Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence

Most of those attacks were from the archives of Talk:John Kerry and the RfC page, rather than talk pages. Ambi 04:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

a) What "Wikipedia Committee" is being referred to there? b) I think a permanent ban is asking a little bit too much. More appropriate (and more likely to be accepted), IMO, is a personal attack parole, a revert parole and preferably a ban on editing John Kerry. Ambi 05:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex's Facts

• We all piecemeal editing to some extent, especially with sections of a very large article. But Rex will do literally dozens of piecemeal edits in a sitting, making it difficult to keep up with the changes in the article. I suspect he started doing this to attempt to avoid reverts.

What do you mean "attempt to avoid" as if that's bad... The crux of the problem has been edit/revert wars. I feel that my new style of smaller, piecemeal edits allows the others more leeway to address their concerns without any edit/revert wars. Why is that now a bad thing? Rex071404 05:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• He doesn't want to mediate now, fine. But how is that not a refusal to mediate?

Please stop suggesting that I don't want to mediate now. You are trying to make me un-prove a negative. What I am trying to do is avoid bickering or sniping and instead focus on dialoging towards edit consensus. I see no reason to abandon early the efforts at reaching consensus. I feel we have made great progress. The other editors have stopped instantly reverting 100% of my edits and I have stopped being snide towards them. As far as I am concerned, the problems on John Kerry have for the most part, worked themselves out. Rex071404 05:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And this RfA proves that these problems you cause have not "worked themselves out". Gamaliel 05:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The talk page has been archived about 4 or 5 times since this mess started. What has been happening if not dialogue? Screens upon screens upon screens of dialogue. How can he claim that there have been no discussions? Gamaliel 05:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A significant part of the curent page is devoted to comments by JamesMLane that are directed solely at me. I have pointed out that he should put these on my Talk page instead. He has yet to do that. Also, take a look at the current state of the Kerry Talk page. In the last day or so, I have asked for and/or invited comment on several topics, but have received basically no replies from the other editors. I would think that especially JamesMLane, Wolfman and Neutrality would want to reply or comment, but they do not. See these sections on Talk page: "Cameron Kerry - the crux of the matter (all editors, please read and reply to this", "Elliot Said" and "NLF vs. Viet Cong vs. NVA - Re: 172's recent edit". Rex071404 05:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Umm, people have lives. We can't all check in every day; doesn't mean we're refusing to dialogue. Just noted since you mention me specifically here, Rex.Wolfman 20:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been following all the discussion for two weeks. There has been plenty of dialogue with you. When you pose loaded questions attempting to steer the debate your way, you are often ignored. This doesn't mean there has been no discussion; the endless kilobytes of archived talk are evidence to that. Gamaliel 05:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you concede that my comments are "often ignored" makes my point. What we disagree on is whether or not my inquires are nothing but gratuitous muck raking. I say that they are on point, thoughtful and germane. At the same time, I suppose you are free to characterize my efforts as posing "loaded questions" in attempt "to steer the debate".

Frankly, I am pretty sure we all try to "steer the debate". That leaves "loaded questions". Which of my recent questions are you offended by, and why? Rex071404 05:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are willfully misunderstanding what I said. I said you are often ignored when you pose loaded questions. Unless you have been talking to yourself for two weeks, you have hardly been ignored. Gamaliel 05:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes or No, are you saying that in your view, I have recently been asking "loaded questions"? And if you are saying that, have I asked any that offend you? And if I have, please tell me, which ones have I asked are you offended by? Please don't make me repeat the question for a 3rd time - it is that type of non-response which I feel detracts from the dialog. Rex071404 06:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just wondering why his being offended has anything at all to do with issues regarding loaded questions in an attempt to steer debate, and others ignoring said questions. Lyellin 14:26, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

(copied from User talk:Rex071404

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me sevral days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I understand you posted your evidence on the evidence page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence and user Neutrality moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence at edits [1] and [2]. This is improper as the Evidence page is available or all Wikipedia users who wish to present evidence.

One comment I might make though. The evidence we, the arbitrators, need is links to edits which prove or (in your case) disprove the allegations of the complaint against you. Much of your statement consists of an assertion that you have changed your approach. If you can show that through edits you have made please do that. Also, if you feel mediation is called for before arbitration, please request it at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and get together with those who are complaining and ask them to join you in mediation.

If you admit that you have made errors in the past it is helpful if you explain to us what you feel those were and what you have done to improve your behavior, giving some examples of "then and now". As a participant in the case, in addition to the Evidence page, you can also make statements on the main page of the arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 as you have in the section, Statement by affected party. This can be expanded or modified.

One problem I note is that you say, neither mediation or arbitration are "ripe". I'm not sure what you mean by this as a whole bunch of folks are saying that it is time for "something to be done", which is what arbitration does, albeit slowly and weirdly. At any rate you are in arbitration. We could decide that the parties simply need to discuss matters more or that either you or the other parties have not followed Wikipedia policies. If you feel either of those appoaches are right please set forth your arguments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404, Statement by affected party. Fred Bauder 11:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality / John Kerry

As further evidence that I am trying to work things out collegially, I cite my Request for Mediation which I asked for today and which is titled "Rex071404 requests Mediation with Neutrality". My apologies, but I do not know how to find the specific URL for this section and cannot link to it. It can be found on the request for mediation page. Rex071404 16:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Harsh or biased comments made to or about Rex, by others on the John Kerry Talk page

This content duplicates that on the attached project page. Accordingly, I have deleted it, as it interferes with the arbitration process to scatter identical evidence in multiple places.

Thank you for your co-operation. Martin 21:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Responses

This counter-complaint is a vexatious one if ever I saw one.

Firstly, at the time this arbitration request was filed, all of us had exhausted all previous options. The RfC had been strongly supported, and a good faith request for mediation had been "indefinitely postponed". As the arbitrators began to draw up a temporary order, Rex suddenly reversed his position on this, presumably to save his hide - but by then, it was a bit late.

Moreover, his complaints against Neutrality are somewhat hypocritical, as at least on #2, #3 and #4, he's been just as guilty as Neutrality, if not more so. Ambi 08:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi. I never gave much credence to the argument that there was a "new Rex" who had learned his lesson and would become a model Wikipedian. This counter-complaint conclusively demolishes that argument. It will also, of course, cause yet more waste of time among people who could be doing lots of other things to improve Wikipedia. I've been told about long-term problems caused by other users, but, if we look only at the disruption caused during a new user's first month, Rex must be a strong contender for Rookie of the Year. JamesMLane 08:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's also one other thing that I forgot to mention. Rex has consistently tried to play the "I'm being picked on because I've got an unpopular view" card here. Yet, if this is the case, why is there no question of Cecropia's conduct, (and I believe Mbecker holds the same position, though correct me if I'm wrong)? The answer is simple - though they hold the same views as Rex, no one could claim that either of those users have been disruptive. Ambi 09:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, Mbecker agreed with Rex on one point, but I wouldn't say he's generally aligned with Rex. Cecropia certainly seems to be though, and has been unfailingly polite and cooperative in his edits and discussion. To my knowledge, Cecropia's edits are seldom (if ever) reverted, so Rex's complaint of being picked on for his views rings hollow.Wolfman 20:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane's response to Rex's quotations

I haven't checked every one of these but it appears to me that Rex has quoted my words accurately. Two of the quotations need the context to be understood. First, I wasn't disparaging edit truces in general; what I said was, "The concept of 'an edit truce' is meaningless. Truce or no truce, no one can edit this page while it's protected." [3] Second, my comment about the baby Jesus and writing skills was a joking reference to phrases that had been used by Gamaliel and Rex. Having clarified those points, I stand by every single quotation attributed to me. JamesMLane 07:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel's response to the quotes

• “"I wish you and Rex would actually try to work with us..."

I have no idea why this statement is inappropriate.

• “I doubt your shrill accusations will encourage anyone else”

Rex challenged other editors to come up with a 1-2 paragraph compromise version of something he was angrily disputing, ignoring the fact that I had already done so several times. The quote in full:

“The edit history will show that I attempted several versions of a 1-2 paragraph condensed account of the VVAW issue. It was those attempts that prompted you to shout all over my talk page that I was guilty of "pro-Kerry censorship" and accused me of wanting to start an edit war. So you'll excuse me if I don't make that attempt again and I doubt your shrill accusations will encourage anyone else to do so either.”

• "...quit spamming multiple talk pages with your nonsense..."

Rex leaves out all of the context to this one. I was responding to his attack on Ambienthisteria, namely Rex's insult "You aren't a bigot, are you?" I said in full:

"It's exactly this sort of offensive behavior that so many of us find objectionable. We don't care what you believe about Kerry; we do care that you choose to express those beliefs by shouting at people and insulting them. You should apologize to Ambivalenthysteria for this insult and quit spamming multiple talk pages with your nonsense. Unless you are more interested in scoring cheap partisan points than cooperating on an NPOV article."

• "I love this. You demand citations and explanations for an obvious joke and then you tell me to “please lighten up”. This is truly theater of the absurd.

I made the mistake of attempting to inject humor into a tense and ridiculous situation by typing in the edit summary “John Kerry is friend to all children”. This was an obvious reference to Gamera and I thought it was an obvious bit of silliness. But then Rex demands a citation for this remark, claims it is evidence of "pro-Kerry bias", rants on about partial birth abortion, and then tells me to “lighten up.” Seriously, how is that not theater of the absurd?

• "My God, you are tiresome. You had two links to the same place in the same sentence, I deleted one. I would have done the same thing to any editor in any article on wikipedia, and I consider it a minor edit under any circumstances. End of story. Gamaliel 18:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Rex had a proper link followed immediately by an external link, but that external link was to the full url of the wikipedia page the first link went to. So I deleted the second link and said “removed double link” in the edit summary. Rex fired away on the talk page complaining I “reverted” him and said “you did do it without discussion and without a rationale explaining, detailed Edit Summary. I disagree that your action was appropriately conducted.” After two weeks of accusations and attacks from Rex, I think I was entitled to be slightly less than cordial, especially when the dispute arose not from my actions but from his inability to understand proper wikipedia linking procedure.

• ”You can speak bluntly without accusations and insults. Those aren't signs of bluntness and outspokenness, they are signs of rudeness and boorishness.”

This was in response to Rex claiming his prior negative behavior was because “I am accustomed to being able to speak bluntly.”

Gamaliel 08:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

bkonrad's response to Rex's quotes

As far as I can tell, Rex has excerpted selected quotes from my comments accurately. I stand by all my comments. I feel that if they are examined in the full context of the discussion at the time made they are fully warranted. I'm really not sure what Rex expects to prove by listing them here--no one is disputing that he has upset and aggravated a lot of people through his editing tactics and boorish behavior on the talk page. older≠wiser 14:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moriori's response to Rex's quotes

I also don't know what Rex expects to prove by listing quotes here. They may be more counterproductive for him than helpful. For instance, it is true that I wrote the following -- It distresses me greatly that I need to inform you that I believe you have no integrity whatsoever. I have never ever previously been motivated to say so to any wiki person. However it is also true that I followed up with Some of the other contributors think it was a personal attack, so in that case I withdraw it (lack of integrity bit) and support your hope that we "all get along". That was posted August 13, the same date for two of Neutrality's quotes above. Moriori 02:29, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is not about Neutrality

Over the last several weeks, Rex has attempted to cast this as a conflict between him and Neutrality and cast himself as the helpless newbie victimized by Neutrality. This ignores the seven other users who signed onto this complaint and his history of insulting and having conflicts with those seven users. As far as I'm concerned, his conflicts with Neutrality are among the least significant of the conflicts he's had. The conflict between Rex and Neutrality must be considered, but I ask that the arbitrators resist Rex's attempt to frame it as the only conflict. Gamaliel 18:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 can because he has had charges made against him file counterclaims against all those who have filed charges against him. If he makes his case they will be considered. Fred Bauder 18:19, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I am not asking you to ignore Rex's charges. I am asking that you not ignore charges against Rex by users other than Neutrality. Gamaliel 18:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin's Response to Rex's quotes

Well, I'm quoting twice. Once saying I support kerry (which ignores my attempts to rectify this matter, but hey, whatever), which doesn't seem to be a harsh comment, either made about rex or too him, but I may be wrong. The second is a statement "This is not about the facts". First, again, not harsh at or about Rex. Secondly, it ignores the second part of my quote, which I don't have in front of me, but paraphrasing, something like "it's about how to present them". Which was the arguement at the time. Also, that's right before Rex mouths off at me, about a glowing Kerry biopic, which is quoted on the evidence page that James made up. Lyellin 18:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Additional complaints

If one desires to include oneself amongst the complainants, does one just add oneself to the list? Or must only the original complainants be included, and a separate arbitration request filed? -- Emsworth 20:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be best to inquire with one of the arbitrators. Neutrality 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll just add evidence as a third party. -- Emsworth 02:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Counter-complaints

I would like to suggest that the Committee reconsider its ruling relating to the validity of counter-complaints. I feel that such complaints should only be admissible if relevant to the original charges. Otherwise, the respondent would be able to divert attention from the primary matter (John Kerry) by introducing irrelevant charges against the complainants. The respondent could just "hijack" the proceedings, and every edit made by every party would become a matter of concern to the Committee, even though such edits may have no bearing whatsoever on the original complaint. Undue complications would arise where multiple users are involved; evidence and claims not at all relevant to the original complainant's concerns would be introduced.

This scenario may, of course, seem unlikely. But it would be made more likely by allowing irrelevant counter-claims to be introduced, as, say, the statement "Rex071404 can because he has had charges made against him file counterclaims against all those who have filed charges against him" may reflect.

I do not propose that all counter-claims be dismissed. Instead, only charges, countercharges and evidence pertaining to the original complaint should be admitted. If there is a separate concern, then it should be addressed in a separate request for arbitration. Otherwise, the very subject of the arbitration—the neutrality of a particular article, the purported vandalism of a particular page—would be changeable entirely at the will of one party.

In making these comments, I specifically have in mind the charge of "anti-Christian bigotry" that has been levied.

-- Emsworth 02:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disruption

Well, alright. I posted teh comment, and thought.. herm, I probably shouldn't have done that, but I'll wait to be chastised by an arbcom someone, so I can make sure to hear the correct ruling on that. I felt further within my place because there are several SECTIONS that are commentary, commenting on some of rex's evidence that does not involve the person commenting. I feel even more happy that I posted, because I've been chastised by REX, of all people.

And it does involve me. I was about 5 minutes away from posting a list, just like Wolfman did. Lyellin 17:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

vote

Maybe we should just have a vote on the subject... like a VFD style thing to determine whether this rex should be banned? Is that a good idea?

I don't think it is. Even though a VfD is supposed to be argued on the merits, a decision is actually reached based on the numbers -- so although most of the time it works like it should, the process can be subverted to be a popularity contest.

I don't think we want to set a precedent for running arbitrations the same way. The result would probably be the same for Rex -- but if he was banned because a majority of people voted against him, then everyone else would be living constantly in fear of the same thing: getting banned because a large enough number of people just decided that it should be so.

Rex's punishment is coming because there are certain rules that all Wikipedia editors are supposed to follow, and he has been clearly, repeatedly, and knowingly violating those rules. I believe that given the flagrancy of his trespass, the appropriate punishment is a ban. Since he has only gotten worse in his behavior, not better, I personally don't see any reason for the ban not to be permanent. But the point is, when the boom is lowered, it won't happen because 51% of us, 75% of us, or 99% of us didn't like Rex; it will happen because Rex knew the rules and broke them anyways. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After some thought I have come to the conclusion that he was not able to follow the rules. It seemed to him at Dedham, Mass that he was citing a reference which justified his edit, while in fact it did not. He cited a book but used no material from the book. As far as a permanent ban, we just don't do that for cases of this magnitude. As far a vote, the arbitrators, having examined evidence, will vote. Fred Bauder 17:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, you aren't seriously arguing that the edit in dispute at Dedham, Massachusetts is false are you? 216.153.214.94 18:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)