughout the article by defenses and rebuttals which favor Kerry. Likewise, I plan to be make sure that the GWB position is advanced similarly on TfT. How I get there, will, in large measure depend on what the other editors oppose me on. Suffice it to say, if they oppose me as aggressively has they have so far and each side defends their turf as forcefully as we have, the going is gonna be slow. This is not my fault. It is the fault of those who insisted on larding up the SBVT article - and in doing so, set a difficult to attain parity target for TfT. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, Rex, you insisted on SBVT having a detailed discussion of the charges within the article. [22] JML wanted to spin it off in an article like George W. Bush military service controversy. That's how Texans for Truth is handled now. It's also a current proposal for SBVT. You are entitled to your position on TfT, but don't pretend that other people crammed the SBVT structure down your throat. Wolfman 05:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did not agree to the SBVT spin off. In fact, SBVT page was not extant when I was banned from John Kerry. You are confusing it with VVAW, the spinoff of which I opposed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand my point; read the Talk I linked to. JML suggested taking the combat medal details out of SBVT and putting them in a separate article; I think this was intended to make you happy. At first you agreed, then changed to "On second thought, I strongly oppose. I prefer that all information stay on one page and be better organized." Now that's irrelevant as to the proper structure for TfT. But, it does weaken your argument that TfT has to be just like SBVT, or else it's unfair. When you are the one who insisted on the current structure of SBVT in the first place. Personally, I think the current TfT model is best, and SBVT should be modeled after it in terms of relying on a general 'military service' article for details.Wolfman 06:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My opposition to that proposal was primarily based on the fact that once again, a pro-Kerry editor was going to be handling the "spin-off". This would allow a "framing" of the new article which favors the pro-Kerry POV. If you don't think this happens, take a look at Fulbright Hearing which Neutrality hijacked from me right after I started it and before I could do much with it at all. Even the one puny link I try putting at the bottom, keeps getting deleted without justification or dialog. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are equating "Do you consider this page POV?" to "Have you stopped beating your wife"? --kizzle 04:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's not that I equate them, it's that I have answered it 15 times already. For this reason, continuing to ask it amounts to a trick of some sort, so in that vein, they have the same effect. Perhaps my response to any further repetition of the same old TfT harangues which I have already answered should be "asked and answered". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't pretend for a fleeting second that you have answered the question. Saying that you are going to edit the article when it becomes unprotected is NOT in ANY way shape or form even close to answering the simple question, "Do you think this page is POV? If so, what specifically makes it POV"? When you made the comparison to beating your wife, you compared it to the "loaded" question you then posed, "Have you stopped beating your wife"... so equating my reasonable request for you to state if and why you think the article is POV to whether one has beaten their wife is EXACTLY what you are doing... go back to Philosophy 1 if you disagree and study analogies.

Frankly, I'm done... 15 times asking you to say why you think the article is biased is enough. TfT should be unprotected and a moderator should watch over for the first couple days. In addition, I don't know how to do it personally but I formally request that Rex be looked at by the moderators/administrators for his behavior on TfT and banned from that page at the very least. I believe some users have already been preparing evidence for such an event, I ask that they do so now, and set in motion action against Rex. His refusal to dialog is well-documented on TfT and will be brought to light. --kizzle 08:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Kizzle" demands answers. And if yours don't satisfy him, he will try to harm you (see above) - be warned. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And he'll threaten you with RfCs and NPOV tags...oh, wait, that's you. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're damn right I demand concensus building... and if you decide that the issue is mooted or perhaps insoluble and refuse to dialog in the hopes of getting the page un-protected, then I don't think you should be allowed to edit the page anymore. --kizzle 16:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

How is this different than saying that you are gonna modify the article, and if you don't get your way, you'll edit war and cause POV tags? Lyellin 17:54, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Kizzle" has been answered, many times. He just doesn't like the answers. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? What specific passage (use quotes) in the page is POV? --kizzle 17:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, the way you frame that question shows that you are utterly disregarding the answers I have already given. I have several times reiterated my macro answer and within that have pointed out at least one subset of concern with greater specificity. Suffice it to say, I feel that your endless repeating of already answered questions is tantamount to harrassment. Please stop it. Also, "Kizzle" and I are now in mediation about his complaints regarding TfT, etc. Since his complaints and yours are similar, you are welcome to follow that dialog. Bear in mind though, that mediation is between "Kizzle" and me. Therefore, please do not intrude with comments on the mediation page. Lastly, since "Kizzle" and me are now in mediation about TfT, I will not be dialoging elsewhere regarding that, until "Kizzle" and I conclude our mediated dialog. Please bear this in mind and limit your inquiries of me to non-TfT topics. Thank you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why would you feel so threatened by my presence since I'm just going to ask the same question that kizzle and everyone else has asked you 15 times. But tell you what, I'll stay out of it if you stop using those juvenile quotes around kizzle's name. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My request for mediation is not meant necessarily between you and I, Rex, but rather to settle the goings-on at TfT. Thus, I welcome comments from those involved at TfT on this mediation process, if it is permissible, which I assume it is per Wikipedia open standards. --kizzle 22:57, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"For the record, this is a Wiki. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING written anywhere on Wikipedia is public -- there should be absolutely no expectation of privacy in communications on pages here. If you want to have a private communication, you should do so by email. And anyone is welcome to participate in a discussion on any page (provided of course they are reasonably on topic)." - See above

"For the record, arbitration pages are open to the public - anyone can comment (and are encouraged to do so if they have something to add)"" - See above

I assume mediation pages are the same. --kizzle 23:04, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Kizzle" please understand; "mediation" on this Wiki as a dispute resolution process, is a facilitated dialog between an "invitor" (in this instance, you) and an "invitee" (in this instance, me) which is intended to resolve the resolvable issues between those two parties. If you insist on inviting additional parties in to comment and talk, I will be once again outnumbered and boxed in. That's not what I signed up for or agreed to. Please be advised, if you bring in anyone other than me, you and the mediator, I will opt out. I am interested in resolving my differences with you and only you via this particular mediation. If any others want to do the same, let them request their own mediation. Of course, they can still read along, but I expect them to butt out of the mediaiton itself. And in fact, I recently learned that mediators can delete comments from a mediation page if those comments are not from one of the actual parties to the mediation. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I personally am not familliar in this territory, so we shall ask the mediator, I think you're probably right. --kizzle 23:44, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to Rex's preference that the mediation include only two people. It should be noted, though, that no agreement reached in such a proceeding concerning the content of an article will be binding on users who weren't participants in the mediation. JamesMLane 23:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True, but if "Kizzle" comes around to my point of view, it will no longer be 4 to 1 on TfT, but 3 to 2. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another user comments

Extremely wary as I am after having viewed the fate of others who attempt this sort of thing, I am still determined to see the committee redress what I perceive to be a central problem.

The issue at hand is that this arbitration has been brought about by user conduct. It has increasingly become sidetracked to the issue of conflicting POV's, but that remains a distraction to the crux of the arbitration, which is how Rex relates with other users.

As I observe this dispute from the sidelines, what strikes me is the consistency of Rex's practices. He has an extreme preference for having the last word - thus seeing pages such as Talk:John Kerry and increasingly, this page, becoming bloated to ridiculous levels. For all Rex's supposed outnumbering, and for all the times he laments the conspiracy of harassment formed against him, one gets the distinct impression that the discussions and dealings with him are always dominated by him, both in terms of volume, and in terms of fierceness and intensity.

On that, the general level of vitriol in Rex's edits is (at least, from my experience) nothing short of astounding. He interprets every comment on his actions as an ad-hominem attack of the highest order and immediately responds in kind. It is important to note that the incendiary quality of his rhetoric has not gradually increased in response to a perception of being outnumbered or stymied, but rather has maintained itself at the same level since his first appearance. Personal attacks such as [23], even while Rex is in the throes of two arbitrations, have been characteristic of his editing style for as long as he has been here. By contrast, lapses of judgement by the editors ranged against him are occasional in their nature, and recognised as such. Observe Rex's regular practice of trawling the talk pages of other users, and immediately responding to any mention of him. Nothing similar is evinced by any other of the editors Rex is so fond of accusing.

In short, I think where Rex has been quite successful is in exploiting his situation. Accusations of cabalism are extremely easy to manufacture and require little in the way of support, especially if one is so unutterably self-righteous. Any accusation against Rex is immediately buried in a stack of hastily-assembled counter-claims that are in general quite successful at taking the focus off Rex's own conduct. The shrillness and intensity is apparently seen by the ArbCom as a response by Rex to his situation. But I believe, the narrow focus of Rex's edits, the amount of time and patience that he is willing to contribute in attacks against other users (considerably less than any of his opponents) and actions in general which seem to cry out for a volume control, indict him as a user who promotes disruptive tactics. The arbitration now seems to be an evaluation of how the users attacked by Rex should best respond, rather than the fact that Rex has been so combative in the first place. An injustice would be served if those users who were unfortunate enough to encounter Rex were to be further burdened and tarred for having the patience to endure him rather than buckle under the pressure. Lacrimosus 21:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lacrimosus, the point you miss is that for those editors where there appears to be even the slightest glimmer of possible "peace" I do make overtures aimed at that. For example, I have reached out to Wolfman and to a measurable degree, some positive fruit has come from that. I have also been dialoging with Kevin Baas and we have both stated that we will be less quick to react adversely against each other. Also, I am in the middle of trying to make progress with Kizzle. I was in mediation with Nysus, but he quit the Wiki and has not continued the mediation. My three primary editorial foils right now are Gamaliel, JamesMLane and Neutrality. Occasionally Lyellin chimes in, but not in too of a confrontational manner. Here are the facts as they stand: Neutrality by and large ignores me and me him. Unless he reverts me without dialog, we seldom cross paths. Gamaliel evidences no indication that he wants anything other than to continue to think poorly of me. JamesMLane is actively working to make problems for me. And if you don't think that is true about JML see this edit of his [24]. After a number of days of trying to beat me into submission on TfT, JML has resorted to trying to give me the boot there. To me, this is mendacity laid bare. JML has zero interest in letting me have my own editorial views - which is a prerequisite of collaborative editing and Consensus decision making. It is impossible to reconcile JML's active efforts to harm me, with his duty to leave me be. I stand by my view that his methods towards me are imbued with mendacity - and I chose that word carefully. You can think what you like, but the logjam at TfT is not my fault. I have long ago made clear (see this reiteration of my position [25]) that I have stepped back from any current position on that page and have no objections to it being unprotected. The JML-led chorus of complaints there about their supposed need of me to answer questions is nothing but a straw dog being advanced by JML to block one of the few pro-Bush editors from this Wiki. If you can't see that, well, you are not looking. Also, if you don't think that there is an anti-Bush bias systemic throughout this Wiki, the please examine this edit [26] where I just now deleted the scurrilous Wiki link to the FALSE re-direct that an anti-Bush editor injected into the perfectly honest and correct Stolen Honor Documentary aka Stolen Honor page I just recently started. Please note, even though JML himself has been scrutinizing that page (which I wrote in almost it's entirety), he and the others have found virtually no POV material (alleged or actual) that they can attack. And since there is none to remove, what do the anti-Bush people do? They make some up. The phrase "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" while being part of an actual quote, does not name any actual group. There is no "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush". It is utter and vile anti-Bush POV to make a Wiki page "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" and then re-direct that page to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". In fact, that is about the most raw and obvious POV edit I've seen yet. Well guess what? JamesMLane's name shows up on the edit history for Stolen Honor. He is definitely watching that page. He asserts himself to be a champion of NPOV - but did he do anything to revert or remove the blatant "SBV for Bush" Wiki link or re-direct? The answer is no and that is an example of the mendacity of JamesMLane. Disagree if you want, but I am not persuaded. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you already have one frivolous cross-complaint pending against me. I hope the ArbCom will take note of that action of yours in reaching its decision. If you think I've done something improper, you go right ahead and bring another cross-complaint. When and if there's such a proceeding, I'll respond. Until then, your latest accusations against me are utterly without merit, and saying that much is all the time I'm going to waste on the point. JamesMLane 02:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The truth, JML is that you are intentionally stoking discord at TfT. That fact is inescapable and does not square with your protestations - which are Lady Macbeth like. 02:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me, perhaps, that the gulf between users here reflects a difference of approach to the problem. Rex seems to put primary significance on intentions: he views himself as having good intentions, and others to be malicious, and seeks evidence that supports this. He seems to view interactions in this light. Conversely, those on the other side of Rex, generally speaking, place importance on matters of phrasing, for example, or timing, or context - on various different conventions. They maintain that they uphold conventions while Rex violates them. What approach the arbcom itself takes is a matter of speculation. Lacrimosus 04:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attack parole

Having still seen no further action as to permanent remedies, Rex has now launched strong and disgusting attacks on numerous users. On the evidence page for this very case, he has said JamesMLane is a "obsesed and weird stalker and I'm glad he doesn't know my real name. I feel that he is really sick and needs help". Straight under that, he's also made what I have trouble believing wasn't a gaybashing attempt, though he's since denied it. On Talk:Fulbright Hearing, he's said he was "amazed" at the "bottom feeding habits" of Gamaliel and JamesMLane. On the same page, he's referred to disagreeing editors as "jackals". And he's still attacking the integrity of his detractors, referring to their "single-minded pro-Kerry bias".

Around the time of the temporary order, Rex swore that he'd changed his ways and had stopped personally attacking people. These edits, all in the space of today, make a mockery of that. If nothing else, surely a personal attack parole is deserved here. One should not have to put up with regular personal abuse for being involved in talk page discussions. Ambi 05:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decline to get roped into a "peeing constest" with Ambi over this. He is simply wrong in the entire tenor of what he says here. Gamaliel and JamesMLane are indeed stalking my edits. If that's not "bottom feeding" well then, what is it? Also, please note that Ambi provides not actual links to my edits, because if he did, the context would be clear. The comments Ambi complains about on the evidence page, in the manner presented, are not attacks. Rather, they are my opionion, being presented as evidence. And his flimsy chimera accusation of "gay bashing" is really disgusting and he ought to be ashamed. It is Gamaliel who made the gay joke not me! I am simply furious with you for your accusation, Ambi! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh, I think Ambi is a woman. --kizzle 05:35, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so then, what does this tell you about how little attention I am paying to gender or sexuality roles here? Also, the term "peeing contest" refers to a futile display of one-upsman-ship. Even so, while it would not be effective as literal analogy in a mixed-gender dialog, it is still effective if all persons know it's meaning and it's used figuratively. That said, if Ambi is a woman and/or is offended, I'd be happy to apologize. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's comments on the project page

I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision to turn into yet another interminable exchange of opinions, so I'm placing my response to Rex here.

One of his comments is:

And look at Stolen Honor. Now that JamesMLane is finally being reasonable about what he is editing in, consensus was reach almost immedietely. See talk here. So on this point, again I ask, why are you blaming me? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a typical misstatement by Rex. My first edit to Stolen Honor was this one -- instead of Rex's version, that the POW's in the video "make it clear that they suffered" because of Kerry, I said they "alleged that they suffered". Rex's version improperly adopted their allegations as fact. My major substantive edit was this one, adding information about the video's producer's ties to Bush -- information that's in the current version that Rex lauds. My other substantive edit was this one, adding one sentence to explain an obscure comment in the article. It lasted all of four minutes before Rex reverted it. I then commented on the talk page, concluding: "My edit is a clear improvement on the current text but it's yet another minor point where you'll get your way by virtue of your demonstrated willingness to engage in endless reverts and denunciations." [27] My suggested addition had the support of Gamaliel, kizzle, and Wolfman. No one has agreed with Rex. Nevertheless, Rex is getting his way. The sentence isn't in the article now. Apparently everyone else feels as I do, that it's yet another point where we just don't want to deal with all the imprecations and revert wars that "somehow" crop up in articles Rex edits.

So, Rex, what action of mine in Stolen Honor was unreasonable? and why isn't your attack on me subject to the comment you yourself made about Ambi in the preceding section: "Also, please note that Ambi provides not actual links to my edits...."? JamesMLane 01:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People might want to take a look at Rex's comment on Fred Bauder's page... don't know if he's serious or not:

User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Ban.3F

--kizzle 04:15, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Response to motion to close

On the project page, Neutrality has noted Rex's apparent departure. Other people have stormed off in a huff, only to return. In Rex's case, it was obviously his strong feelings about the U.S. presidential election that led him to the conduct many of us considered unacceptable. By now the election is only a few weeks away. I don't know what's normally done if a user departs while a proceeding is pending, but I suggest that any archiving of this proceeding be deferred until after the election. JamesMLane 17:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was about to come here to note the same thing. Best to deal with this in case he does return. Ambi 04:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The motion to close should be voted down in light of recent events. Rex has returned and has announced a planned campaign against the "turdballs", the "the liberal Wiki-cabal", the "nyudnicks", the "sissified daisy-chain echo chamber", the "Kangaroo Court" and at least one "biased phoney". (Incidentally, this is the same Rex who assured the Arbitration Committee on August 9 as follows: "As my name shows, I have been here for lesss than a month and each week, my courtesy to others has grown. There is no rational basis to infer, suggest or anticipate that I will make rude comments about others." [28])

Another point that I should have thought of earlier: Rex cross-complained against several of us. Even if he had not returned, it would be a disservice to us for the committee to archive this proceeding without expressly ruling on the cross-complaints. I, for one, would like to have my name cleared, rather than having charges against me that are technically still open. JamesMLane 09:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't agree with that. For example, at Dedham, Massachusetts I am working hard to reach consensus with Feldspar. His only answer, now that I have met his demand for proof, is a 3rd revert. How does that put me in the wrong? See talk here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And look at Stolen Honor. Now that JamesMLane is finally being reasonable about what he is editing in, consensus was reach almost immedietely. See talk here. So on this point, again I ask, why are you blaming me? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And at Sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry I did reach consensus and co-operatively edit with Wolfman, basically the entire article. Note that he agreed to my table idea and did then he did much of the editing. See the edit history there. Note that Gamaliel and JamesMLane were not involved. And there was no conflict there to speak of. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor am I trying to boss people at Fulbright Hearing, even though Neutrality bossed me several times there (and even though I started that article). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can think what you want, but the truth is that this Wiki is biased against conservative editors. Frankly, after I write up a "how-to" manual, which will assist other conservatives from getting trapped in this endless cycle of mendacity and complaints (such as all this "Arbcom" crap), I am going to go to all my conservative blogs and recruit 100 new editors, who, armed with what I learned here, will be able to outwit you turdballs and overthrow the liberal Wiki-cabal that tries to rule the roost around here. Mark my words, this Wiki will either eventually have to go to a closed model, or you will have to stop siding with nyudnicks such as JamesMLane and Neutrality. To let Neutrality get away with what he did at Dedham, Massachusetts shows that this Wiki leadership team which is hounding me is nothing more than a sissified daisy-chain echo chamber. Enough with your Kangaroo Court! And that goes for you too Ambi, you biased phoney! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The palpable bitterness in your post is quite sad Rex. I do feel that a lot of editors on this board have spent quite a lot of time trying to come to concensus with you, and for you to turn around and declare war on a project with such benevolent aims is very childish. If there is a liberal bias, recruit members who would constructively balance this article out, not "outwit you turdballs" and "overthrow the liberal Wiki-cabal"... It is truly sad that the conflicts on this wiki have reduced you to such petty behavior. --kizzle 06:43, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Erm, doesn't a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia suggest that more than a ban on editing articles in a particular area is required? This is as bad as a legal threat, IMO. Ambi 07:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a threat to the "very existence of Wikipedia" here. It looks to me like he's trying to say - in rather colorful language - that he intends to correct the numerical imbalance by inviting more conservatives to the site. VeryVerily 08:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe my language was too strong, but I think the quote "I am going to go to all my conservative blogs and recruit 100 new editors, who, armed with what I learned here, will be able to outwit you turdballs and overthrow the liberal Wiki-cabal that tries to rule the roost around here" sums it up. It's a threat to carry out vengeance on the 'pedia through abusive practices - not an attempt to find a few supporters. Ambi 08:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, he can be excused I think; but Rex, I am hearing exactly the same from User:Shorne and User:Ruy Lopez who claim Wikipedia is dominated by the right wing. Fred Bauder 15:34, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne also says he considers both Kerry and Bush to be "right-wing". Indeed, Mao was probably some old-school reactionary. VeryVerily 08:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, to "excuse" this outburst from Rex is to ignore the fact that it's a continuation of the behavior that brought him into two RfAs to begin with. When he makes reference to "what [Neutrality] did at Dedham, Massachusetts" what he is really referring to is a dispute he had with me there. I at first thought this was a mistake on his part, that he has simply picked so many fights with so many editors that he can no longer keep track of which fight was with whom, but then I discovered that he is opposing Neutrality's request for adminship with, among other things, another unsupported accusation of sockpuppetry -- and now, here, referring to that baseless allegation (I frankly don't even know who Neutrality is, besides seeing the name around) as if it were established fact.

If Rex cannot keep his nose clean here, now, when it is all that could save him from a ban, then how are we to believe that he ever could do so when he has nothing to personally gain from it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Feldspar on this. Whether or not there is a liberal bias, it is absolutely true that Rex's opinions in most of the pages he edited were in the vast minority. However, this lack of balance stirred up quite an emotional reaction from Rex where he became paranoid and thought that everyone he encountered was a sockpuppet (and I truly mean everyone, Wolfman, Feldspar, me, definetely others) out to get him, reverted without dialog, and many many other gross violations of wikiquette. From this lack of balance, Rex became highly bitter, threatening whole-scale rewrites, NPOV tags without discussion, personal attacks, and everything else listed on this page. The very matter that there are more liberal editors on pages he edits does *not* in any way excuse his behavior, nor his latest post in declaring war against Wikipedia because his behavior is both frequent and consistent. I truly think there should be more conservative editors, but they as well should follow wikiquette just like the rest of us. Instead of simply saying that he will bring more editors to balance the articles out, he continues personal attacks, declares war on Wikipedia, and mocks the entire dispute resolution process. I don't see how in any way this behavior can be excused. --kizzle 17:43, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that Ambi refers to a goal of adding in new crew of conservative editors a "a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia" proves without a doubt the utter and total Liberal bias of her and those who think like her. Either that or Ambi is just plain stupid. This sentence: "overthrow the liberal Wiki-cabal that tries to rule the roost around here", does not in any way indicate a goal of harming or closing down this Wiki. Rather, it speaks of a goal of getting enough new conservative voices so that the Ambi/JamesMLane/Neutrality, etc cabal will no longer be able to "out-vote" conservatives on every talk page. Do you have any idea how many IP addresses I have access to? I have unfettered access to scores of dozens of disparate, non-related IPs. Had I wanted to do harm, I would have long ago created two dozen of my own sock-puppets and would have out-voted you dumbos on each dispute myself (and if Neutrality isn't "Feldspar", then most likely JamesMLane is). The fact is that it's more important to me to try to get the truth out in a truthful manner, than it is to do it by cheating. And that's why I've not cheated. The truth here is that this Wiki has a limited, core group of over-educated, but dumb people (see ref to cabal above) who have too much influence. For example, if Feldspar isn't dumb or biased, why did he give up on Dedham, Massachusetts? And as for Kizzle's comment of "I don't see how in any way this behavior can be excused", it's simply idiotic. There is absolutely no mechanism in place at this Wiki which could in any way prevent me from having already re-joined several weeks ago under a new name and new IP address (perhaps via megaproxy.com or via VNC into my office network or rebooting my DSL modem) and if I had done that, what comes of all these "Arbcom" complaint idiocies? Oh boo-hoo. I reverted a few people and was rude to a few people, big deal! Did I unleash a "Michael"-bot (one which could insert false facts randonly into articles - perhaps via a date alteration script...) on you? No! In fact, other than piss-off a few pro-Kerry zealots, I basically have not done anything wrong. Good Lord! Where do people Like Feldspar, Neutrality and JamesMLane (even too Kizzle and Wolfman) find the time to endlessly fued with people over so much minutiae? Does anyone even remember how all this started? It started back at John Kerry primarily over my efforts to insert the word "minor" in regards to Kerry's 1st wound. How any reasonable person would disupte that word as being accurate, boggles my mind. He was treated with Bacitracin and a bandaid. What kind of injury is that? A MINOR ONE !!!! There is no other way to describe it. On the other hand, this same Wiki is content to allow the George W. Bush page to have age old crap inferring "insider-trading" on stock and shady deals on ballparks. Frankly, I decided on Beating a dead horse as my last contributors edit to this Wiki as a tongue-in-cheek double entendre. It's indeed what I've experienced with this crew and frankly, I simply don't care any more. They say that a fair definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, yet each time expecting different results. I've determined that the results I get in dealing with this particular Wiki-cabal won't change. Therefore, the only question in my mind which remains is, do I rejoin at some point with new name and new IP? Perhaps, but if I do, no one invloved with me here will ever find out. So then, the next time you run someone like me out of Dodge City, like you have done to me, who will be repeating the same old thing? What did this Wiki learn or gain by chasing me away? Simply; nothing. Frankly, I think that the page White cracker which I started perfectly underscores the blind spot in the group think around here. Why was such an obvious entry missing from this Wiki? Because those who edit here the most are unable to conceptualize that anyone other than a white person could possibly be racist or a bigot. In other words, it's the articles which don't get written which also shows the group-think around here. So will this Wiki ever post any facts about the true genesis of the motives for the "no establishment of religion" clause (see Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts) and the original reasons for it? Probably not. And why not? Because the Liberals are intent on re-writing history to suit their own pro-Gay, anti-religious (more like anti-Christian) purposes. This is why on this Wiki, we can find tidbits about shock photos of a man stretching his anus, but we can't get a few simple facts about the true history of Dedham, Massachusetts edited in. Good, go ahead and embrace educated buffoons like "Feldspar" (whoever he is), you deserve him. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With the above statement of Rex's in mind, I formally request that provisions be made to extend any verdict in this case to any potential sockpuppets, as was done in the PolishPoliticians precedent, if my memory serves me correctly. Ambi 08:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That happens automatically. If we can identify them. Fred Bauder 14:28, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Guys, I've been meaning to tell you this for a while, but I didn't know how to say it... I'm sure some people are going to be pissed off, but I actually created "Rex" because I was bored and there wasn't enough political discussion on this board. I know I've stepped on a few toes, and I'm sure some people are going to be mad at me, but I think the joke is over... I won't post any other article under the name "Rex"... Couldn't you tell after I had "Rex" point out all other sockpuppets, when it was actually he who was the sockpuppet?... it's so ironical! Hope there weren't too many hurt feelings... ;) --kizzle 04:57, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) (trying to lighten the mood)

Well, thank you for solving that mystery! Now if only I can figure out who I am; I'm sure I must be a sockpuppet because I've been accused of it so many times, but I don't know if I'm really JamesMLane or Neutrality or Gamaliel or Gwalla or Ambi or Wolfman or ... Kizzle, you would tell me if I was you, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had a developer check into this claim, and Kizzle and Rex do not use the same ISP. I find it highly unlikely that Rex is a sockpuppet of Kizzle's. →Raul654 06:55, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I see a sense of humor is sorely lacking from this wiki... see the "trying to lighten the mood" after my post. --kizzle 19:45, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Rex returns

I think it is clear that Rex is not gone and is not inactive. Does anyone doubt that this is Rex? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarification of proposed remedy

Will the ban apply only to articles which by their nature involve United States politics? Or will the ban apply equally to the insertion of political material into non-political articles? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To get to the point, it would not cover Dedham, Massachusetts. Really I don't see why you are deleting the edits he is making there. He cites, A New England Town: The First Hundred Years : Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1736 (Norton Essays in American History), a book which sells used for about $3.00. Why don't you both buy it and take a good look at it? Fred Bauder 18:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're making an understandable but incorrect assumption that Dedham, Massachusetts is "the point" in my mind. My concern is that if the ban is applied only to the character of the articles, and not to the character of the edits, then it represents an enormous loophole for Rex to violate the spirit of the ArbCom's decision. If Rex is not shy about inventing new policies to act as his loopholes, there is no doubt he would abuse this one.

The reason I am opposing his edits at Dedham, Massachusetts is explained at the talk page, but briefly, they are this: to merit inclusion, the facts need to be correct, and they need to be relevant. The question of relevance is still unanswered; Rex himself stated that Dedham is only one of a number of New England communities where this practice was the case, yet he does not explain why Dedham is the only article where he is adamant that this information must be inserted -- the only one where he has made an effort at all to insert it. (The truth, clearly, is that just as with these edits, his real motivation was to "stalk my edits", as he had accused me of doing. His aim with these edits and with his redundant 'alerts' on my talk page ([29], [30]) was clearly to harass and intimidate.)

Had the same information been inserted by an editor I trusted, I would still raise the same questions of relevance -- why not put this interesting information in an article of its own, and then link to that article? -- but I would not have had reason to doubt their correctness. Even had it been an editor I knew nothing of, I would have given the benefit of the doubt. However, this is Rex. Please remember that I have seen Rex state as fact:

• I am a sockpuppet of JamesMLane.
• I am a sockpuppet of Neutrality.
• Sahara is a sockpuppet of me.
• I am a vandal.
• I do not live in Dedham, Massachusetts.

Furthermore, I have seen him not only assume as facts wild accusations for which he has no shred of support, I have seen him assert as facts things that he knew to be incorrect:

• He listed myself and Sahara on Vandalism in Progress despite admins making it clear to him in previous cases that edit disputes are not vandalism;
• He has asserted the three-revert rule is suspended in cases of "overt vandalism" (i.e. edit disputes, the cases for which the three-revert rule primarily exists);
• He had seen the discussion between myself and JamesMLane on my talk page regarding the submission of a third RfAr against himself; he saw me state to JamesMLane that I authorized him to submit the RfAr on behalf of both of us; yet he pretended to know nothing about it, so that he could purport to another user that it should "seem odd" that JML should do exactly what I authorized and encouraged JML to do.

I'm afraid that if this is one of the few cases where Rex has not invented his facts out of whole cloth, he has nobody but himself to thank for them not being believed as such. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Feldspar saying that the fact that John Kerry's 1st "wound" was minor, was also "invented out of whole cloth"? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like it noted that Rex is continuing his harassment edits, using his sockpuppet to do so. If there was any doubt before that this was Rex (there wasn't) then this edit should settle it, and should also give you a taste of what Rex intends to do if allowed to continue unhampered: He opposed SWAdair's request for adminship -- SWAdair, who showed phenomenal patience with Rex after Rex, despite knowing the three-revert rule full well, reverted Stolen Honor not three but TWENTY times in twenty-four hours. And this is how he rewards SWAdair, just so that he can get in his comment about "If Feldspar is for him, he must be no good." Well, guess what? Feldspar is for Wikipedia. I am not like Rex, who tries to boast that he is more valuable to Wikipedia because he has created so many 'valuable' articles; I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia wherever Wikipedia needs it, even if it's just the small little things, like fixing a category tag so that it sorts correctly. What 'contributions' does Rex offer? What about reverting fixed things, undoing the little things that need doing and that someone did -- just so that he can harass and bully?

The Dedham article is not the point. The Dedham article is only one of the many cases that demonstrate the point. The point is that this is what Rex offers to Wikipedia. He does not ask what he can do for Wikipedia; he asks what Wikipedia can do for him, answers "Feed my sense of self-importance and my need for control" and acts accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let it be noted that 216.153.214.94071404 is now using the above comment of Fred Bauder at Dedham, Massachusetts in his edit summaries, justifying his fourth revert of the page in three hours with "Feldspar has been warned by Fred Bauder to stop reverting".

Fred, I agree with you completely that "it's not good for either of [us]"; the difference is that Rex wants this war to continue, and I do not. Unfortunately, Rex does not provide any alternative. You are aware that when I tried to look for some alternative to a fruitless revert war, Rex immediately interpreted my not reverting the article for the third time in twenty-four hours as "yielding"? I am frankly quite upset that I was the one who went through the trouble of reading through the linked research paper and writing a summary of the information that was actually contained there and incorporating it into the article, and you are apparently putting me on the same footing as Rex, who is doing nothing more than re-adding and re-adding to the article the exact same paragraph that he started with over a month ago. Which one of us is showing the good faith? Which one of us is even now showing bad faith by operating under a blatantly obvious sockpuppet and violating the three-revert rule? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar is just being a big crybaby because he's wrong and he can't stand it that someone else knows local history better than he does. 216.153.214.94

Bla Bla Bla 216.153.214.94 07:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how long do we have to put up with this behavior? Fred, you or someone needs to do something soon, this is not acceptable behavior by anyone and allowance of such childish invective sets a bad precedent for wikipedia. --kizzle 08:32, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Which behavior is it you are complaining about Kizzle? Feldspar's kvetching and harping? Or his refusal to admit he's wrong at Dedham, Massachusetts? Certainly it must be Feldspar you are complaining about, because "bla bla bla" and "crybaby" on a talk page of this nature, do not rise to the level of "invective". Unless of course the 3rd party (you) complaining about it has a warped sense of proportion, yes? 216.153.214.94 09:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. "bla bla bla" and "crybaby" rise to about the level of a fifth-grader's maturity. if you have a problem with someone else's behavior, take it up with arbcom and do not use that as an excuse to resort to petty name-calling. --kizzle 09:31, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

My observations of Feldspar's repeatedly reverts against both Rex071404 (and this anon IP editor) at Dedham, Massachusetts make me wonder how he justifies getting so exorcized when his edits are reverted for seemingly irrational/illogical reasons. Perhaps what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander, in his view?... 216.153.214.94 08:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not good for either of you, remember it is the bulldog attitude that got you here, not mere POV. Fred Bauder 10:38, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

When I was a child in elementary school, there was a saying that was popular among the teachers and the volunteer mothers who watched the recess yard: "It takes two to tango." This was a popular saying, not because it was true, but because it made enforcement much more uniform: if a known bully was caught in the middle of pounding some other kid that he had pinned down, you told them both "it takes two to tango", and punished them both equally for being in the fight. It takes two to fight; if the smaller kid whose face is bloody and bruised didn't want to be in the fight, well, it's his fault for not escaping the pin.

Call me silly; I don't believe Wikipedia should run that way. I don't think that "assume good faith" should mean "continue to assume good faith of someone who has consistently presented evidence that they do not intend to act in good faith." That long list I presented above of the falsehoods Rex has been caught in? Please remember, that's nowhere near the whole list; that's not even a complete list of the lies he has told to or about me, personally. If Rex makes six edits in a single hour, whose only common thread is harassment of one person, who is to blame if one of those six edits is not immediately recognized to not be blatantly bogus (unlike, say, this one, with which he started)? Is it the fault of the target of his harassment, for not assuming good faith of one edit out of the six?

It is tempting to assert "Rex was at fault, but whoever else he was fighting with must be at fault too". Tempting, but wrong. Holding other people responsible for his own misdeeds is exactly what a bully hopes will happen. And as we have seen, a bully is exactly what Rex is. His absolute refusal to take any responsibility for the actions he chooses and initiates is not something the ArbCom should assist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So Feldspar, are you saying that the framework for your logic is based on your childhood knowledge? Perhaps that's why your actions are so child-like? 216.153.214.94 04:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps being hounded by illogical, senseless reverts by people like Feldspar, is a prime reason Rex071404 left. Also, perhaps it was instances like JamesMLane, et al, who in refusing to allowing the true, non-POV word of "minor" to be used to describe John Kerry's 1st "wound" (way back in July/August) that set off an endless series of tit-for-tat, fighting and fueding. However, it seems that people like Feldspar don't think they are actually doing anything wrong. Perhaps such thinking is also in control of JamesMLane?... But of course, what do I know? I am simply a anon IP editor with no dog in that fight. 216.153.214.94 15:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex, in his "216" guise, seems lately to have returned to his obsession with trying to call Kerry's first wound "minor". I recounted the history of this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications. Contrary to Rex's insinuations, the article on John Kerry reports the facts about the injury, including all the facts that support Rex's conclusion that the wound was minor. The addition of "minor" gives the reader no new information but serves only to emphasize one POV. JamesMLane 18:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Wound classification cannot be a fact only a "conclusion"? Tell that to any triage center doctor at a battlefield army surgical center. Yes or No JamesMLane, is it true that John Kerry's 1st wound was "minor"? 216.153.214.94 04:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex, could you perhaps familiarize yourself with "tendentious"? There is no Wictionary entry for this but your above post regarding the minor wound is an excellent example. It is this tendentious attitude which is at issue, not your point of view or your political orientation. Fred Bauder 12:30, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... so then, Martha Stewart can't be called a "felon" nor the Red Sox to be said to have "defeated" the Yankees (and Cardinals and Angels) or perhaps if anyone asks what the word Israel means, we are not allowed to say that it means "one who has strength with G-d and man" after all we might be too "tendentious", if we did that. Har! You need to read Aesop's fable about the lion in the cave. The fox was too wise to get lured in to his death. There were plenty of footprints going into the cave, but none coming out. Likewise, it could also be said that you, Fred are being "tendentious" when you prohibit the use of a particular word. One can be "tendentious" in either what they do or what they don't do. This fact seems to escape you. It's not just what happens that matters, it's also what doesn't happeen. This is precisly why Napoleon said "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?" which roughly translates as "history is a set of lies agreed upon". Which I am sure, after having dealt with the likes of the liberal cabal at this Wiki, is in large measure why Rex071404 has that quote on his user page.216.153.214.94 17:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Toning down of the ban

I'm utterly amazed that (Fred, it seems) has toned down Rex's ban from a year to four months. He's utterly unrepentant - and indeed, his posts in recent weeks should show how bad he is, in that respect. The editors who have wasted time dealing with him (which, if you include Hadal and the others he's abused for reverting biased edits), would have reached at least fifteen in number by now, have been putting up with him for at least three months. For wasting all this time, and showing utterly no improvement - or desire to do so, he gets a four month ban. Shame, shame, shame. Ambi 05:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That was the length of the ban applied to RK. Why should we throw the book at Rex? Has he done more over a longer period of time than RK? Is he any less repentant and likely to change? Fred Bauder 10:40, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Unless it's been toned down yet again, RK is being banned for four months, and then banned from articles in the areas where he's of annoyance for one year. And this is despite the fact that Rex lacked RK's history of making additional good edits. I honestly fail to understand why Rex has been given so much tolerance when I can't see - particularly now - any mitigating circumstances at all. There even wasn't a limit on Lance6Wins' (entirely sensible) ban on editing Middle-Eastern articles (IIRC, anyway - if there was one, it was a significant one) - yet his ability to cooperate with other users far exceeded that of Rex.

An entirely sensible step would be to dish out the same punishment as RK is receiving, but failing that, for gods sake, at least give us a year break from this guy. Ambi 11:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, are you advocating sactions against "Rex" because you believe him to be a "guy"? If so, isn't that gender-based discrimination? Why is that right? 216.153.214.94 07:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex/216.153.214.94, if I remember correctly it is you who assumed Ambi was a man in the first place. And if you are offended by that, you need to get out of the house more. Or else propose a new wikipedia policy where gender must be queried prior to any conversation as to avoid "gender-based discrimination"... good luck getting that by. --kizzle 05:17, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, don't panic. Once you become an arbitrator, which I think you will, you can propose and vote and all that. And you will see that it is not what you propose or what you vote for that holds things up but failure to either propose or vote. On the point, I may have overdone it and ought to suggest a more appropriate remedy. Fred Bauder 12:55, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

More of Rex's "Gems"

Rex has now messaged all the parties involved in this case gloating about the presidential election... see my page (User_talk:Kizzle#Rex.27s_comment) along with JamesMLane, Wolfman, and others probably..... why is he still allowed on Wikipedia at all? --kizzle 22:27, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Exaggerated. False. Blaming "Rex" where no blame is due. 216.153.214.94 06:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is absolutely inappropriate. Rex is using Wikipedia as a means to push a political POV, and he is managing to harass many users in the process. He needs to be banned, and he needs to be banned now. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:21, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

So Neutrality admits that he started a senseless (and ill-founded) revert war with Rex071404 at Lawrence v. Texas and that's why he wants to ban "Rex", so as to hide the truth about his own troublemaking? Or will he swear again and say that's "BS"? Hmmm..... come to think of it, wasn't Neutrality the prime-mover of all the pro-Kerry fluff back in July? Seem to recall seeing a list of edits somewhere which indicated that. 216.153.214.94 06:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In case it matters, me too. *shrugs* I just saw it as childish gloating, nothing more. Lyellin 00:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... Didn't L. exchange prognostications about the EV count with "Rex"? Also, I see no "gloating" on L's page (nor any comment at all on Neutrality's).216.153.214.94 06:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see it as the same thing, i'm just tired of settling for "its just the way he is". --kizzle 01:21, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Oh. Two words (those being "ha" and "ha") have deeply offended "kizzle" to the core. 216.153.214.94 06:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Lyellin. A much more serious reason to ban Rex is that, while using his anon IP of 216.153.214.94, Rex made this edit by which he blanked someone else's user page. JamesMLane 01:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see that JamesMLane is still stalking the edits of other users and still tells only 1/2 the story. 216.153.214.94 06:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you're quite welcome to tell any part of the story that you think I've omitted. I assume that would involve a litany of your grievances against the user whose page you blanked. You might also usefully cite the Wikipedia policy that you're interpreting as empowering a lone vigilante to adjudicate another user as a vandal and to blank his or her user page. JamesMLane 12:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, JamesMLane demonstrates that he has a weird obsession with "Rex". So weird in fact, that he'll go to great lengths to try to goad him into a dialog. It's almost as if JamesMLane is addicted to trying to argue with "Rex". Sad, very sad. 216.153.214.94 15:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You reverted edits of mine that were totally unrelated to anything other than me removing an offensive comment of yours. You spammed and blanked my user and talk pages numerous times. You threatened to "attack" wikipedia to ensure that the worst "terrorist" appears on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Anything else you'd like to add? violet/riga (t) 17:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please take note: Violet/Riga has now pig-piled on and joined the unfounded, vindictive reverts at Dedham, Massachusetts. There is an over effort going on at that page to delete an edit which tells true facts about the religious history of Dedham, Massachusetts. Violet, how much New England history are you familiar with - living as you do in England, not New England? Please advise. Also, please take note that Violet initiated trouble between us by deleting talk page comments of my which had 100% nothing to do with him/her and we on the Sept. 11th, Attacks page. Now Violet complains that there was retaliation against him/her. Violet, what did you expect? You did multiple delettions of my 100% valid talk page comment about terrorists, then you complain when your home page was deleted (as it should be because you are indeed a vandal!)? 216.153.214.94 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem to feel picked on. Do please stop this silliness. violet/riga (t) 21:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is it "silly" to think that persons such as yourselves ought to obey the same rules you ask others to? Violet, you don't obey the rules. Here is some of the things you've done:

1. Deleted my talk page comments from an active discussion [31]
2. Re-deleted those same comments multiple times
3. Deleted my votes from that same page multiple times
4. Falsely stated that there is a Wiki rule aginst anon-ip editors "voting" on take page polls
5. Refused to dialog at Dedham, Massachusetts
6. Stoke a revert war at that same page.

Violet, you are way off base and totally wrong. 216.153.214.94 03:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those last two made me laugh. Funnily enough I've not had the chance to "dialog at Dedham, Massachusetts". As for the other points you mention I think by now it's clear enough that there are a lot of people that don't really care about what you have to say. Shh. violet/riga (t) 08:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that "dialog" requires two people who are disagreeing to not only speak to each other about the reasons they disagree, but also to listen to each other about those reasons. 216.153.214.94071404 is moaning and whining about how everyone else is neglecting their responsibility to address his concerns. But these are the changes made by the editors who are supposedly ignoring Rex's concerns. Rex is still trying to insert the same exact paragraph that he started with back on September 28th. As usual, he wants everyone else to abide by their responsibilities to him while he ignores every rule and every responsibility that doesn't suit his needs of the moment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... a bunch of sore losers, eh? 216.153.214.94 06:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't even see why anyone here is complaining. My review of the edits in question indicate that "Rex" had his numbers wrong. The final EV count is 286 to 252, not 289 to 252. What is the big deal about someone exaggerating (or mis-typing) the total by 3 EV on a talk page? Seems like much ado about nothing. 216.153.214.94 07:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In all my life I have never seen such a display of insecurity as Rex has shown. Bush won, thank you for absolutely rubbing it in our faces. But go be happy by yourself, don't make others feel bad because of it. Why do you feel the need to taunt the other side? --kizzle 08:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... If it were Eric Cartman you were talking to he's said something like "If Bush won, that means that someone lost. Come one Kizzle, who lost? Tell me who lost Kizzle. Kizzle who lost?" Of course, you are not talking to Eric Cartman, so no such conversation will occur. 216.153.214.94 15:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

riiiight. why hide behind Eric Cartman when I know its your wet dream to say those words yourself? jesus you must have been beaten up so many times in high school. --kizzle 21:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

So now you make perverse sexual insults? Please retract that statement. 216.153.214.94 03:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you're getting lazy rex. i expected more. --kizzle 08:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

this is enough

It has been almost 4 months I think since Rex graced us with his presence at Wikipedia. Through countless edit wars, page protections, constant reversions (20+ in one day, now commonplace through his sockpuppet ip address)... I have never seen a more clear-cut case of someone who is damaging to Wikipedia. There is simply no benefit to Rex's style of "concensus-building", and to him its as if we're contributing to a "Rexopedia" where his edits are justified without discussion and opposing edits must satisfy an imaginary line of proof (no proof has yet satisfied Rex in a disagreement). The level of personal attacks he has leveled against many, many members of Wikipedia over the months in addition to the reckless behavior on his 216. ip account which has gotten worse and worse. I have begun to respond to these attacks with my own personal attacks, because frankly I am sick and tired of dealing with this. It has been 4 months. Every page Rex has been a part of has greatly reduced in the ability to actually reach a concensus, and this does not mean the minority opinion has been ignored, rather Rex's edits reflect a clear POV even upon logical arguments or documented proof to the contrary. This is not to say that he is always wrong, but rather that his obstinant method of "concensus-building" does not allow room for compromise nor opposing viewpoints, thus even if he was right, instead of explaining he simply holds the page hostage and threatens to protect/NPOV tag/arbcom/mediation. G-d forbid this wiki should be ruled by people like Rex in the majority, it could not function.

This behavior is primarily due to a feeling of being "picked on" as violet puts it, as he is obviously scarred from the multiple encounters he has both been involved in. Due to his POV and Bush winning, along with the assumed invulnerability he is assuming by hiding behind a IP address, he is now engaging in all the worst behaviors he was accused of before, but now in vastly increased frequency.

I hereby request that action be taken above and beyond the simple ban of several articles, as this behavior is not politically related but rather extends to Rex's ability to work with others, which simply does not exist. A simple look at the history will see a long and exhausted attempt to dialog with Rex by nearly everyone involved, but this has got to stop. I am sick and tired of the defense that his viewpoint is simply in the minority and that we must account for minority opinions. I'm fine with that! If the committee does nothing further to curb this behavior, then this will set a precedent that a stream of personal attacks against other users is acceptable, which I have of late have begun to follow (which is not appropriate, and I will try to modify my own behavior, if I get kicked off wikipedia along with Rex I would gladly accept this punishment)...he should not be allowed to simply bully, denegrate, cajole, mock, and more importantly plead ignorance to opposing viewpoints.

Something must be done, and it must be done now. Vote on it, if its 0-9 then ok. Arbcom, please restore my faith in this wikipedia. If any others agree with me, please state below. If I am alone, so be it, as long as the possibility is entertained by the arbcom.--kizzle 09:39, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Ambi 10:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree. What's up with the missing arbitrators? The case has been open for months.Wolfman 03:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with kizzle and Ambi. The situation with Rex is completely out of hand.

In September, I asked the committee to impose a personal attack parole on Rex, during which any admin could ban him for 24 hours in case of further personal attacks. I suggested that this remedy expire on November 3: "It's obvious that Rex feels strongly about the U.S. election; perhaps he'll be less prone to lashing out at people once the election is over." My optimism has proved to be unjustified. This user has conclusively shown that, as long as he's here, he'll be a major problem, consuming huge amounts of time of good-faith editors and Arbitration Committee members. What's the best step toward building a quality encyclopedia? It's obvious -- ban Rex.

I've added to the Evidence page by noting instances of Rex's recent misconduct as anonymous IP 216.153.214.94.

Under the "Proposed findings of fact", the section on "Petty offenses" (number 18) contains a reference to "tag team reverting". This is a favorite phrase of Rex's to characterize the common situation in which he is stubbornly insisting on a particular wording and everyone else involved in editing the article disagrees. What is the alleged offense here? I don't understand how an editor's reversion of a change becomes an offense just because (1) many other editors agree with the reversion, and (2) the lone participant who wants different text persists in reverting to it incessantly, often more than three times per day. In this situation, it's quite proper for each editor to act on his or her own good-faith view. If many others share that view, the concurrence means that the editors are approaching consensus, not that all those who agree must back off. If this phrase is included in any final decision, Rex will point to it over and over whenever more than one person disagrees with him about something.

Concerns about the proposed decision that I feel strongly enough to repeat: (1) Rex cross-complained against me and others based on the bringing of the arbitration proceeding. He withdrew the cross-complaint but then rescinded his withdrawal. I suggest that the decision should expressly reject the cross-complaint. (2) I am also still upset at passages implying that I have improperly incorporated a pro-Kerry viewpoint into the John Kerry article ("Proposed findings of fact", #1) and that I have inserted an unreasonable degree of detail ("Enforcement", #1.5). I have never been provided with one single citation to an edit of mine that supposedly justifies these criticisms -- yet, with no opportunity to explain my challenged edit, I would be subjected to a special rule in which my John Kerry edits (and those of nine others) would be treated as a free-fire zone for reversions. Given that this enforcement provision would only have lasted until the election in any case, I suggest that it now be deleted from the proposed decision, to eliminate any implied aspersion on the ten editors named. JamesMLane 17:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I disagree with your assesments. Please provide additional proof. 216.153.214.94 20:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you disagree with his assesments, cite where you think he is wrong. You don't need any more proof, nor further advisement. --kizzle 09:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

What the hell?

I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but I simply cannot see why these proceedings have been so biased in favour of Rex. Rex has delivered barrages of insults. Rex has made accusations en masse. Rex has now moved into vandalism. Rex has shown a complete inability to cooperate with any other user in a way that has been almost unmatched by anyone. Yet somehow, after three months, we've seen almost no rulings on this - and yet somehow, a quip of "hi rex!" is suddenly a taunt that deserves mentioning?

I'm just disgusted. After all the time I've put into this project, some bloody reward. Ambi 12:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not the "quip". It's the cavalier, no-dialog-on-talk-page revert which came with it. Ambi, you are indeed a trouble-maker. You just do a better job of hiding that fact. 216.153.214.94 20:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree that this idiot should be banned - show me one positive edit made in recent times that has not been disputed for factuality or POV. As a still-relatively-new wikipedian I find it shocking the way the whole banning process is conducted. Just kick this one idiot out and you'll make many good contributors much happier. It makes me laugh that I've spent so much time over the last few days dealing with a personal vendatta 216 has against me (along with numerous other users here) instead of contributing to the content of this pedia. violet/riga (t) 01:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't "jerk" be a better term? After all, "jerk" would clearly be an opinion, though "idiot" infers a fact regarding intelligence. And from that standard, to my reading, Violet is more of an idiot than Rex. 216.153.214.94 05:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, a full and thorough discussion of whether Rex is most accurately classified as a "jerk", an "idiot", a "troll", a "control freak", or some combination of the above would be, I'm sure, quite illuminating. But Wikipedia doesn't handle pages very well once they're over 320KB... --Antaeus Feldspar 05:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, it's not that hard. He's definitely not a 'troll' (spends way too much time for that); 'idiot' is just hyperbole; i'll go with Rex's own suggestion of 'jerk' (70%) combined with a dose of Antaeus's 'control freak' (30%). Wolfman 06:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Jerk" is too American for me. "Idiot" does infer a lack of intelligence and to my mind poor social behaviour is an example of lack of intelligence. There are plenty of other words that could be used but unlike others I have self-control on this medium. violet/riga (t) 09:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

fair enough, i suppose you english did invent the language after all. i'm just saying he's not mentally retarded, if not particularly bright either. Wolfman 15:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the question should not be one of "punishing" Rex. Wikipedia is simply worse, not better, for Rex's presence. The tiny chance that he might some day make a useful edit is far outweighed by the certainty he will drain vast amounts of other's time from useful editing. If the goal here is improving Wikipedia, keeping Rex around is certainly not helpling in any way. At least some arbcom members seem to get this, but the others have seemingly been ignoring the case. Wolfman 04:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't figure Wikipedia to be a place caught up in red tape, which it seems to be in this case. 216 continues to show that he shouldn't be here. Why can't we get this sorted out? violet/riga (t) 10:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because there's one set of rules for us and one set of rules for Rex. That sort of thing doesn't seem to rate a mention, and I'm damned if I know why. Ambi 10:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can understand a reasoning why the proceedings would go easier on Rex and tougher on his opponents than the respective records of the parties would justify. It's a pattern that, I've gathered from my reading of Groklaw, is not infrequent within U.S. courts; a judge assigned to a case of very clear wrongdoing by a particularly intransigent party to the case cannot just say "Oh, come on, this is ridiculous, everyone can see that it's So-and-so who's causing all the trouble! Let's stop farting around; So-and-so, pack your bags, 'cause you're about to vacation at the Bars-On-The-Windows Hilton!" Ironically, when the judge reacts to a particularly obvious situation by treating it as particularly obvious, the wrongdoer can turn around and file an appeal to a higher court and claim that the judge must have been prejudiced against them -- just look at here and here and here in the record, your Honor! Judge Foofoo didn't even let me present my theory that the prosecution hired a Hollywood production company to film fake security camera footage of a robber who looks exactly like me stealing the money that I later accidentally spent when I found it under my mattress! How can you say I got a fair trial when the defense wasn't allowed to present its best theory?? -- so in order to make their judgements "appeal-proof", judges faced with an ironclad case will bend over backwards to give the party clearly in the wrong the benefit of every doubt, and make the other party truly prove their case. Then, in the case any room for an appeal is even left, the appeal court can see that Judge Foofoo didn't wrong the appealing party by holding them to an unfair standard; the appealing party was given every benefit of the doubt and even under standards biased in their favor, the result was still clear.

But I think there's problems with applying that strategy here. There is, unless I'm mistaken, no appeal court higher than the ArbCom, and thus no one to "appeal-proof" the judgements for. ArbCom is our court of appeal, our resource to say "Look, Rex reverts us without dialog; he accuses us loudly and publicly of being sockpuppets; he smears us as 'vandals' in his edit summaries on Vandalism in Progress; he throws wild accusations of bias and religious bigotry and hidden agendas; he stalks our edits; he makes threats; he blanks others' user pages; he makes direct threats to spam their user pages, reposting the same text daily until they are coerced to his desired action; he threatens RfArs against them; he violates the three-revert rule; he thumbs his nose at us by pretending his anon identity 216.153.214.94 A) has never heard of this "Rex" we keep talking about and B) has so much knowledge of who's in the right and who's in the wrong he's justified in picking up all Rex's battles and fighting them using just the methods Rex did -- please do something about him."

It's demoralizing to those good editors to reply to them with "We will respond to Rex's violation of community standards by allowing him to continue violating those standards, but holding you most stringently to those standards. You are forbidden to cite the open RfArs against him to show that he is not a reliable editor whose word can be taken at face value; however, he can misrepresent an administrator's words from that RfAr, justifying his third revert in two hours (followed by an illicit fourth just an hour later) with 'Feldspar has been warned by Fred Bauder to stop reverting'. At some point we may impose some sort of penalty on Rex for all his misdeeds, but you should know that we're already looking at how soon he'll be back and so you should treat him with the courtesy he has never shown to you." Good editors are already being driven away from Wikipedia because they know that even if they do something as unobjectionable as fixing a category tag, Rex may revert it just to prove that he can thumb his nose at them and get away with it. They are demoralized further when it's shown to them that, not only will the little things they do right be neither praised nor protected from the petty vengeance of a troublemaker, but the littlest things they do wrong -- something as small as the 'taunt' "Hi Rex!" -- will be held against them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's an interesting analogy, but we must remember... this is just a website, not a country. it's purpose is for people to come together and share knowledge in building an encyclopedia. along the way, there will be problem users who do not respect other people's opinions. I think the overwhelming evidence at the very least includes Rex in banning from this place, and arguably punishing others who have gotten caught up in the fray (including myself). If the arbcom does indeed ban Rex, it's just a ban, it's not like we're executing him. we are just denying him access to a website, that is all. There will be no great catastrophic consequences to this place or arbcom or anyone really if Rex is banned. If arbcom feels at some point down the road it was too harsh, they can simply remove the ban. Now this is not to say that the Wikipedia open model should be trumped by arbcom banning people left and right, but with the evidence assimilated over the last 4 months in the several cases brought upon Rex, and his now recent IP shennanigans, I can't think of a more clear cut case of someone who simply must leave. There is no more time for deliberation, action must be taken now. When Rex returns however, I must respectfully disagree with you Feldspar, I know its hard but by principle we must try again and assume good faith with Rex, if he ends up doing the same thing, then by all means don't bend over backwards for him while he reverts a typo you fix. But he still must be given a chance. --kizzle 20:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I actually think Rex has difficulty using references to extract information. And a propensisity to edit without adequate authority backing him up. I believe his edits to Dedham, Massachusetts demonstrate his failure. I don't think he needs a ban at all, but simply needs to not be allowed to revert and required to cite adequate references. The object is to put him to work editing rather than fooling around. Fred Bauder 20:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I think you're underestimating the problem posed by his intense POV and his totally noncollaborative style. There have been occasions when he did extract information from a reference work. He then inserted it where it didn't belong, couched it in a thoroughly biased manner, incessantly reverted any changes to his texts, repeated his opinions over and over, mischaracterized the opinions of others, and fired off personal attacks at anyone who dared to disagree with him. Any attempt to "put him to work" might conceivably result in a small quantity of worthwhile contributions from him, at the cost of huge waste of time of many legitimate users -- who, if not distracted by Rex, would have been able to make contributions that were cumulatively of far greater value. For my part, I feel I've already spent too much time on him. I don't want to bring any more arbitration proceedings. JamesMLane 20:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The complainers on this page are just silly. The facts of the various disputed edits clearly are on Rex's side. Here are some examples:

1. The anti-Christian bigotry which Rex fought against at Axis of Evil, whereby some were trying to insert the "axis of medival" slam against Bush
2. The minor wound Kerry suffered
3. The true history of Dedham MA

The truth here is that an echo-chamber of self-congratulators have formed a Wiki-cabal and are so ego-centric that they simply can't stand the fact that an editor (Rex) won't simply kowtow to their liberal bias. And then, to top it off, the complain about it! 216.153.214.94 22:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fred, I second JML. It's not just difficulty using references to extract information. The sheer size of evidence from this page under personal attacks along with his recent revert behaviors under 216 is evidence enough. I agree that he has this difficulty of using sourced material, but it is definetely not the only failure he exhibits. If good behavior and proper wikiquette has not developed in almost 5 months, I highly doubt it will ever develop. Look what happened after the last threat of ban when he promised not to come back in a note signed on your page. He started doing everything he was accused of, only under a guise of 216... he will not change until something is done about it. --kizzle 20:47, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

It may be true that he has difficulty with references. But neither this arbitration nor the other (which might as well be merged) were based on his behavior on Dedham. His behavior under the original complaint needs to be addressed as well as the more recent disputes on Dedham. Every other editor involved in these disputes has many edits on undisputed topics not relating to politics. As best I can tell Rex has only a handful. And he initially got involved in Dedham because he was following Antaneus around. Where is the evidence that he wants to be "put to work"? Compare the contributions of the editors Rex with those he is in dispute with:

JamesMLane, Neutrality, Ambi, Wolfman, Gamaliel, Khaosworks, Kizzle, Antaeus Feldspar, Lyellin, Gzornenplatz, John Kenney, Bkonrad, Violetriga, Allistair McMillan, and others.

Those are all good editors who have spent many, many hours on topics outside disputes with Rex. The same cannot be said for Rex; everywhere he goes dispute follows. At the least, keep him off the political pages for a while, as his passion for a political POV seems to be a critical ingredient of the disputes (even in Dedham).

How many hours of these users time have been spent in pointless disputes with Rex? How many hours of the ArbCom's time have been spent on this? Now how many non-disputatous edits has Rex ever made? What is his contribution except controversy? To me, it's clear that this guy is a drain on Wikipedia. It's really not about his politics, it's about his personality. Rex does not play well with others. Wolfman 20:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's got to the point that I've added his contributions to a watchlist on my user page so that I can quickly scan through the edits made just in case he's gone and spammed something I've worked on. Talk:Recess is a great example. He's flauting his ability to avoid a ban, and I can't help but feel he's laughing at every negative thing said: "Yeay, I've wound somebody up again". I feel pity - he must feel very bad having virtually every single one of his edits being reverted on the grounds of POV, lack of citations or just being plain incorrect. violet/riga (t) 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go "F" myself?

Please read this 216.153.214.94 18:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you are more than a little frustrating to work with, Rex. Wolfman 03:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please read the section called "Personal Attacks" under the evidence for this case... it might take you a while. --kizzle 09:13, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

mmmmm this is a juicy one -> [32] --kizzle 03:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Clarification on a few Proposed findings of fact

On point 12, that one of the points on which I justified Rex's first edit at Dedham, Massachusetts was the fact that Rex was involved in this RfAr. This is true, I did in fact link to one of Rex's open RfArs. If I had to do it over again, I would have been more specific, and rather than link to this RfAr, I would have linked to these edits, ([33], [34], [35], [36], and [37]), all of which occurred within the same hour as Rex's first edit to Dedham, MA and which taken together show a pattern of harassment, a pattern Rex continues even more blatantly in his guise as an anon.

On point 13, that it was Netoholic who broke the deadlock at the Dedham article by suggesting that Rex's information could be put into a separate article, to which the Dedham article could then point ([38]), I must point out that in fact I made this exact suggestion previously, here. "Had the same information been inserted by an editor I trusted, I would still raise the same questions of relevance -- why not put this interesting information in an article of its own, and then link to that article? -- but I would not have had reason to doubt their correctness." It is true that I did not make this suggestion on the article talk page addressed directly to Rex; I raised it as an example of something that could have been done by an editor who was acting in good faith.

I frankly confess that it concerns me that some (not all) of the 'petty offenses' being referred to in the proposed findings essentially concern other parties not assuming good faith of Rex -- not at the beginning, when he had a clean record, and when good faith should have been assumed, but after Rex's propensity to say things for which he has no proof and even things that we know he knows to be false has been demonstrated and documented. It concerns me that some administrators are stating as fact that Rex's motives were genuine even though his research was flawed. It concerns me that I am being chastised for saying that Rex "has a problem with the truth" and his accusation on the same page that "it's clear that Feldspar has an agenda other than allowing edits which reflect the truth about America's Christian heritage" is passed over. Please, tell me -- how many times must a user demonstrate that they are not acting in good faith before the users they harass are allowed to stop assuming it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar points the finger of blame - at others, but not himself. 216.153.214.94 20:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No matter what another user does you are responsible for following etiquette. Fred Bauder 20:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable user can object to that principle. What I am questioning is its application, what is held to constitute "ettiquette". I was under the impression that "Assume good faith" meant "assume good faith until the evidence that a user is not acting in good faith is incontrovertible." Is this not the case, or are you saying that even with all that has been documented and even with his current pretense that 216.153.214.94 is some completely unconnected anon who simply chooses to fight all Rex's battles, that Rex's record is still not enough to prove his bad faith? If not his, then whose? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if he is banned for a year he will still be back and should be treated with respect. Fred Bauder 00:34, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. When Rex comes back he will be given a clean slate and I will assume good faith.--kizzle 01:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Call for decision

So does this mean he will be banned for a year, or 6 months, or that he can edit but he has to cite sources every single time? If there is no decision, when do you think it be reached and enforced? --kizzle 19:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Every day we wait, the situation gets worse. --kizzle 01:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is taking so long? Now Rex has gotten yet ANOTHER page protected which needs to be unprotected in order to reflect the vast amount of information coming in about voter irregularities.

A decision needs to be reached now. --kizzle 22:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The latest page protection occurred after Rex made approximately eleven reverts in seven hours. Details have been added to the Evidence page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Further misconduct as anon IP. JamesMLane 23:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With Fred's latest edit, we have 3-0 in favor of banning Rex entirely for 6 months. What further needs to occur in order for this to actually be enforced? --kizzle 00:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Correction: 3-0 in favour of banning him from reverting for six months. An outright ban? Rex gets special treatment, remember. Ambi 12:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"216" says s/he's leaving

In this edit, User:216.153.214.94 says, "I have quit the Wiki." Therefore, there could be no objection to an immediate block on that IP. The contributions history gives no reason to believe that the IP has been used by anyone other than Rex. JamesMLane 07:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I might add that Rex also claimed that "... I am quitting this Wiki, effective with this edit" under his original identity, and it caused some speculation about "well, if he's gone, the case is moot, isn't it?" Given that he was not gone, I do not think we should view the announced departure of User:216.153.214.94 as reason to stop the case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom, thanks for restoring my faith in this wiki, either by ruling at all or taking into account 4 months of personal attacks, proected pages, insisting on unsourced additions, and just generally being a complete asshole, causing several users to leave this wiki altogether. Yeah, just prevent him from reverting, that'll stop him from personal attacks. Justice is served. --kizzle 20:42, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Response to James

JamesF abstained on one of these points, citing "... and remove his ability to help fight vandalism? Maybe..."

Has Rex ever helped fight vandalism? Ambi 04:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)