Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

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.

Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.

Request for arbitration[edit]

I, on behalf on myself, several other users, the entire Wikipedia community, hereby file an arbitration request against Rex071404. We seek relief from the highly inappropriate actions of Rex071404 in the form of a permanent, formal injunction against editing the John Kerry page. The behavior that caused this complaint — which has caused Rex to be given a 24-hour ban in the past — is listed below.
Neutrality 05:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On behalf of Wolfman, JamesMLane, Gamaliel, Lyellin, Ambi, John Kenney, and Bkonrad.

General evidence[edit]

Personal attacks[edit]

Overview[edit]

Rex makes personal attacks on talk pages, both user talk and talk:John Kerry . He uses edit summaries, as an additional way to attack multiple users, including Neutrality, JamesMLane, Bkonrad, Ambi, Lyellin, Wolfman, Cecropia and Gamaliel.

A total of ten users supported Ambi's Request for comment as opposed to one for the counter-version. Rex has said mediation is "not ripe at this point." (See RfM). In addition, Rex has been blocked for 24-hours by Snowspinner but continues his disruptive behavior.

Evidence[edit]

Personal attacks[edit]
Attacks on Neutrality[edit]
  1. "[Neutrality]'s comments to me have an undertone of confrontation. It's one of the reasons I am suspect of his motives."
  • Also note that this comment was inappropriately posted on an article talk page in response to a personal comment on Rex's userpage. Rex often makes public responses to private messages, in order to "frame the debate" and carry out character assassination.
  1. "Neutrality again tries to pick an arguement with me."
  2. "I am losing interest in answering each and everyone of his non-productive jabs. Truly, I wish he had kept his word way back at the beginning of this."
  3. "Right at the beginning of the 1st edit war (which he started)..."
  4. "It's important for the group to recongnize that Neutrality was indeed putting in his personal version of VVAW which in no way resembles what some of you now prefer (and which is currently in there). It was this malignent effort by Neutrality..."
  5. "In my view, I think that N. was trying to get the last post in again last night - just like he did previously."
  6. "For this reason, I am wondering if he is showing the requisite emotional and intellectual detachment which is needed to hold Wiki leadership positions."
  7. "Please study Neutrality's edits on John Kerry, those edits ARE NOT "neutral" Is he a Kerry campaign troll? - 06:38, 25 Jul 2004
  8. I notice that Neutrality was also heavily involved in the raging dispute that caused George_W._Bush to end up being "protected" Is that his goal here? To be the last man standing just prior to forcing John Kerry to end up being protected here too? 01:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. "Neutrality cheats again!" Just like the prior 3 times, Neutrality has snuck in his version just before the page is locked. I accuse him of sweet talking various persons to be able to be ready with the last revert. I accuse Neutrality of corrupting the process. 05:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Neutrality - you have beahved like a biased trouble maker - you cut Edit Sumary corners all the time. I see your fingerprints all over the trouble at George_W._Bush and I see the qty of material you are obvvously getting from the Kerry campaign. The only time you stop reverting me is when I outlast you, and then you still try it more later. Who says you get to contribute more to John Kerry rather than anyone one else? You have been fighting me for a week over the 1st Purple Heart. It was not until another user can along and corroborated the accuracy of my views that even Wolfman agreed that the way I have that section now (along with some help from others) is a good way to keep it. I remember the way you had it before "he's going to be the next JFK..." you might as well change your name to Cameron Kerry because your bent to cut corners on Kerry's behalf is about the same. I am not pleased with what you have been up to. Shame on you! 06:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. It would appear that Neutrality wants ArbCom now so he can get me booted in order to win the Edit War which he started! Rex071404 04:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. Thank you for admitting that I am right on this point and that you started all this trouble because you have a pro-Kerry bias Rex071404 05:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Once agin Neutrality, your specious and hysterical cries of "partisan" serve only to highlight that it is indeed you who is the partisan here and it is indeed you who is gumming up the progress towards consensus. Rather than you shout "partisan!", I challenge you to address the serious fact that the reference quoted in the so-called "partisan" article which you dismiss, is sourced to a nationally recognized university. But of course you won't, because as always, I have been able to check you at every turn, because you are the partisan! 20:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. By the way, doesn't it alarm you that Neutrality was heavily involved in the "pre-protection" editing of John Kerry and also of George_W._Bush prior to it's "protection", but he's now totally silent on the efforts to reach consensus here...? It's almost as if, having succeded in locking in his edits, Neutrality is sitting on his hands and refusing to help... 07:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. Why do you let Neutrality run wild? ? [1]
  16. Also, just what is Neutrality's agenda, if not bias? He jumps all over my edits, like a fly on stink - same thing about Wolfman. There have been thre people, them and me, involved in most edit/revert battles there. If I am 1/3 at fault - they are 2/3'rs at fault. 19:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. "How can I complain about this pattern of slapping me down that Neutrality is engaged against me?" (from requests for mediation, undated)
  18. Even the mere fact that you so doggedly insist that your writing (and only your writing) on these disputed sections has been "unbiased" shouts out loudly as to how profoundly biased you indeed are. 22:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. "You are using a few revision oversights by me AS AN EXCUSE to remove on a wholesale basis, perfectly factual information about John Kerry. And in it's stead, you are inserting pro-Kerry propaganda." [2]
  20. "So you were OBVIOUSLY LYING..." [3]
  21. "Just as I predicted, you snuck the last revision onto John Kerry just preior to having you buddy "protect" the page." [4]
  22. You disgust me! [5]
  23. "You should definately change your user name because you are NOT neutral!" [6]
  24. "Is that your goal here? To be the last man standing just prior to forcing John Kerry to end up being protected here too?" [7]
  25. "As they were all pro-Kerry edits which he made, I suggest that this indicates there bias on his part on this page for Bush." 02:04, 13 Aug 2004
Attacks on Wolfman[edit]
  1. "Such tweaks are indicative of either a pro-Kerry bias or a needless attempt to stir up hostilities...." - 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. "reversing repeated vandalism by JamesMLane and Wolman -Sysop - please check and see if Wolfman and Neutrality are coming from the same IP address"
Attacks on JamesMLane[edit]
  1. "Frankly JML, I think you are simply frusrated that I have sufficiently honed language skills that I can convey informaiton in a variety of ways." - 06:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. "Personally, I am coming to believe that you are so pro-Kerry in your bias, that you are unable to comprehend even the most simple things which I tell you." - 02:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. "As for vandalizing, if that's not the appropriate word for what you were doing to my edits on a wholesale basis, what is?" - 00:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Attacks on Gamaliel[edit]
  1. "It's NOT an "irrelevancy" and you are PROVING your BIAS by saying that!” -17:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. "By the way, I am guessing that you are trying to start an EDIT WAR, so as to get the Kerry page "protected" and thereby lock in your obvious pro-Kerry censorship!” -17:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. "Also, it is indeed you who, without valid cause (and possible pro-Kerry bias), keeps butchering this” 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. "You are obsesseds with removing my NYT and other links because it proves that your champion john kerry is a phoney, a liar and outright dangerous.” - 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. "Since, as you state above, you have quit trying to help here, why don't you abandon particpation on John Kerry and leave the resolution to others. Also, since you have quit, I now adopt the view that all your comments on this topic are vitiated by your act of quitting and no longer will I see them as having any merit. Please let me know when you have un-quit, so I can stop ignoring you." 04:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. "By your characterization of this as a "non-issue", you sound to me like you are shilling for Kerry." 07:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. "Your comments here reflect an incredible pro-Kerry and/or anti-Bush bias. And just who is it, that is, as you say "full of it"" 07:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. "Gamaliel, if by "implement the results" you mean ignore the dissenters and continue on with the glowing biopic you already have for Kerry, well, you've done that already so why wait any longer? Simply have your pals "un-protect" John Kerry, put all the addtitional pro-Kerry material you want in, then "re-protect" so as to block out those you disagree with. Oh, and be sure to do this when no one is looking, so no non-pro-Kerry stuff gets in again....”-22:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. "Gamaliel says 'I'm tired of this', 'I'm tired of that' and he's too tired it seems, to comment on VVAW - Rex v.3... ...” - 02:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. “If you had an over-arching desire to reach consensus, you would plow forward with the sharing of ideas, bruised feelings or not. Since you don't, I can only conclude that your aim is to wait me out long enough until you can drive me away by complaining to the powers that be. BTW: Did you watch any of the DNC tonight? I did, and exactly as I said he was doing, Kerry charged forward and over exaggerated his puny 4 month tour of duty in Vietnam into some super-human effort. It amazes me how blind you are to that...” 02:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. "Please re-do your math.” - 18:20, 31 Jul 2004
  12. "I feel that your lack of intellectual honesty in that vein disqualifies your views on this page from having any validity. .” - 18:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. "Such tweaks are indicative of either a pro-Kerry bias or a needless attempt to stir up hostilities...." 07:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. "Now comes user Gamaliel showing overt anti-Christian bigotry" - 03:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. "Gamaliel engages in anti-Christian taunts" 21:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. "Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me. If you think I am wrong, go check the Kerry web site links and add up the bills yourself - you will see that I am right. Are you afraid to be proven wrong?" 08:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. "I am appalled by Gamaliel's sophomoric argument!" 23:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. "How does this vulgar Edit Summary of yours jibe with your previous protestations to me regarding you being a Christian?" 00:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Attacks on Lyellin[edit]
  1. "You won;t be satisifed unless and until you write a glowing pro-Kerry biopic. This has turned into a farce. Goodnight." - 09:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. "Oh yippie! Form what you say, it appears that you (as well as have I) have met Richard Egan in the past. Big deal. Are you implying that you speak for him and that he is now anti-Bush (as are you)?" - 08:49, Jul 29, 2004
  3. The information you supplied above about how you use the media is so funny, I am almost plotzed myself! Are you serious? If you ask 10 gluttons to go interview people on the street about any subject the gluttons choose, you can be pretty sure that the quotations obtained that way will be mostly about food. The fact that you can't see the pernicous effect of the liberal media bias, helps explain yours 09:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Attacks on Ambivalenthysteria/Ambi[edit]
  1. "Frankly, that smacks of bigotry to me. You aren't a bigot, are you?” - 06:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. "There is no contradiction except in your own limited mind." 05:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. "You called my views nonsense, then you archive the page to hide the evidence. What kind of behavior is that?" 06:53, 28 Jul 2004
  4. Regardless of your false characterizations of what has transpired, these facts HAVE NOT been refuted. Indeed, the contortions that some such as you are going through to avoid facing up to these facts would make any limbo artist proud. 08:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. "Ambi, thank you for asking the questiomn. I feel that by saying you are "confused" it means either a) you did not read my answers (see above) or b) you are disregarding them?" 19:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Attacks on John Kenney[edit]
  1. Please FULLY read all comments before continuing to feign confusion. Thank you! 15:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Regardless of how snide you are, it still remains that the facts I have listed are true and that leaves you, a pro-Kerry shill, no alternative but to mock me as being ridiculous. 04:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Attacks on Bkonrad[edit]
  1. A quote from where? Your pro-Kerry archive? 19:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Now here comes older, another biased pro-Kerry editor, who tries to limit the scope of this issue by mis-characterizing it thusly; "why it is significant to spend more that one or two lines mentioning that Kerry's recollection of 33 year-old events is faulty?". 23:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Attacks on Cecropia[edit]
  1. "If you are going to Edit John Kerry.... Please STOP your WHOLESALE DELETIONS of my fully accurate and NPOV text! Your wholesale deletions are tantamount to pro-Kerry censorhip!" 19:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. "If you have problems with my 'non-wiki' of external links, please ASK before you change them! You are butchering my text!" (undated, but also apparently 19:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Both these were on Cecropia's Talk page before Rex realized that Cecropia agreed with him on certain substantive points, though Cecropia did not engage in personal attacks.

Update: Request for Comment filed[edit]

The proponents of this RfAr have not attempted to bring to the committee's attention every instance of improper conduct by Rex071404 on other pages during the period of the temporary block. One matter has generated a Request for Comment, however, and is directly relevant to this argument that Rex made in his "Statement by affected party" on August 9: "I have been here for lesss than a month and each week, my courtesy to others has grown." Today, Rex responded to comments with which he disagreed by changing other users' comments to make it appear that they had said things they did not say. A sample of his handiwork (italics added by me for clarity):

Uh... I, Neutrality, enjoy eating feces. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex, I demand that you submit to my will and obey me - or else!. Lyellin 03:49, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

See these goons who criticize Rex? What do they know? Nothing! Kevin Baas | talk 19:06, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

You can find links to the edits in this latest incident at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042. JamesMLane 22:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary attacks[edit]
  1. "rv Neutrality has again made a wholesale revert without comment - blatent bias!" [8]
  2. "rv -This page has been re-open for less than an hour and already Neutrality is reverting me again without comment" [9]
  3. "Wolfman - take your own advice, your word has meaning, but mine is more accurate - you are not the arbiter of word use - stio your constant reverts!" [10]
  4. "rv Wolfman again reverted my proven and agreed as correct facts - and he made another snide comment to boot!" [11]
  5. "rv - Wolfman made another unwarranted revert - restore to JML version" [12]
  6. "rv - Neutrality just reverted me again with no comment - BIAS!" [13]
  7. The "Snopes" story is NOT a fuller "account" and is nothing but piling on pro-Kerry POV - belongs in the "online media" section and that is where it's going to stay! [14]
  8. "rv Wolfman - stop playing games!" [15]
  9. "re-revert Neutrality's pro-kerry biased versions - he has started another edit war" [16]
  10. "Nuetrality just reverted me again without discussion - this is an un-revert" [17]
  11. "User Neutrality has again immediately reverted my edit - I accuse him of intentionally provoking edit wars and of pro-Kerry POV bias" [18]
  12. "Gamaliel: You just posted an intentioanlly obfuscating edit summary" [19]
  13. "rv -JamesMLane is clearly mis-stating the facts. The discusion was not concluded - this page was unprotected before consensus was reached. JML is vandalizing" [20]

POV inclusions, deletions and modifications[edit]

1. Kerry’s detractors have said he wasn’t in Vietnam very long. In our article, in the section “Kerry's tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat,” the first sentence referred to “his four month tour of duty.” Although the key fact was thus included, and prominently so, Rex edited the second paragraph to add that Kerry “briefly” commanded Swift boats. The POV characterization “briefly” was of course removed. Over a period of less than one hour, Rex made four reverts to try to re-insert his denigration of Kerry’s service ([21], [22], [23] and [24]), until the page was protected. Incidentally, Snowspinner had already left an express Warning on Rex’s Talk page, stating, inter alia, “Furthermore, you have violated policies limiting reversions to three times a day....”

2. Another attack on Kerry has been that the three wounds for which he was decorated weren’t all that big a deal. This point caused a dispute that I’ll recount in minute detail, because it’s very illustrative. Before this incident began, the article described Kerry’s first wound this way:

On December 2, 1968, Kerry and his crew encountered Viet Cong forces on Cam Ranh Bay, and Kerry suffered a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow from an enemy M-79 grenade. Dr. Louis Letson, treated Kerry by removing the shrapnel and apply bacitracin dressing. For his combat injuries, Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart and returned to duty soon afterward.

I thought that calling the wound “minor” was POV and “soon afterward” was too vague. In this edit, at 05:54, 2 Aug 2004, I changed the passage to:

On December 2, 1968, Kerry and his crew encountered Viet Cong forces on Cam Ranh Bay, and Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow from an enemy M-79 grenade. Dr. Louis Letson, treated Kerry by removing the shrapnel and apply bacitracin dressing. For his combat injuries, Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart. He returned to duty the next day, conducting a regular Swift boat patrol with a bandaged arm.

My edit summary said “see Talk”, and on the Talk page I explained in Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Account of Vietnam service:

Furthermore, characterizing Kerry's injuries is POV, especially since we follow up the account of his tour of duty by devoting such careful attention to the criticism of his war record, including the severity of the wounds. Instead of asserting that an injury was "minor", the initial passage should just report the facts, e.g. that he was back on patrol duty the next day. The assertion that the wounds were minor, if included at all, should be attributed to his critics. JamesMLane 06:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When Rex got around to picking up the attack on Kerry over the severity of his injuries, he offered this justification on Talk:

For the sake of clarity and factual accuracy, in referring to this 1st injury, it is right and proper that it be described as a "minor" injury. Rex071404 03:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although he said that “minor” would be right, he actually settled on “not severe”, which he apparently regarded as a significant concession. He made this edit at 03:30, 3 Aug 2004 , by which he changed the key sentence to include his POV characterization of the wound: “As this injury was not severe, Kerry was able to return to duty the next day, conducting his regular Swift boat patrol with a bandaged arm.”

When his introduction of the Kerry-is-a-wuss POV was reverted, Rex went into his usual mode of multiple reverts, plus insisting that his version had to remain in place while this so-called “discussion” continued:

  • He made this revert at 03:46, 3 Aug 2004 (“Neutrality came in immediately behind me and without comment, ignored my valid explain for this, and essentially, reverted me. See discussion page - my comments”)
  • On the Talk page, Wolfman joined me in explaining to Rex the applicability of the NPOV policy here: “As you point out, going back on duty the next day already implies the wound was not severe. So, you're adding that intro phrase is either (a) redundant, or (b) providing emphasis for subtle POV. ... Wolfman 04:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)”
  • Despite the foregoing comment, Rex made this revert at 04:13, 3 Aug 2004, and complained in the edit summary: (‘Wolfman completely ignored my detailed explaination for the use of "not severe” being NPOV vs. "minor" which is not - please discuss before doing this again’). The only evident basis for charging that Wolfman “completely ignored” Rex is that Wolfman’s comment wasn’t one that Rex agreed with.
  • Gamaliel then joined the effort to try to explain things to Rex: “Please, let's not start an edit war over a simple turn of phrase. You don't have to tell people the wounds are minor, they can judge for themselves as we have detailed descriptions of each injury in the article. ... In an article like this one, where everyone is hypersensitive to POV, it's probably best to leave even common sense characterizations out, and in any case they are rendered redundant by the preexisting detailed descriptions. Gamaliel 04:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)”
  • These efforts at dialog were unavailing. Rex made this revert at 04:24, 3 Aug 2004 (“Neutrality; I have asked you and Wolfman politely to stop reverting this sentence. It is not POV and you two are beign very rude to me on this . Please discuss+ wait for answer before changing again”).
  • Wolfman still hadn’t given up the attempt to reason with Rex, and tried again: “Each of the wounds and treatment are described in exacting detail. I even know that Kerry's sore ass was treated to a warm soak. That's pretty rich detail in my view. ... I still disagree with you edit for the reasons carefully explained above. Wolfman 04:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)”
  • None of this stopped Rex from making another revert at 05:03, 3 Aug 2004 (“Wolfman changed this sentence again prior to our good faith discussions being given time to come to fruition - this is only one NPOV sentence. Leave it be until the dialog is complete, please!”)
  • At this point, I restored the NPOV version, and emulated my colleagues’ foolish optimism by spending yet more time trying to explain it to Rex: ‘As has been pointed out by others, Wikipedia is to present facts. If the facts about the injuries make it "obvious" that they weren't severe, then readers can draw that conclusion for themselves, without being spoon-fed. ... Rex, if you think that any fact is being concealed from the reader, please explain it here, i.e., please specify any additional facts about the severity of the injury that would not be known to the reader. JamesMLane 06:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)’ (By this time, other squabbles had intervened on the Talk page, so my comment was under the new heading of Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Characterizing the injuries.)
  • Rex, however, wasn’t through. He made yet another revert at 06:33, 3 Aug 2004 with this revealing edit summary: (“Restore sentence per dialog - JML please abide by the spirit of talk before you revert. Also reposition prior sentence to end. The tag team reverts of this have put this text back into the spotlight??”) I love that phrase “per dialog.” The dialog consisted of Rex relentlessly insisting that it had to be done his way, with everyone else trying to explain to him why he was wrong – in other words, trying to explain a point that should have been clear to anyone who’d been editing for three days, let alone almost three weeks as Rex had.

When Gamaliel came back in and restored the NPOV version yet again, Rex evidently decided that what he bitterly criticized as “tag-team changes” (i.e., the considered views of everyone else involved) would prevent him from unilaterally inserting into the article his cherished disparagement of Kerry’s injury. A lesser preference of his (one I never understood) had been that the reference to the Purple Heart should be the very last thing in the paragraph. The previous version and my rewrite had both had that reference near the end but not absolutely last. Therefore, when he finally abandoned hope of wearing us down on the “not severe” language, he made his agreement conditional: “This is subject to the two final sentneces staying in the order I have placed them, with mine 2nd to last. Rex071404 06:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)” I preferred my original version but, after all we’d been through, I wasn’t up for fighting Rex over his condition. Thus Rex was able to extract at least some advantage from his initial POV edit, his five reverts to re-instate it, and his numerous antagonistic edit summaries.

Rex pays lip service to “discussion” and “dialog”. What’s quoted above, of course, is only excerpts from the Talk page. To read in full the relevant sections – Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Account of Vietnam service and Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Characterizing the injuries – is to see what “dialog” with Rex is like. Notice how much time, by how many sincere Wikipedians, was consumed in trying to deal with just this one minor point. These conditions make it very hard for the rest of us to improve the article. Furthermore, everything recounted above occurred after Rex’s return from the 24-hour block imposed by Snowspinner, which in turn occurred only after multiple warnings. Finally, the argument that things are changing rings hollow when we see one of the August 3 edit summaries I’ve criticized above (“Neutrality came in immediately behind me and without comment, ignored my valid explain for this, and essentially, reverted me”) has its cousin on August 11 (“Neutrality has come in behind me after less than an hour and changed my edits again”).

If Rex is genuinely interested in learning proper Wikiquette and becoming a valuable contributor here, he should take a break from this particular article, about which he feels so strongly. As the 2004 campaign heats up, things will only get worse. He can better develop and demonstrate his skills on less charged subjects. I wouldn’t support a total ban, but a block limited to John Kerry is appropriate. JamesMLane 01:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not at present a complainant against the user Rex071404, nor do I request inclusion as such. Nonetheless, I submit that the defendant has generally violated neutrality policies on pages other than "John Kerry."

  • In the article Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an edit by the aforesaid user [25] involved entirely removing the words "SVFT and its tactics have been criticized by many. One of those critics, reporter and columnist Josh Marshall, has satirically proposed founding a new group: Concerned Vietnam Combat Veterans Whose Service Records Have Been Attacked by Friends of President Bush Even Though President Bush Has Nothing To Do With It and Did His Best to Stop it But Failed." The alleged grounds were: "Remove Josh Marshall 'satire' as being way too POV." This edit has the effect of removing criticism of the Swift Boat Veterans from the article. The removal reduces the balance of pro- and anti- Swift Boat Veterans commentary in the article. The criticism itself may be biased, but its inclusion is not; it is fair to include criticism of public figures and organisations, as the user Rex071404 has done with John Kerry.
  • After another user reinstated the words stated above, the user Rex071404 changed it to simply "Another critic of SBVT is reporter and satirical columnist Josh Marshall." The reason for such a removal was, in part, "delete name of group due to false implication - no evidence SBVT are "friends" of Bush - too POV." [26] Now, there may be no evidence about Mr Marshall's allegations, but, similarly, evidence supporting the Swift Boat Veterans is contested. Thus, I feel that the removal of the text was not predicated on a true desire to acheive neutrality; instead, it may have been designed to advance a particular point of view. It, too, had the effect of reducing the pro- and anti- Swift Boat balance.

Thus, in general, I think that the user Rex071404 has engaged in attempts to mitigate legitimate criticisms of an anti-Kerry organisation. -- Emsworth 20:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unhelpful/abusive comments on talk page[edit]

Rex will often be combative on article talk pages. In addition to making personal attacks on individuals, he will make sweeping assumptions and characterizations of an entire group of editors, often name-calling and questioning motives.

Unhelpful comments showing bias[edit]

  1. "Frankly, since he supports partial-birth abortion - which is the partial extraction and killing of full term pre-birth infants, I don't see how that can be true." - 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. "You do search corpses for empty roecket launchers if you are a phoney opportunist who expects to be going home real soon and you are trophy hunting..." - 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. "I could have been MUCH harsher than I have been!" - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  4. "There are SO MANY bad things to say about John Kerry, that I could write 10 times what you all have written and not even touch the surface." - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  5. "Kerry runs around waiving the banner of his so-called Catholic faith, but does not come anywhere close to walking the talk." - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  6. "YOU, my fellow Wikis, may not know how much of a self-serving, two-faced, phoney John Kerry is, but I do." - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  7. "It is IRREFUTABLE that John Kerry engaged in a stage managed medal tossing event. It is IRREFUTABLE that John Kerry now contends that he never tossed his "medals" It is IRREFUTABLE that John Kerry was previously on TV saying that he did." - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  8. "You remove one of the most well documented examples of Kerry two-face-ism that is extant."
  9. "Kerry is, was and always has been a phoney!" - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  10. "Here is something for you to chew on: Who give's a rat's ass what the "national media" keeps up with as meritous of being reported. That is NOT a valid benchmark as almost 90% of all persons in the media self-indentify as being democrats! In fact, by citing the media, you make my point: This information, though true is not being tracked almost anywhere else, which leads me to this question: Are you suggesting that this Wiki carry only that information which can be directly derived from National Media sources? Why not just publish CNN newsfeeds then?" 08:35, 29 Jul 2004
  11. Snopes inclusion there is piling on POV in a section that is already tilted way in favor of Kerry. If you put Sonpes in there I want 10-20 lines of curent quotes from SBVT members who flat out accuse kerry of lying. The section is already too pro-Kerry - don;t start another war over snopes. 05:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. A significant number of witnesses in SBVT all assert that Kerry is a liar and a fraud on may parts off his service bio. These are important details that must be included in the main page at least to some degree. 19:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. If you remove this from the final article, you might as well declare your bias by posting a Kerry/Edwards campaign logo in it's place!
  14. By what standard of proof or evidence have you "considered" this to be a "red-herring"? One big point at issue here is how various pro-Kerry people put in what is essentially glowing Kerry campaign BIO details, but leap to expunge well sourced facts that make Kerry look bad. Of course this stuff make Kerry look bad, because it is bad! Tossing your medals away and lying about it makes you a fraud. Knowingly associating with persons planning a crime makes you a conspirator or at the very least, an accessory. Kerry, as a licensed attorney knows this. You want this information - even though it comes from NY Times and ABC News - kept out because it's true, it guts Kerry's credibilty and you know it. The Wiki readers are entitled to have the full story on these two topics so they can draw their own conclusions. You are advocating censorship! 16:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. This logic is absurd! If Kerry were an ax-murderer, would we be forced to remove links about this, simply because it's not nice? 19:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. Biased edit to Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, then entred into ridiculously long discussion about it. Under IP of 216.153.214.94, User:JamesMLane said that that IP is him.--Honeycake 06:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abusive comments[edit]

  1. "The obvious goal that some here have of keeping this page sanitized in a pro-Kerry manner..." - 06:58, 3 Aug 2004
  2. "I interpret the fact that you are all in agreement to be indicative of a group-think POV on that sentence." - 06:38, 3 Aug 2004
  3. "Frankly, I feel that the three of you are being very petty." 06:28, 3 Aug 2004
  4. "...prior to the tag-team changes being made by Neutrality and Wolfman" - 04:34, 3 Aug 2004
  5. "I am not pleased that you and neutrality immediayle jumped on line whne I started making edits tongiht and I am also not pleased that the two of you are inching towards provoking an edit war (it seems to me) by your incessant trumping of virtually every edit I make. I have trouble resuming good faith, when you behave this way." 04:10, 3 Aug 2004
  6. "Wolfman and Neutrality are back at it already. In the last few minutes alone, the two of them have plunged right back in to their regular pattern of sterilizing John Kerry so that nothing (not even a link) which thay want out, stays in." 03:49, 3 Aug 2004
  7. "...why the pro-Kerry POV'rs here are so oppossed the few links which are very important..." - 20:26, 1 Aug 2004
  8. "The pro-Kerry bias of the John Kerry editors shocks me!" (date unsigned)
  9. "You guys are ganging up on me and are misinformed about Kerry!" - 08:10, 25 Jul 2004
  10. "Unlike several of you (who are as you say, Canadian and/or Australian), I do "have a dog in this fight" as I am from Massachusetts..." - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
  11. "Here are the facts you people keep obfuscating" - 00:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. "Unless and until you pro-Kerry persons can refute my facts, I remain adamant that my version be used as the starting point, for I indeed have refuted your "facts" and shown them to be primarily a grab-bag of assertions and personal feelings"- 00:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. "The fact that you can't see the pernicous effect of the liberal media bias, helps explain yours..." 09:10, 29 Jul 2004
  14. Please, Please, Please, people! Can we PLEASE take off the pro-Kerry blinders!?!? Is this Wiki nothing but a bunch of tepid information "followers". 16:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. You need to STOP your wholesale deletions on the John Kerry page. This a controversial topic and you are supposed to discuss this before taking such drastic action! You are causing an edit warr and I am going to report you! 12:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) (this was posted on the article talk page, as well as that of every single user involved in the dispute, including Cecropia, who was on his side (though he later retracted the attack on her))
  16. "The fact that this has been "protected" with the pro-Kerry Liberal bias versions intact is very frustrating to me". This has turned out, predictably, just as I said it would: The pro-Kerry squad has succeded in goofing things up enough to screw the rest of us out of the opporunity to present the TRUTH. To the person/persons who "protected" this page, I challenge you to refute the truth of this: (his version of the article snipped) ... You won't even TRY to, because you KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T! This effort has turned out like the sore loser kid who takes his ball ang goes home: You cant stand the truth, so you block other from presenting it. As for "discuss(ing) a user on an article talk page", I tried that on Neutrality's TALK page and he kept deleting my comments. 03:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. Don't you find it odd, that on both of the points; Medals and VVAW MTG, the pro-Kerry crowd is adamant to hide the fact that Kerry has kept changing his story? The simple reason they want to hide this fact, is because it does what they don't want 07:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. As I said, the trouble with this issue is you pro-Kerry people want confessions from Kerry himself - written in blood - or else you disregard it. 04:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. They DO NOT WANT any of the readers to ask themselves, "should I double-check Kerry more?" Therefor, any entries that are inconclusive or otherwise not expressly positive for Kerry, must be expunged. If not, the entire purpose of the biased pro-Kerry editors, is defeated. The pro-Kerry crowd want the readers of John Kerry read an article that has a tone of, "Oh see, this is John Kerry - nothing wrong here, nothing bad to think, no need for any further research, move along". Each and everyone of you know this to be true, for if it were not, you would simply help me re-jigger my text until we all found it acceptable! 00:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Not one of you pro-Kerry shills will DARE make a line by line critique of my proposed text(s) for "Medal Toss" or "VVAW" because there is no way to do it without exposing your bias! What's that I hear? Nothing but deafening silence and the mocking of shills! 04:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. The painful truth about the pro-Kerry shills here is that they are censors, plain and simple! 04:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  22. Are we going to be reduced to nothing but pro-Kerry syncophants simply because we know Nader can't win and some of us are not happy with GWB (aka "the shrub")? 05:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  23. I have been dialoging for days, with a rotating group of mostly pro-Kerry POV'ers who simply clam up and refuse to answer when true facts they don't like are dropped in their lap. Now, all of a sudden, you re-protect Kerry? This is just like last time - you guys put what you wanted in and then locked the page What a farce! 07:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Since none of you have backed up your objections with a sound critique, I interpret the fact that you are all in agreement to be indicative of a group-think POV on that sentence. 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  25. The shocking lack of intellectual honesty among those group amazes me. 19:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instigating and continuing revert wars in bad faith, causing page protection[edit]

  1. [27]
  2. [28]

Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry[edit]

Rex has made serious accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence in an edit summary. Rex wrote:

"(/*RV to previous, reversing repeated vandalism by JamesMLane and Wolman -Sysop - please check and see if Wolfman and Neutrality are coming from the same IP address"

Rex gave no evidence to back up his patently false claim. He has not apologized to either user.

Threats by Rex[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, so an ArbCom member can move it to wherever they want. This isn't evidence from the original complaint, but evidence that Rex is continuing and escalating his negative behavior. As much as he complains that others do not dialog with him, he uses threats instead of dialog to get what he wants, threats of throwing up an NPOV tag, threatening to report people for vandalism or to ArbCom, threatening reverts, etc. I could provide more examples of his threats, as could other users, but I think this recent example will suffice: here [29], where Rex has threatened to add more irrelevant links, and here, where he personally threatened to report that user (one, I might add, who is a newbie, and not fully aware of wiki rules and procedures, thus more susceptible to such threats) for vandalism for a content dispute which that user fully justified on the talk page of the article. Rex, however, provided no justification for his inclusion of the link on the talk page nor did he provide a counter argument, he personally threatened the newbie editor with punitive action and collectively threatened the entire group of editors with retaliatory edits. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The full name of Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The evidence I've cited in this section has nothing to do with the link to Stolen Honor. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify somewhat. There are two different disputes referred to here. Gamaliel was referring to Rex's insistence that a particular external link to FoxNews be added to Fulbright Hearing. Gamaliel had in mind this edit by Rex restoring the link: [30]. The threat aspect is Rex's edit summary: "External links - restore link - the next time this is deleted, I am adding (3) additional ones". Rex frequently makes such statements, and more examples could be provided if that would be informative. The other link given by Gamaliel, showing Rex threatening a newcomer with a vandalism accusation over a good-faith content dispute, is correct. In fact, in the past Rex has gone beyond threatening and has actually abused the "Vandalism in progress" page with precisely such an accusation: [31]. Rex's improper addition to ViP was soon deleted by an uninvolved admin, who commented, "editing disputes are not vandalism; please do not bring them here". [32] The admin also took the trouble to explain the point at greater length on Rex's talk page. [33] It's noteworthy that none of this did the slightest good in terms of restraining Rex from harassing a newcomer who wouldn't be familiar with Wikipedia.
On this Evidence page, I think the confusion arose because Gamaliel gave a link to the edit he meant when it was the most recent edit, but his link goes to whatever is the most recent edit, which is no longer the one he meant. Rex's response therefore referred to a different dispute. That other dispute is about the article on the video Stolen Honor, an attack on Kerry. Rex evidently considers it an informative documentary and thinks a good title for our article about it would be Stolen Honor Documentary, to emphasize that point. I personally consider it just another bit of partisanship; from my point of view, Stolen Honor Smear Job or at least Stolen Honor Attack Video would be better. Obviously, of course, all these POV titles are improper. The article belongs at Stolen Honor. Rex, who started the article, seems to believe that his having done so gives him some degree of ownership of it. I get that impression from this edit of his, in which he also refers to "the bottom feeding habits of both JamesMLane and Gamaliel". JamesMLane 01:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realize the link would change like that. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, Gamaliel and JamesMLane are tag-team edit stalking me. On even the most picyune edits of mine, they go out of their way to harrass and annoy me. Please, just go read the edit histories of Fulbright Hearing and Stolen Honor as well as the talk pages there. I created these pages and both these editors have laid in wait so as to pounce on things as simple as a single Wiki link of mine. There is an entire Wiki for those two to go edit, why must they be stalking me? I suggest it's because JamesMLane has stated overtly that he has it as a personal goal to drive me off and be hard banned from this Wiki. Personally, I think he is an 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. And why Gamaliel has ganged up with him, I can't guess. Maybe they are very close friends - or more? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's true, I can't deny it any more. James and I are having a torrid affair. Please don't tell my wife. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 04:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are really cheap and low to say what you just said. I was thinking that you two were co-workers or brothers-in-law or something like that. Shame on you for mocking the gay community - you should be banned for making sexual orientation insults. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Way to stand up for the gay community, especially after a juvenile attempt at gay "humor". I assume you support gay marriage as well then? --kizzle 04:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, I made no attempt at humor, gay or otherwise. You are 100% totally off base. As evidenced by my edit to Lawrence v. Texas, I do not have a problem with, nor do I mock gays (or anyone else) who deal(s) with me on the level. The fact that you are jumping to conclusions betrays more about your mind being warped and/or argumentative than anything else. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Maybe they are very close friends - or more". So you are insinuating that they are more than friends. This is a good example of what i like to call "sneaky tomfoolery" as you don't directly say it but you imply that JML and Gamaliel are "more than friends", or gay in the vernacular... don't give me any of that BS that you have pulled before, i.e. "I swear i edited the votes and then added etc. and then saved it all by accident". --kizzle 05:25, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

First of all Kizzle, if you were privy to the background of the dialog between Gamaliel and me, you would know several things:

  1. He had already stated to me that he is a Christian
  2. He had already stated to me that he is married
  3. It is clear from my editorial bent (and past dialog comments) that I am not familiar with or interested in what is "gay in the vernacular".

Kizzle, have you no sense of proportion at all? Didn't you even read my edit to Lawrence v. Texas? Tell me, where is the "gay bash" in that? Frankly, I am simply and totally shocked beyond measure that Gamaliel can make an overt anti-gay insult but you are trying to pin me for "sneaky tomfoolery" that you only speculate I intended - and you reject out of hand my denounciation of that. Frankly, if you persist in this utterly disgusting tack I will simply never dialog with you one iota again. I am willing to put up with a lot, but I will not accept being blamed for something another editor did - and for which I am blameless. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, then if you truly didn't mean that then honest mistake. But let it be known for the future, that when you say someone is "more than friends" it means you are insinuating that they are romantically involved, like "me and britney spears are more than friends" means we are romantically involved. I don't make up the rules... that's just the way it is. --kizzle 05:51, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, I am familiar with the art of insinuation and I was indeed insinuating. However, I was not insinuating about their sexual orientation. Rather, I was insinuating that they are jointly grinding an axe and perhaps have an overarching personal opportunity to be in "off-Wiki" communication which could facilitate what I see as their editorial vendetta. After all, I did just watch as you went to several user pages and inquired about personal email addresses whilst complaining about me to other users. Things like that are enough to make me wonder just how closely the anti-Rex editors are cooperating. And if you are doing that, what must my most vociferous opponents be doing? Even so, since you did not know how familiar I already was with Gamaliel's personal life, I see that it was easy for you to make a mistake. Apology accepted. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know next to nothing about my personal life, so using your knowledge of me as a defense is ludicrous. I did tell you I was a Christian back when you ridiculously accused me of "anti-Christian bigotry". I did not, however, ever make any previous comments about my marital status to you or anyone else on Wikipedia, so you're just making that part up.
You've already made it clear that you don't think I'm a sincere Christian (here, for example), so snide insinuations about my sexuality wouldn't be that much farther over lines you've already crossed. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
While I might be mistaking Gamaliel for Wolfman regarding a previous edit which mentioned a wife wanting him off the computer, that still misses the point: Gamaliel made an overt anti-gay joke and he is now trying to shift he blame. If I had done what he now says I did, he should have called me on it as I did him. The simple fact is that his ex-post facto accusations are too little too late. He is clearly the instigator here. And as for your faith, you are simply flat out wrong - I've tried to dialog with you and you forclosed me on that. We never got into anything about sexual orientation or anything else which would justify you thinking the worst of my comment in the manner you "joked". That is, unless of course you are trying to make trouble for me - which I think you are doing. And back to the Christian angle: Bill Clinton and Ann Coulter are, if I am not mistaken, both Christians. This does not stop them from under-cutting the opposing side - often very dishonestly. This is what I think you are doing. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If Gamaliel made a joke, it was playing off yours... your comment "more than friends" came before, and so Gamaliel interpreted as the rest of normal people would. --kizzle 06:26, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am abnormal? Kizzle, what has gotten into you? You have never been this hostile to me. Exasperated with me at times, but hostile no. And frankly, I don't think Gamaliel's "joke" was funny at all. FYI: one of my wife's best friend's was gay and actually did die of AIDS, so frankly, you have no idea how particularly careful I am to avoid insulting gay people about sexuality (another was a murder victim, two were suicides and one is a nationally known b-list actor - but I digress) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for your wife's best friend... all I am trying to point out to you is that what you said unless you live in a foreign country, in American english, "more than friends" is interpreted as implying a romantic connection, this is simply a de facto truth. This point is not arguable (try using the phrase other places), I didn't make it up, none of these people made it up... so virtually everyone who reads this page perceived you to imply a romantic connection between JML and Gamaliel. I don't mean to be hostile, exasperated yes. Regardless, what you said is perceived in American english to imply a romantic connection between JML and Gamaliel whether or not you agree. --kizzle 07:02, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)


I meant your honest mistake. just telling you what the idiomatic phrase means and how people will interpret it in the future if you ever want to use it again. and knowing someone's actual situation does not exclude the possiblity of such comments as you described... didn't you ever go to public school? --kizzle 06:10, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Re: the link Gamaliel provided... wow. --kizzle 06:13, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC) <- Thanks Gamaliel, didn't even notice Rex deleted my comment.... Rex don't ever touch my comments again.

What are you talking about? I reply to basically every comment you make to me. You were probably lost when I moved my text from the middle of Gamaliel's two paragraphs to the end. Look at the time of the edits and my edit. I'm virtually certain that'w what happened. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. --kizzle 06:40, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, you have got to stop exaggerating. I read that comment. There is nothing it that which is insulting to me in any way. Why on earth would I delete it? Did you intend it to be especially insulting and therefore, you would expect me to be upset enough to want to delete it? Frankly, I simply do not understand your reasoning. Why would I delete that comment and none of your others? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, now you're arguing with the Wikipedia software itself? --kizzle 06:53, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that I did not knowlingly delete your comment. There are two major elements to look for when deducing about a misdeed: motive and opportunity. While it is clear that you were deleted by me - absent a motive, you really need to ask yourself was it intended or not? This is what I am arguing motive to you. Why would I want to delete that comment? The answer is, I wouldn't. Hence you ought to stop being so ready to punce. Geez, you sound worse than me at my most suspicious. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

then just say whoops, my bad. don't give me a lecture on the intracicies of crime analysis. --kizzle 07:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I did that and you said "riiiiiggght", yes? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

no, you did not apologize for removing my comment, you downplayed it by denying any motive. --kizzle 07:24, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I apologize. I was focused on defending, because I was caught off guard. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The latest threat: Undeterred by the addition of this point to the arbitration proceeding, Rex continues to use threats to try to get his way. He has just made this edit with an edit summary exemplifying his approach to collaboration: "Second television advertisement - Final POV warning - the tag-team PO edits must stop NOW or I am going to bury all of you in NPOV edits 100% re-write!" JamesMLane 04:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, let it be noted that immediately upon my warning the pro-Kerry POV tag-team editors as per above, they desisted from the over-the-top edits which they were injecting. Since then, the article as been relatively stable and no NPOV rewrite has been necessary. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just because people acquiesce to your threat does not make it justified. --kizzle 17:13, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ask Kizzle about the several swear words he hurled yesterday and had to he harangued into apologizing for. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just because people acquiesce to your threat does not make it justified. Don't justify your actions by my moment of weakness, which I apologized for. You, my friend, have not apologized for threatening your group of editors. --kizzle 18:33, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Kizzle, you and I are not friends. Do not refer to me as such. Also, I have already addressed the false threat accusation (see above). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
touchy. --kizzle 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Another threat by Rex is here. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for personal attack parole[edit]

I had the same reaction to Rex's comment ("very close friends - or more") as did others, namely that he was gay-bashing. His further explanation seems to suggest that it would somehow be relevant to this proceeding for the committee to determine whether Gamaliel and I were co-workers or brothers-in-law; I also disagree with that proposition. The proceeding is about the multiple complaints that have been brought concerning Rex's conduct. His insinuations about other users are merely a distraction.

Rex hasn't tried to explain his description of Gamaliel and me as "bottom feeders" (which isn't even an insinuation). Nor has he responded to Gamaliel's point about his threats, in particular his threat to a newcomer on a basis (claiming vandalism about a good-faith content disagreement) that an admin had already warned him was unjustified. Instead, he has augmented his offensiveness by saying that he's glad I don't know his real name (clearly insinuating that I might engage in misconduct if I did know it), and by adding his gratuitous opinion that I am "really sick".

In light of this record, I respectfully request that the committee impose on Rex a 24-hour personal attack parole. JamesMLane 06:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I garbled that. I meant to request a personal attack parole during which any admin could impose a 24-hour ban for a further personal attack by Rex. I didn't mean to suggest that the parole should last only 24 hours. As to how long it should last, I suggest that it 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. JamesMLane 07:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JML, would you be offended if I refered to you as "m"?

JML, there is simply no reasoning with you and because of that, I will no longer try. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Misconduct as anonymous IP 216.153.214.94[edit]

Rex is apparently attempting to evade responsibility for his misconduct by perpetrating some of his attacks without logging in, using the IP address User:216.153.214.94. Here is a small sample of what he has done in that guise:

  • Rex made this edit by which he blanked someone else's user page.
  • As a followup, he said to the same user, "Violet, you really are an idiot...."
  • Rex used the anon IP to launch personal attacks in this very arbitration proceeding. By this edit he responded to a comment from Antaeus Feldspar by saying "Bla Bla Bla". In his followup, he called the same user "a big crybaby". (In general, I don't believe in citing someone's votes as evidence of misconduct, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case. Rex's only stated reason for voting against an adminship nomination was, "If Feldspar is for him, he must be no good.")
  • Rex went on a spree of locating recent edits by me, by Antaeus Feldspar and by Violetriga, and responding to each with a boilerplate comment demanding unspecified proof. This string of bad-faith edits began at 03:48, 5 Nov 2004 and continued through 04:01, 5 Nov 2004 (eleven edits total, with time out for this little bit of nastiness against the community in general). The complete bad faith of these edits is shown by the way Rex simply slapped them on with total disregard for context. Thus, to pick a couple of the ripest examples, he demanded "better proof" for Violetriga's preference for how an article should be titled and desire that it be expanded ([34]), and he demanded "more proof" for my suggestion as to how to use different pictures of George W. Bush ([35]).

When posting as "216", Rex professes bewilderment at why people are calling him "Rex". I'm not going to waste more time on him by assembling the overwhelming evidence that Rex is indeed 216. Instead, I suggest that Rex071404 should state on the record, in this proceeding, whether he made the foregoing edits. If he denies it, then I'll assemble the evidence, and add his lying to the list of charges against him. JamesMLane 06:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second JML's account of Rex's misdeeds in his "216" guise, and on the last of his bullet points, regarding Rex's bad-faith edits as "216", I believe I can present examples even "riper". He reverted an entire subsection of Narbonic without dialog or explanation [36]; he reverted a correction of mistaken information to The Prisoner without dialog or explanation, twice ([37], [38]); and ripest of all, without dialog or explanation, he unfixed a category tag on Johann Beringer which I had fixed so that it would sort properly on its category page, twice ([39], [40]). -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The pointless stalking continues. See this pointless comment at Talk:Recess. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see this 216.153.214.94 18:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"[He] points the finger of blame - at others, but not himself." Gee, I wonder if that's an apt description of someone whose blatantly bad-faith edits are being documented by three different people, who screams "Please see this! Look how this other person altogether, unrelated to these three, who hasn't even posted in this section, said a naughty thing to me!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further misconduct as anon IP[edit]

  • Speaking of people saying naughty things, "216" has today contributed this suggestion as to how to research Wikipedia articles: "Sure: Drop your trousers. Stick your head up your butt. You will find all the proof suitable to you there." [41] JamesMLane 05:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In his anon guise, Rex now has another page protection to his "credit". Over the course of about seven hours, he made approximately eleven reverts to 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities, each of which re-inserted the same POV material that several other users kept deleting. (A few of his reverts also made other changes.) Zen-master apparently thought that this anon might sincerely be ignorant of correct procedure, and gave 216 the correct advice in an edit summary: "rv please stop editing this page without explaining your thinking (on talk page preferably)". [42] Thereafter Rex made six of his reverts with no explanation on the talk page or even in an edit summary. It was only after he became convinced of the futility of his favored tactic of reverting and reverting and reverting that he said anything on the talk page, and when he did, it was a one-sentence comment that didn't address any of the issues that people had raised. The page is now protected. Incidentally, Rex's change was reverted once by Antaeus Feldspar; with that exception, the editors dealing with Rex's unilateral revert war were, as far as I know, all people who haven't filed complaints about him or given evidence in this proceeding. JamesMLane 22:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits as anonymous IP 216.153.214.94[edit]

This is a breakdown of all the (non-talk page, non-VFD) edits made by 216.153.214.94 since around the end of October.

Every single one, without failure, has not been a positive addition to Wikipedia. I await evidence of anything that disproves that. violet/riga (t) 23:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for immediate temporary injunction[edit]

I request that the Committee issue a temporary injunction, directing that, while the Committee considers this matter, User:Rex071404 be blocked from editing any of the following articles: John Kerry; John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004; and John Kerry VVAW controversy. The reason is twofold. First, lesser measures to moderate his conduct have failed. Second, because of the high visibility and timely nature of our coverage of Kerry, it is particularly important that editors of good faith be able right now to work on those articles in a normal fashion, which this user has made virtually impossible.

1. Lesser measures have failed. Several people, including some not otherwise involved with the John Kerry article, have offered Rex patient and sincere explanations. He has received multiple warnings. There has been a Request for Comment. There has been a Request for Mediation, but Rex did not agree to mediation. Snowspinner blocked him for 24 hours. There has been discussion of starting a quickpoll to block him, discussion of starting a Request for Arbitration, and the actual commencement of this proceeding. None of these things have helped.
2. Relief is urgent. Rex's conduct is a serious impediment to the development of one of the most critical articles on Wikipedia right now. I'm not slighting all the many other fine articles, but this one can reasonably be expected to be very highly visible right now and through the election. During this critical time, Rex's conduct has been the direct cause of multiple protections of the page. In addition, the attempts to reason with him and to deal with his blizzards of edits have consumed a huge amount of other participants' time that could have been put to much better use. As one indication of the extraordinary nature of the problem, I note that Talk:George W. Bush (a fairly obvious standard of comparison) has, as of this writing, 69 kilobytes since the last archiving, with the earliest post on the current version being dated July 15. By contrast, Talk:John Kerry has 118 kilobytes, all of it since August 5. We also have Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1 at 70 kb, with new material beginning roughly at August 1, plus a poll carried forward when the previous archive was made; Talk:John Kerry/July-August 2004 archive, 117 kb, covering roughly July 29 - August 1, though again with the poll carried forward; Talk:John Kerry/July 2004 archive 2, 68 kb which was just for July 28-29; and Talk:John Kerry/July 2004 archive, 123 kb, with a couple posts from the first week of July but most coming in the period July 16-28. Thus, compared to 69 kb for Bush, the Talk page for the Kerry article has generated 496 kb over the same time (actually a trifle less allowing for the duplication of the poll, made necessary by the frequent archiving). What caused the difference? Wade through the archives and you'll see: The difference is Rex. As one indication, a look at Rex's list of user contributions shows that, in the 24 hours preceding his most recent edit (that of 05:18, 9 Aug 2004), he made, by my approximate count, 69 separate edits to John Kerry or to Talk:John Kerry. That doesn't count a handful of Kerry-related volleys on other users' Talk pages. When the slightest little thing is endlessly and repetitiously fought over, progress is slowed to a crawl.

Rex has not been active on the other two articles I mention, John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and John Kerry VVAW controversy. I suggest they be included in the preliminary injunction as a matter of prudence. They are obvious targets where he might take his anti-Kerry crusade if he is blocked from the main article. JamesMLane 09:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second this request. Ambi 09:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While I find that Rex can be helpful, I have to conclude that his involvement in this article has a negative effect. He has multiple times stated his extreme POVs towards the subject of the article, his extreme philosophical differences with the subject, and has at times tried to justify inclusion of these extreme POVs. While I think that he has some positive things to add to the article, I'm affraid his involvement in the article has been overwhelmingly negative. I am generally not in favor of censoring anyone in anyway. However, I would be in favor of requiring Rex to bring about any concerns with the article in the talk page, rather than allowing him to edit it directly. I'd like to say though that I think that even though he has a past of extreme POV edits and remarks, his POV can help keep the article NPOV. Maybe the commitee could give Rex a warning, and then appoint some neutral 3rd party to keep an eye on the article to ensure Rex doesn't step over the line again. If he does, then take action... Just a thought. — マイケル ₪ 21:19, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I third the request. Tonight the page was protected yet again. It’s becoming increasingly clear that nothing will change Rex’s behavior unless someone makes him change. He makes 15 edits a sitting (someone needs to teach him how to use the “show preview” button), puts up furious and frequent challenges over a single word, he makes literally hundreds of changes without discussion then claims his version is the “baseline” and loudly and constantly complains when people change it, demanding lengthy discussion. Dealing with him is an unnecessarily unpleasant experience and he’s making it nearly impossible for others to participate in the editing of this article in a meaningful and reasonable way. Unless immediate action is taken, we can count on these page protections becoming a weekly event. Gamaliel 04:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I fourth. For this reason, and this reason alone. Rex claims to want to discuss things, and claims to be improving. His version of discussion though, is to mass edit a page, changing things. Often he will put this on the talk page of the article, with some link he has just found. Since finding the link, or information, etc, he edits the article, and then says "Don't change this without discussion". There isn't a "hey, I found this information, think we could put this in in this way?" comment, or anything. It's just "This is my version, this is the info I have, this is what it is going to be... discuss changing my version, but don't dare change it". I'm using quotations here not to quote, but to paraphrase the feeling I get. With this kind of attitude, it makes it incredibaly hard to edit the article. So much so, that I've stepped back from editing, and am only reading/keeping updated, to save myself the stress. Lyellin 07:07, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I fifth the request. From what I have observed of the discussion and the back and forth reverting over the last couple of days, Rex is demanding discussion before reverting or altering edits, yet feels that he can revert other people's edits to some mythical "baseline" - which appears to be the stuff he wants to be included and nobody else's. He also attempts to justify his reverting qualifications to POV-problematic edits by claiming that the article already contains pro-Kerry sentiments; a fallacious piece of logic at best because one cannot balance POV violations in one part of the article by POV violations in another part. There are flaws in, for example, the criticism of Kerry's war record that need to be pointed out if the section is to present a complete picture of the facts. This cannot be done as long as the reverts are flying so fast that the article needs to be protected. khaosworks 09:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and sixth the request. I blocked him for 24 hours, and would have engaged in further blocks had the arbcom procedings not begun. He risks the functional perma-protection of John Kerry, which is not an acceptable outcome. Snowspinner 03:32, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Seventh the request. Neutrality 03:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I came upon this conflict somewhat late, it seems others have been just as aggressive on the Kerry article as Rex (cf. Fred Bauder's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed_decision). I also don't see why him using the talk pages so much is such a bad thing; it would probably help if Neutrality (etc.) used it for discussion instead of just reverting repeatedly. I realize some of Rex's edits have had problems, but I worry the undistinguished attacks on them is preventing a process of understanding from going forward. Also, his behavior early on is being held in too much importance; see Don't bite the newbies. Finally, as I understand Rex did request mediation but it was not accepted. VV 05:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel requested mediation, but Rex did not accept (see Request for mediation). Rex initiated his own request for mediation only after this arbitration proceeding had been started, and only after several users had expended considerable time to document his conduct. JamesMLane 02:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a clerical point of tallying, I note that マイケル ₪ offered a comment above without using an ordinal number as a verb. He said in part, "I am generally not in favor of censoring anyone in anyway. However, I would be in favor of requiring Rex to bring about any concerns with the article in the talk page, rather than allowing him to edit it directly." So far, therefore, eight different users have called for temporary relief. JamesMLane 06:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to give my point of view re this schemozzle, but just know that Rex would rv it as POV. ):- Moriori 01:55, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
Well, count me too then.Wolfman 03:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex responds[edit]

These facts listed above are for the most part either a) old things which I have repented of, or b) inaccurate due to being taken out of context.

Here are my facts:

  • 1) The vast majority of my edits, have not been found to be wanting.
  • 2) My edits are made by me on a piecemeal basis on purpose - so as to better allow others to take issue as needed, without a revert.
  • 3) My inter-editor comments conduct has improved greatly in the last few days. I have been chastened by Snowspinner and have improved myself as a result. This can be confirmed by reading the John Kerry talk page.
  • 4) It is impossible, due to time constraints, to attempt to specifically respond to the list above. I simply ask you to note that the above list was for the most developed by the same editors who did and/or do have complaints about a limited few of my edits which they have strongly opposed - even to the point of them reverting me multiple times in one day.
  • 5) Also, please see my comments on the request for injunction page
  • 6) Please note that I am currently requesting Mediation between myself and Neutrality

Ps: I am not at a loss for words and am available to dialog to each complainer's satisfaction. Since some do not make that effort with me, I conclude that they have not met their best efforts burden - hence I say their complaints are not "ripe" for arbitation.

I invite each complainer listed above to comment to me on my Talk page. I will respond personally and promptly to each and every complaining party who comments there. However, complaints of a less than concise nature, will take longer to respond to.

Rex071404 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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". [43] Rex071404 16:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Additionally, I will note that my recent edits at George_W._Bush were not subjected to a barrage of immediate reverts as my edits to John Kerry were. I suggest that this is more indicative of entrenched opposition at John Kerry than any possible variance in my editorial style between pages Rex071404 05:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, tonight, MBecker asked me to abstain from editing John Kerry itself for the rest of the weekend. I have voluntarily agreed to that. My voluntary compliance with his leadership suggestion demonstrates that I am willing to work within the system. Rex071404 05:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, it has come to my attention that I may have a wrong recollection of when I was banned. I have asked Snowspinner to point me towards a log which would show my ban history, such as it is. Rex071404 05:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The date I was banned by Snowspinner for 24 hours was relevant because I confused that in my mind with some comments he made to me on my talk page (along with others) on or about the 6th of August. It was from that point on, that I began being much more careful about using any invective on the talk pages. Please note that the vast majority of all complaints of me speaking harshly, arise from comments made prior to 08.07.04. Rex071404 07:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Gamaliel 21:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) [44]

  • "I have been harassed the entire time by Rex, who spams my talk page with insults."

Neutrality 05:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) [45]

  • "No, the "problem" is that you choose to infer the worst possible motives from any inconsistencies in Kerry's record"

older≠wiser 21:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) [46]

  • "I doubt your shrill accusations will encourage anyone else..."

Gamaliel 04:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [47]

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

Gamaliel 06:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [48]

  • "And you aggravatingly argue by nonsequitor."

older≠wiser 23:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [49]

  • "The concept of "an edit truce" is meaningless."

JamesMLane 06:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [50]

  • "I think I'm the only one here that openly admits to perferring kerry..."

Lyellin 09:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) [51]

  • "If anyone cares, I intend to vote for Kerry..."

JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [52]

  • "...time spent trying to reason with Rex seems to be completely wasted."

JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [53]

  • "This is not a debate about the facts..."

Lyellin 08:52, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) [54]

  • "Rex, your most recent posts validate my conclusion that there's no point trying to reason with you."

JamesMLane 17:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [55]

  • "...don't mind Rex, he insults and belittles just about everyone who says anything remotely critical of his opinions."

older≠wiser 02:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [56]

  • "I'll do my best to utterly ignore you in the future."

67.180.24.204 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [57]

  • "The rest of what you wrote is so incoherent that I'm not even going to attempt a response."

Neutrality 20:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [58]

  • "When are you going to learn how the Wikipedia works instead of obsessing about the John Kerry page?"

older≠wiser 12:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) [59]

  • "Rex, you are certainly not at a loss for words, however your words are often harsh and unreasonable, making it extremely unpleasant to deal with you. You apparently are too busy obsessing over this page (yes, I said it again and it is not an insult) to take an interest in how Wikipedia works and you continue to flout Wikipedia guidelines and when confronted with this plead ignorance due to being a new user. If your "new user" pleas were accompanied by even the tiniest bit of humility (like maybe ratcheting back on the histrionics for a while until you can participate in a non-disruptive manner), would go a long way towards rehabiliating assumption of good faith in your regard. older≠wiser 17:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [60]
  • " My current inclination is to request that Rex be banned from editing this article and the other Kerry-related articles."

JamesMLane 06:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [61]

  • "...arbitration may be the only answer to prevent periodic reoccurences of this nonsense."

Gamaliel 07:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [62]

  • "I get a little punchy in the late hours and I do silly things sometimes, to amuse myself and to lighten up a ponderous argument like this one. I don’t apologize for it. I might if there hadn’t been a constant stream of weird invective coming from you..."

Gamaliel 07:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [63]

  • "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. Gamaliel 08:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [64]
  • "Sorry. It's hard to actually build a good article when you're under constant harrassment from Rex.--Neutrality 03:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [65]
  • "I realize that you think just about everyone else is at fault and you're the only blameless one. Some of us disagree. JamesMLane 03:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [66]
  • "This is an unmitigated disaster. The result of Rex's incessant harassment is that the page has been protected with a nutjob religious screed from an anon user included. Since I can't eliminate that rubbish or do anything else, I'll have to go to work on the Arbitratioin request immediately. I am totally out of patience. JamesMLane 03:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [67]
  • "Keep talking like that, Rex, and you'll make an arbitration request quite easy.--Neutrality 05:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [68]
  • "I'm not even going to dignify you comments with a response.--Neutrality 14:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [69]
  • "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)" [70]
  • "I will second the "tiresome" opinion. I'd even go so far as to say tedious. older≠wiser 21:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [71]
  • "Let's put aside these distractions about whether the baby Jesus is jealous of someone's finely honed language skills, or whatever it was. The fact is that your attempt to play the wounded innocent just won't fly. The "long-timers" here have been far more polite to you than you've been to us, even though you've given far more provocation for pointed remarks. JamesMLane 23:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [72]
  • "...you are engaging in sophistic contortions in an attempt to prove your point."

older≠wiser 17:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [73]

  • "The only "lack of sufficient rebuttal to facts I have presented" is in your own mind. You simply refuse to acknowledge when you are engaging in speculative argumentation under the guise of presenting facts (which only you consider to be unambiguous facts). older≠wiser 18:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [74]
  • "Furthermore, from now on I will not waste any more time answering such comments. If you want to misread something I say, and triumphantly post your misreading here, you go right ahead. Just don't take my silence as agreement. My thoughts are found in my comments, not in yours. JamesMLane 07:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [75]
  • "This one tiny point about the basics of Wikipedia linking policy has taken up an absurd amount of time already, thanks to you."

JamesMLane 07:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [76]

  • "From now on, I won't be able to waste any more of my time trying to teach you anything. My further comments on your editing style will be given in the course of the Arbitration Committee proceeding instead of cluttering up this page. JamesMLane 07:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [77]
  • "I am not going to bother to repsond to your irrelevant leading questions above"

older≠wiser 19:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [78]

  • "Do you actually ever comprehend what anyone else writes on wiki?"

Moriori 01:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) [79]

  • "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. Moriori 08:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)" [80]
  • "Rex's style of argument can be more exasperating and aggravating than it is persuasive, which is unfortunate because there are times when Rex does have valid points."

older≠wiser 11:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) [81]

  • "I have never attacked your edits. You have only attacked mine. Neutrality 00:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [82]
  • "I agree completely with Khaosworks. Rex has mentioned this theme before. It seems to be his fallback position as a justification for the incessant injection of anti-Kerry POV material. JamesMLane 09:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [83]
  • "Oh, bullshit. It's true" (unsigned, but log shows it to be Neutrality) [84]
  • Never edit my comments again. And don't lecture me about being "civil." Neutrality 02:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) [85]
  • "You can speak bluntly without accusations and insults. Those aren't signs of bluntness and outspokenness, they are signs of rudeness and boorishness. Despite what you've claimed, you have engaged in personal attacks after that 24 hour ban. I hope you are sincere when you claim that you are making efforts to moderate your behavior. Gamaliel 19:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [86]

The section in this block, is an exact copy of a warning which was recently left on Neutrality's Talk Page. I have copied it here for the record. Also please take note that Neutrality was also admonished by Fred Bauder for having actually deleted my evidence from "arbitration/Rex071404" and copying it to an associated talk page. Rex071404 07:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Please refrain from reverting more than three times in 24 hours except when dealing with vandalism and reverting banned users. You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours, and none of the edits you reverted were vandalism or by banned users. Guanaco 01:01, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


Rex's basic contention (as of 16:27, 14 Aug 2004)[edit]

My basic contention and one which I feel goes directly to the crux of the matter on John Kerry is that the overall editorial tone there tends to presume these points:

  • Kerry is a truthful person
  • His personal accounts ought to be taken at face value
  • His supporters have no agenda ("supporters" referring to both his ex-crewmates and certain Wiki editors)
  • Their accounts (and editorial suggestions) ought to be taken at face value

What is frustrating me is that I, by virtue of being outnumbered by those who support the status quo there, find myself aggressively confronted with reverts on almost every edit I make. For example here is a section of text, as currently comprised from John Kerry:

Iran-Contra hearings[edit]

In April 1986, Kerry and Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, proposed that hearings be conducted by the...

Please note that at 02:39 on 14 Aug 2004, I edited that text to read this way:

In April 1986, Kerry and Sen. Christopher Dodd, also a Democrat, but from Connecticut, proposed that hearings be conducted by the...

And yet, virtually as soon as I had saved the page (six minutes later), Neutrality came in behind me and reverted the text, removing the "also a" and the "but".

And, even though I manually, without revert, restored the text twice, Neutrality came in behind me a total of three times and reverted me with these edit summaries:

* #1) 02:45, 14 Aug 2004 Neutrality m (Minor grammatical edit.)
* #2) 03:03, 14 Aug 2004 Neutrality m (Minor grammatical edit.)
* #3) 03:13, 14 Aug 2004 Neutrality m (Minor grammatical edit.)

As of this moment, when I write this text, it is now 16:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) and there have been no further entries on the John Kerry history log since reversion #3 by Neutrality (above). This means that over 12 hours have passed since Neutrality's twice repeated (thrice inserted), urgent corrections to my grammer. Three times, Neutrality corrects my "grammer" in less than 1/2 hour, but in over 12 hours, he finds not one grammatical flaw in the entire remainder of the article to "correct".

Also, please take note that as evidenced by the log on Neutrality's "User contributions" [87] page,

  1. - 03:29, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M December 1 (Holidays and observances - + Human Rights Day) (top)
  2. - 03:22, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) September 11, 2001 attacks (top)
  3. - 03:13, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M John Kerry (Minor grammatical edit.) (top)
  4. - 03:12, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) September 11, 2001 attacks (Better intro.)
  5. - 03:07, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Constitutional bases)
  6. - 03:07, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Gzornenplatz (Suggestion)
  7. - 03:05, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Constitutional bases)
  8. - 03:04, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Constitutional bases)
  9. - 03:03, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M John Kerry (Minor grammatical edit.)
  10. - 03:02, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Better introduction.)
  11. - 03:01, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Talk:John Kerry (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - 08.13.04 v.2 - (please comment))
  12. - 02:59, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Better introduction.)
  13. - 02:55, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people (Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation)
  14. - 02:53, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M User talk:Jwrosenzweig (Congratulations)
  15. - 02:52, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Jwrosenzweig (Arbitration)
  16. - 02:49, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Raul654 (Other Congratulations)
  17. - 02:45, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M John Kerry (Minor grammatical edit.)
  18. - 02:41, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User:Neutrality
  19. - 02:30, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atlantium
  20. - 02:25, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Everyking (Barnstar) (top)
  21. - 02:15, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User:Neutrality/Article List (top)

Neutrality was making plenty of edits on the Wiki during the time slot detailed above, yet of all those edits, only one, a non-collegial, factually false incitement against me was posted by Neutrality onto John Kerry Talk:

Does anyone care to update the arbitration evidence page to reflect Rex's latest volly of reverts and personal attacks? Neutrality 03:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To which I replied:

N's contention that I am attacking on a personal basis is not supported by fact Rex071404 03:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

During the time period above:

  • Neutrality engaged in a three revert spate against me.
  • Neutrality fanned the flames of acrimony against me on John Kerry talk
  • Neutrality had time to comment on Kerry talk and even did so (albeit, derisively against me), but did not address the point I had raised in my Edit Summary regarding his current spate of reverts: "IranContra - Neutrality has immediately come behind me again and without discussion, reverted my edit. This is a manual re-edit. Neutrality, why do you persist in ignoring my efforts to dialog with you?"
  • Neutrality is far more experienced than me and even touts that he is a leader in the total number of edits: [88] "Hello! My name is Neutrality. I have been a Wikipedian since I was first welcomed by Meelar on May 15, 2004. As of August 8, I was listed on Most Active Wikipedians as being the 219th most active contributor. In the thirty days preceding August 8, I had a positional change of +216, which means I bypassed 216 other users in number of contributions"

Are my edits which he keeps immediately reverting, nothing more than a statistic will allows his ascent up the rankings?

I short, I feel there is clear evidence that Neutrality has not been regularly abiding by the spirit of discussing changes prior to reverting someone aggresively and instead is focusing on building, rather than resolving acrimony.

During the relevant time period of about 1 hour, Neutrality found time to make 21 Wiki edits and revert me three times. He even found time (as evidenced by #6 on the list above) to leave a message to Gzornenplatz urging formal measures against yet another user he has been revert warring against (user "VV" - in this case on George_W._Bush).

Here is what he had time to write about that: "If you want to draw attention to VV's inappropriate reversions on George W. Bush, I’d suggest that you start another Request for Comment, instead of adding to my old one. Neutrality 03:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)".

Would it have been that much trouble for Neutrality to have left me a personal talk page message or a collegial Kerry talk page comment? After all, I had just recently reached out to Neutrality and asked him to not quit as a Kerry editor. From Kerry Talk Archive 4: [89]

I don't think I plan to edit this article anymore. I've relized there are far better things to do on the Wiki than argue with Rex. I don't wish to damage my reputation even further by battling with Rex. Let him destroy the article for all I care. You win, Rex. Neutrality 21:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality, I'd prefer that you not quit and I'd also prefer that you not think that I "won". Rather, what I'd prefer you to think is that we both got off on a bad foot in dealing with each other. I am asking you to please reconsider quitting and instead try some dialoging on this page. Rex071404 21:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, I feel that much of the contention here should, rightly speaking, not be adduced as being my fault. Rather, I feel that the gross absence of collegial spirit by Neutrality (and certain others) towards me, is amplifying what could otherwise be resolved through dialog.

For example, if indeed Neutrality can honestly say that his edit summaries of "Minor grammatical edit" in reference to his reversions (above) against me are true and not misleading, then it is axiomatic that the edit I made (which he quickly reverted three times) is by concession of Neutrality himself, indeed "minor". That's because if reverting it was "minor" so too must whatever was reverted also have been "minor".

That being the case - that my edit was "minor" I see no reason that Neutrality had to revert me three times over it in less than 1/2 hour.

After all, if I had made an egregiously nasty, POV edit, reverting it would beg an Edit Summary of "rv - too POV - please discuss on Talk 1st" or something like that.

This is only one point of many which I can draw your attention to. I will add more evidence later today or otherwise very soon, if time allows. Also, please take notice, at this juncture, I am still on voluntary hiatus from editing John Kerry itself. I am however, still contributing to that talk page. Rex071404 17:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel engages in anti-Christian taunts[edit]

As retrieved from this link here [90] and as shown verbatim in the box below, is a particular John Kerry talk archive log entry which illustrates the "tag-team" nature of the hostility I have experienced from other editors on the John Kerry talk page. Rex071404 21:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are some facts about the section below:

  • The original title to that section was: Wolfman - you are misbehaving - you make wholesale reverts and leave snide Edit Summaries
  • Please note that it is this exact mini-controversy, at which, at #14 (above) in section 2.1.2.1.4 "Attacks on Gamaliel", one can find as a complaint against me, this mis-quoted partial sentence "Now comes user Gamaliel showing overt anti-Christian bigotry” - 03:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Please see the entire sentence below and note that without the "..." to indicate a partial quote, the #14 Gamaliel complaint against has the effect of slanting the evidence to make me look bad and to hide Gamaiel's intentional taunt.
  • Gamaliel's "jesus" taunt was intentional. See these quotes retreived vertbatim from Gamaliel's talk page, where he gloats about it:
Oh my God

That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long while. (baby jesus). Thanks for the laugh, very nearly put me on the floor literally.Wolfman 03:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Ponderous discussions about meaningless "issues" need all the laughs they can get. Gamaliel 03:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) Perhaps if you did not think of my ideas as being "meaningless", you would be able to appreciate them better Rex071404 04:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Baby jesus

That was hilarious. Thanks for doing that. By the way, I'm collecting evidence and I'd like it if you could help: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence.--Neutrality 18:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I added a bunch of Rex quotes, mostly attacks on me, but also Wolfman, JML, Ambi, and Lyellin. Gamaliel 19:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Gamaliel made his "jesus" taunt via changing my Kerry talk page section title which was directed at Wolman, per Wolfman's snide Edit Summaries and aggressive reverts towards me.
  • Leading up to this, were certain Edit Summaries by Wolfman (and others), as they reverted me:
  1. 00:53, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (Kerry's tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat)
  2. 01:00, 6 Aug 2004 Wolfman (it's just a flesh wound)
  3. 01:01, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (The "Snopes" story is NOT a fuller "account" and is nothing but piling on pro-Kerry POV - belongs in the "online media" section and that is where it's going to stay!)
  4. 01:02, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (rv Wolfman - stop playing games!)
  5. 01:04, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (Online media)
  6. 01:09, 6 Aug 2004 Neutrality
  7. 01:12, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (rv - Neutrality just reverted me again with no comment - BIAS!)
  8. 01:15, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (Snopes has been moved to "online media")
  9. 01:23, 6 Aug 2004 Wolfman m (you've got no arms! (rv. see previous discussion in talk))
  10. 01:26, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (They "regained" not "gained")
  11. 01:28, 6 Aug 2004 Rex071404 (rv Wolfman again reverted my proven and agreed as correct facts - and he made another snide comment to boot!)
  12. 01:29, 6 Aug 2004 Moriori (Remove sme of the verbosity. The further this goes, the more bogged down it becomes)
  13. 01:42, 6 Aug 2004 24.193.154.91 (Removed marketing plug for Regnery Publishing)
  14. 01:46, 6 Aug 2004 Wolfman m (rv mass deletion)
  15. 01:49, 6 Aug 2004 Wolfman (not snide, lame attempt at humor. ever seen monty python Rex?)
  16. 01:53, 6 Aug 2004 Gamaliel m (Online media)

It was at or about this time that I said "Shame!" to Wolfman on the talk page. Gamaliel responded by editing my section title to make a snide "jesus" comment. Sometime later, he editied that page again and removed that snide comment, which is no longer found in the archives themselves, except by looking in the history.

I did not remove the comment. Nor is this the first time you've accused me of doing things based on your incorrect reading of edit histories. You once accused me of blanking the Talk:John Kerry page when it was you who did so accidentally. Gamaliel 03:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since it appears that I misread the name of the actual deleter, I apologize. On the other hand, the issue of the "blanking" was not at all framed as an accusation. I suggest you collate our dialog on that and put it on a sub page with a link here. If you do, I think it will be clear that no "accusation" was made. Also, I am pretty sure that your interjection of commentary on this page might not be the right thing to do. As I understand the rules, this is a page for entering evidence, not for interjecting commentary. Perhaps you may want to comment to me on my Talk page or on the Talk page for this evidence page. I'd prefer that you do, so that I do not have interupt my logic flow by responding to you within the confines of my evidence area. Thanks Rex071404 03:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(this section is a copy of text which I am supplying for evidence - see above Rex071404)

Wolfman - you are misbehaving - you make wholesale reverts and make the baby Jesus cry[edit]

Shame on you! Rex071404 02:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whatever, Mom.Wolfman 02:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Again, Wolfman makes a snide intentionally taunting comment Rex071404 02:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To use your own words, Rex, "please lighten up". Gamaliel 03:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Now comes user Gamaliel showing overt anti-Christian bigotry with his section title changed to "and make the baby Jesus cry" Rex071404 03:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that we have had to put up with for weeks[edit]

I made a joke. A simple joke. Instead of taking it for what it was, Rex accuses me of “anti-Christian bigotry”. Nevermind that I am a Christian who has taken his user name from the New Testament. Nevermind that it was an obvious joke and an obvious attempt to deflate a tense situation with humor.

Any attempt to respond to Rex’s insults in kind is taken as “evidence” of bias against him. Any attempt to respond to Rex’s insults with humor is taken as “evidence” of bias against him.

I am sick of his behavior and his treatment of myself and others. He claims he has nothing against me but accuses me of “anti-Christian bigotry” and being a “pro-Kerry shill”, then excuses his rudeness by claiming that he is “accustomed to bluntness”. He constantly claims he wants to dialogue and then throws accusations of bias and insults in the face of every attempt to dialogue.

I have devoted many many hours to wikipedia, but the fact that wikipedia is letting a ridiculous troll run rampant is making me seriously rethink my commitment to this website. Gamaliel 22:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An extract sample of dialog between Gamaliel and myself from 13 August, 2004[edit]

This is an extract from a dialog which can be found here Rex071404 03:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to laugh. You declined my request for mediation and mocked my complaints about your behavior. Now you want mediation, possibly to head off the Rfa, and complain when he declines. I'm sure you'll post some lengthy, verbose, and unintelligible discussion now about how you aren't a hypocrite.

Your version isn't the "baseline" - there is no baseline. You've literally made hundreds of edits without discussion, and then whine about edits made by others without pages of "dialog". You take out documented facts which you think favor Kerry calling them "POV" and then add random freeper smears about Bill Clinton. You claim that you haven't insulted anyone since your ban by Snowspinner, but the Rfa documents the same behavior before and after this ban. When does it stop? Somewhere in there might be a helpful, contributing editor, but that person won't emerge until you stop the endless complaints, accusations, confrontational and insulting comments, and 30 edits at a time. Gamaliel 03:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False. False. False. The complaints against me were divided into two types: My use of personal invective and characterizations of my editorial work as POV. My method no longer includes invective (not so for others such as Neutrality who said my view was "BS" just yesterday). And if there is no "baseline" about anything at any time, I suppose that frees me to delete all the absurd '55th cousin 85 times removed' minutiae, yes? As for mediation with you, I did not decline. Rather, as the record reflects, the issue was tabled after I said it was not "ripe" and that I had not given up dialoging yet. Gamaliel, I have no problems with you and am happy to hear your succint concerns - please put them on my talk page if they are specific to me and I will answer ASAP. And as for "invective", is inferring that I am an "unintelligible" "hypocrite" really the right way to go about getting me to agree with you?Rex071404 06:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You either accepted mediation or you refused mediation. You can’t have it both ways.
As for you having nothing against me, how does that jive with two weeks of personal attacks documented on the RfA? I’d hate to see how you treat people you do have something against. Gamaliel 18:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The explanation is simple: When I first joined here, I mistook the dynamic to be less erudite than it is. I mistook it for a blog, which it is not. I am accustomed to being able to speak bluntly. Since I have learned the ropes here, I have moderated my tone. That simple fact is not in dispute. Sorry for any past hurt feelings Rex071404 18:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evidence specific to Neutrality 08.17.04[edit]

On this page here Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section here Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section here on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link hereyou can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004).

Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself. Rex071404 06:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On this page here, Neutrality acuses me of "lying" but does not supply any supporting evidence. Rex071404 17:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What we would need in order to seriously consider making a finding of fact regarding User Neutrality, is links to edits Neutrality made to the article John Kerry which show insistent insertion of POV material (or deletion for POV purposes) or some other pattern of disruptive behavior. My own observations of his edits was that while they were somewhat tenditious they did not cross over the line. But show us the edits. Fred Bauder 17:48, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality Edits to John Kerry This section is evidence which I am supplying - all non-arbitrators, please keep your comments out of this section. (My edits here began at 04:45, 27 Aug 2004 and will be underway for at least a few minutes) Rex071404 04:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As of this time, this link here takes you to the approximate time slot where my editorial conflicts with Neutrality began. Please bear in mind that the history log is cumulative and therefore the edit offsets will aggregate more deeply as time goes on.

For your benefit, I have pasted below, the actual history log entries of a series of edits made by Neutrality which, by viture of their back-to-back, uninterrupted nature and quantity, highlight his intense interest in John Kerry. Please see below where I individually indentify some of his more egregious edits.

  1. (cur) (last) 06:03, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Yale University)
  2. (cur) (last) 06:02, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Yale University)
  3. (cur) (last) 06:02, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Yale University)
  4. (cur) (last) 05:59, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Yale University)
  5. (cur) (last) 05:56, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Yale University)
  6. (cur) (last) 05:53, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Encounters with President Kennedy)
  7. (cur) (last) 05:46, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  8. (cur) (last) 05:45, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty on the USS Gridley)
  9. (cur) (last) 05:40, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty on the USS Gridley)
  10. (cur) (last) 05:39, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  11. (cur) (last) 05:35, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  12. (cur) (last) 05:17, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  13. (cur) (last) 05:17, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality
  14. (cur) (last) 05:15, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  15. (cur) (last) 05:15, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality
  16. (cur) (last) 05:12, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  17. (cur) (last) 05:10, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  18. (cur) (last) 05:09, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  19. (cur) (last) 05:07, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  20. (cur) (last) 05:05, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  21. (cur) (last) 04:56, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  22. (cur) (last) 04:42, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  23. (cur) (last) 04:40, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Military Service)
  24. (cur) (last) 04:39, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  25. (cur) (last) 04:25, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  26. (cur) (last) 04:24, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  27. (cur) (last) 04:22, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  28. (cur) (last) 04:18, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  29. (cur) (last) 04:09, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Military Service)
  30. (cur) (last) 04:08, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Return from Vietnam)
  31. (cur) (last) 04:06, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  32. (cur) (last) 04:03, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Leadership aganist the Vietnam War)
  33. (cur) (last) 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Leadership aganist the Vietnam War)
  34. (cur) (last) 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Anti-war Activism)
  35. (cur) (last) 03:56, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  36. (cur) (last) 03:53, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Military Service)
  37. (cur) (last) 03:50, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Military Service)
  38. (cur) (last) 03:45, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Military Service)
  39. (cur) (last) 03:43, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Military Service)
  40. (cur) (last) 03:40, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Military Service)
  41. (cur) (last) 03:37, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Military Service)
  42. (cur) (last) 03:31, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Military Service)
  43. (cur) (last) 03:30, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  44. (cur) (last) 03:24, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  45. (cur) (last) 03:21, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  46. (cur) (last) 03:17, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty as commander of Swift Boat)
  47. (cur) (last) 03:09, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty)
  48. (cur) (last) 03:08, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty on the USS Gridley)
  49. (cur) (last) 03:06, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  50. (cur) (last) 03:05, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Second tour of duty)
  51. (cur) (last) 03:03, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  52. (cur) (last) 02:52, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  53. (cur) (last) 02:51, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  54. (cur) (last) 02:37, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  55. (cur) (last) 02:36, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  56. (cur) (last) 02:35, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty - Added more.)
  57. (cur) (last) 02:27, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Enlistment, training, and first tour of duty)
  58. (cur) (last) 02:25, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (First tour of duty)
  59. (cur) (last) 02:23, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (First tour of duty)
  60. (cur) (last) 02:22, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Early Life and Education)
  61. (cur) (last) 02:21, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Early Life and Education)
  62. (cur) (last) 02:16, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m
  63. (cur) (last) 01:23, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Second tour of duty - Clarification.)
  64. (cur) (last) 01:22, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Childhood years - Hitler's bunker ====> Hitler's bunker (linking to Führerbunker))
  65. (cur) (last) 01:20, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality (Childhood years - copyedit/proofreading/grammar/word choice)
  66. (cur) (last) 01:16, 24 Jul 2004 Neutrality m (Law, Politics, Public Service - Reinstating 'Committee assignments' section improperly removed by troll.)

Edits by Neutrality which merit further examination by Arbitrators (ES stands for Edit Summary) ( From the best I can tell, my 1st edit was on 17:47, 6 Jul 2004 - Rex071404).


  • Date: 16:01, 24 Jul 2004; ES "(President Nixon and Charles Colson discuss John Kerry)"; see edit

(please note that this edit occured after Neutrality (and others) had already begun a pattern of attacking and reversing my edits. In fact, on this particular edit, please take notice that Neutrality put up an inapproriate "inuse" message This article is currently undergoing a major edit. As a courtesy, please do not make edits to this article while this message is posted, in order to avoid edit conflicts. so as to scare off then newer editors such as myself.)

  • Date: 16:03, 24 Jul 2004; ES "( )"; see edit

(please take note of what Neutrality deleted as well as what he added.)

  • Date: 16:04, 24 Jul 2004; ES "(President Nixon and Charles Colson discuss John Kerry)"; see edit
  • Date: 16:11, 24 Jul 2004; ES "(Return from Vietnam)"; see edit
  • Date: 16:15, 24 Jul 2004; ES "( )"; see edit
  • Date: 16:18, 24 Jul 2004; ES "(Nixon and Colson comments om John Kerry)"; see edit
  • Date: 16:24, 24 Jul 2004; ES "m (Reverting improper removal of quote; please do not do that again.)"; see edit
  • Date: 16:31, 24 Jul 2004; ES "Leadership aganist the Vietnam War)"; see edit
  • Date: 16:56, 24 Jul 2004; ES "m (Stop.)"; see edit

(also, please notice the misuse by Neutrality on his Edit Summaries of the "m" which is supposed to denote "minor" edits)

  • Date: 17:14, 24 Jul 2004; ES "(Rv)"; see edit
  • Date: 23:39, 24 Jul 2004; ES "(Law practice and first election)"; see edit
  • Date: 00:36, 25 Jul 2004; ES "(rv troll)"; see edit
  • Date: 01:05, 25 Jul 2004; ES "m (rv)"; see edit

(this edit above is particularly informing)

  • Date: 02:25, 25 Jul 2004; ES "( )"; see edit
  • Date: 02:30, 25 Jul 2004; ES "m ( )"; see edit
  • Date: 02:33, 25 Jul 2004; ES "m (1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW))"; see edit
  • Date: 14:34, 25 Jul 2004; ES "(1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) - -- As I have stated before, Newsmax and Freepnet are not acceptable sources for definitive statements. Selective revert.)"; see edit
  • Date: 14:37, 25 Jul 2004; ES "(Criticism - Putting paragraph back in that was improperly removed.)"; see edit
  • Date: 14:58, 25 Jul 2004; ES "(Criticism - Expansion, making this flow, more links, NPOV.)"; see edit
  • Date: 15:00, 25 Jul 2004; ES "m (Kerry's second, abbreviated tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat)"; see edit
  • Date: 18:43, 25 Jul 2004; ES "m (Kerry's second tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat)"; see edit
  • Date: 02:29, 26 Jul 2004; ES "m (Kerry's four month tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat - four month > second tour. More specific b/c it shows that his two tours were separate; four months is apparent in the article.)"; see edit
  • Date: 21:13, 26 Jul 2004; ES "(Reverting changes made by Rex.)"; see edit
  • Date: 21:57, 26 Jul 2004; ES "(Reverting POV - Let's work this out on talk.)"; see edit
  • Date: 22:00, 26 Jul 2004; ES "(I'm putting both versions in for now -- let's see how we can work this out.)"; see edit
  • Date: 22:02, 26 Jul 2004; ES "m (Adding {inuse} message)"; see edit
  • Date: 22:08, 26 Jul 2004; ES "((sigh))" see edit
  • Date: 23:05, 26 Jul 2004; ES "(rv -- a discussion is going on at talk)"; see edit
  • Date: 23:11, 26 Jul 2004; ES "(1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) - *New Version* Check it out - Can we all accept this?)"; see edit
  • Date: 23:43, 26 Jul 2004; ES "(Revert.)"; see edit
  • Date: 01:07, 27 Jul 2004; ES "(rv)" see edit
  • Date: 01:59, 27 Jul 2004; ES "(rv)" see edit

Almost immediately after this additional revert by Neutrality, the page was protected at 02:08, 27 Jul 2004 by AndyL [91]. This is all the additional evidence which I am adding for this evening. More may follow soon. Rex071404 06:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality responds[edit]

A ridiculous cut-and-paste job that proves nothing. Rex071404 responds to a simple request to supply evidence with spamming the page with every single edit of mine, controversial or not. Here's a point-by-point response to those edits which actually relate to the case:

  • The {{inuse}} template message was an attempt to stop the mass reversions without resorting to page protection, which is considered harmful. Perhaps is was not the best idea, but ir certainly was not, as Rex disingenuously replies, an attempt to monopolize editing, nor was it an attempt to "scare off then newer editors such as myself."
  • Marking a reversion as minor is not inherently bad. Notice that administrators have a revert option that is automatically marked as minor. Also note that I explained many, if not most, of my reverts — and if I did not it was because I had previously expressed the rationale and yet Rex continued to revert. Also note that in a few cases the reversion was non-controversial (simple page vandalism by anons, etc.) or a revert due to bizarre grammatical constructions placed by Rex.
  • Rex notes an edit as "particularly informing" involves several things, none of which are objectionable:
    • The removal of redundant/obvious material designed to insert subtle point of view (for example, putting " his 2nd wife," which is both subtle point of view and grammatically incorrect – should be 'second,' not '2nd.')
    • The removal of the "medal-tossing incident" section. This was because consensus had been agreed upon in talk to put this information on the John Kerry VVAW controversy page, and was also due to the point-of-view in the third and fifth paragraphs:
      • "ABC News still has factual information posted which clearly indicates that Kerry has changed is story about this episode on more than one occasion"
      • "For a considerable period of time, most people who knew of the medal incident, believed it was his own personal medals which he threw. However, Kerry now denies this and states that he only threw his "ribbons'."

Rex071404 rebuts Neutrality[edit]

While I would prefer that Neutrality not refer to my evidence as "A ridiculous cut-and-paste job that proves nothing", it is nonetheless gratifying to see that he is finally taking the time to provide a rationale for his past reversions of me. I suggest that he should have tried this much sooner. A good time I feel, would have been back when this was an open issue on the Kerry Talk page itself. In fact, it is Neutrality's utter non-engagement of dialog with me, his principal Kerry editors foil, that I feel was the direct cause of the communication breakdown there and which led to the subsequent edit/revert wars.

If I get a few minutes, I will insert links to all the beseechments to dialog which I posted for him throughout the contested period. A review of those links will show that my entreaties to Neutrality went consistently unanswered. Rex071404 05:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Additional evidence against Neutrality 08.31.04[edit]

Neutrality follows me around the Wiki, deleting my comments link

More evidence of this type to follow. Rex071404 15:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Additional evidence against Neutrality 09.14.04[edit]

On the page White cracker he has exceeded (3) reverts in a day against me over the exact same edit [92]. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a lie. I reverted exactly three times - and WP:3RR says users should go over three reverts. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is the list of Neutrality's 09.14.04 reverts as mentioned above:

  1. 15:09, 14 Sep 2004
  2. 14:56, 14 Sep 2004
  3. 14:01, 14 Sep 2004
  4. 04:33, 14 Sep 2004

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those are not all reverts. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional evidence against Neutrality 09.17.04[edit]

On the page Lawrence v. Texas Neutrality came in tonight and reverted me on the exact same edit, (4) times. I on the other hand, stopped my reverts there on this section at (3). Here are Neutralitiy's edits:

  1. [93]
  2. [94]
  3. [95]
  4. [96]

On his final of the (4) reverts, he falsely claimed there is no "discussion on the talk page regarding the underlying concerns. Also, on this edit here [97] he removed an NPOV tag in the middle of this and referred to it as "idiotic". I also point out that he does not note in his edit sumaries that his edit is an "rv" and he notes them all as minor, which if there is a dispute, the certainly are not. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction?[edit]

One might inquire as to why the user Rex071404 has introduced, under the section "Harsh or biased comments made to or about Rex, by others on the John Kerry Talk page," certain Pro-Kerry remarks: 

"I think I'm the only one here that openly admits to perferring kerry..."
Lyellin 09:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

"If anyone cares, I intend to vote for Kerry..."
JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How are these quotations in any way relevant to the case? They do not prove that the users mentioned have made any biased edits, or that they are more likely to make biased edits, or that they tend to make biased edits. The comments itself may be biased, but as they occur on the talk page, I don't see how they can be considered evidence or proof of anything. -- Emsworth 02:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evidence against Wolfman[edit]

Wolfman makes recent, taunting edit to Rex071404 Talk Page[edit]

This was put on my Talk Page by Wolfman just now. Rex071404 07:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And, after a quick check by me into Wolfman's intentions, I deleted that here Rex071404 07:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman's snide intentions can be adduced by reading this link here. Frankly, the very fact that Wolfman was hovering over my talk page closely enough to be in position to butt in, is I feel, evidence of malignant intent on his part. Rex071404 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Responses[edit]

Rex, I have your talk page on watch, just like I do many others, from this debate and others. That doesn't imply someone is "hovering" over it. Lyellin 16:44, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Arbitrators, this seems like a silly waste of time to me. If you are not taking this "evidence" seriously, don't waste your time further on my comment here. Otherwise, go have a look at this (since deleted by Rex) and then have a look at his response. A rant about Kerry seems to me a rather odd response to a sincere invitation to work co-operatively — at least odd coming from someone as genuinely interested in "dialogue" as Rex.

And yes, I did enjoy being able to answer Rex's question so comprehensively. That doesn't make it a "taunt". But, since he took it that way: I apologize to you Rex. Wolfman 17:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin, please keep your comments out of my evidence sections. Comments are to go on the associated Talk Page. Only evidence is allowed on the Evidence page. Your insertion of commentary, especially regarding evidence which does not pertain to you, is disruptive. Rex071404 17:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I inserted a subheading to separate charge from response. Wolfman 17:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Additional charge against Wolfman - Violation of 3 revert rule (08.29.04)[edit]

In bad faith and in excess of the "3 revert rule", this evening, Wolfman has 4 times reverted my addition of an "NPOV' tag to the SBVT article. See #4 here. Also, he is mocking me and threatening me. I am trying to collegially discuss things on the talk page at SBVT and am being subjected to mocks, taunts and threats by Wolfman. Also, the one edit I did make to the article was the addition of the NPOV tag, which Wolfman reverted 4 times tonight. Rex071404 02:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


At this link here you can see that Wolfman admits he was acting in anger this evening. Rex071404 03:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also from Wolfman this evening:

  • At this link here, you can see Wolfman admitting to POV.
  • And here you can see him admitting that he lost his cool.
  • And finally, here you can see Wolfman admitting that he is carrying over between articles a conflict-oriented view of me and my edits and he is also stoking animosity against me with another editor by referring to me as "essentially irrational".

Rex071404 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, please take note of this additonal SBVT revert by Wolfman against another editor there this evening. That makes (5) reverts to SBVT this evening so far by Wolfman. Gain more perspective on that here. Rex071404 04:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here Wolfman admits to (4) of the 5 reverts of this evening. Rex071404 05:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are the reverts themselves:

  1. link
  2. link
  3. link
  4. link
  5. link
I wouldn't know about "essentially irrational," but perhaps you should consider taking a break before you develop a persecution complex or give yourself an aneurysm. The fact that you're tracking him all the way to my talk page disturbs and worries me somewhat. And Wolfman doesn't need, does is he capable of stirring up animosity in my mind. My opinions of you are my own and remain so. -khaosworks 04:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators, please take note: khaosworks, a non-party to this Arb case, is interjecting commentary on this, the evidence page. Rex071404 04:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you see here [98], I was one of those who requested an injunction against you. -khaosworks 04:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you did, but you did that in the role of an interested person, not as a party to the Arbitration case. Either way, you ought not to be cluttering up the evidence page with commentary. Please confine your evidence-related comments to the talk page here. Thank you. Rex071404 04:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As User:Khaosworks requested relief in this case he is a party to the case regardless of its placement on the evidence page. Fred Bauder 11:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman responds[edit]

Please read from Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Archive 2#Media Bias on down a couple sections. I ask that you consider that as Evidence for the complaints against Rex as well as Evidence about me.

I did in fact willfully revert Rex 4 times, though the 4th time was after addressing his concerns. That's a first offense, and I have no intention of repeating it. I did in fact feel angry; I am not a robot. I did in fact mock some some aspects of Rex's behavior. I should not have, they needed no mockery (see 'I am not a robot'). I did not try to stir up hostility against Rex, I was apologizing to khaos for losing my cool. I stand by my actions, though I would handle it more like Khaosworks did if it happens again.

I note that this article is essentially a large chunk of the most contentious John Kerry article under a different name. We simply moved a lot of that detail to SBVT. Wolfman 19:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman makes another snide comment on my talk page (08.29.04)[edit]

here Rex071404 02:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evidence about Gamaliel and Wolfman regarding John Kerry[edit]

Currently, that page says this "Kerry has sponsored or cosponsored 57 bills during his time as a Senator". This is a patently false statement. The correct numbers far exceed that in the last 10 years alone. Shortly before I was banned from editing John Kerry, I had initiated the section about Bill Sponsorship thusly;

Sponsorship of Legislation[edit]

Senator Kerry, in the last 10 years, as shown on his Senate web site [99], has sponsored these bills:


 Session

 Years

 Bills Sponsored

 Signed into law

104th

 1995-96

 32

 none

 105th

 1997-98

 19

 none

 106th

 1999-00

 33

 S.791 [100]

 107th

 2001-02

 81

 none

 108th

 2003-04

 30

 none


Since that time, I notified Gamaliel and マイケル ₪ but neither seems to be interested in correcting the blatant error. When queried by me about this Gamaliel said "What the hell is your problem? I have not restored the John Kerry chart to its original numbers simply because I have not gotten around to it. Unlike you, I don’t hover around the same 2 or 3 articles, I do a lot of varied work here on wikipedia.". That qoute can be found on his talk page.

I feel this is a clear example of the pro-Kerry bias by the entrenched editors which led to the conflicts with me. Rather than simply concede the true fact that John Kerry, as evidenced by his own web site, has sponosored few if any bills which became law in the last 10 years, the pro-Kerry crowd simply changes the numbers and deleted the table. Rex071404 07:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notice that it was here that Gamaliel cut the table completely out (after having known for some time that the numbers were wrong). Then it was here just a few minutes later that Wolfman inserted his inaccurate list.

These two working in tandem like that illustrates the "tag-team" nature of the pro-Kerry editors which opposed me on that page.

Also, please note that just this evening, Wolfman tried to stir-up trouble with me on my talk page (see section).

Also, please see this here as additional evidence that Gamaliel is attempting to stoke hostility against me among the other parties to this Arbitration. Rex071404 17:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel's response[edit]

What really happened:

The numbers on the “sponsorship of legislation” chart fluctuated after a number of different edits, and there seemed to me to be insufficient explanation of how these numbers were tabulated or where they were coming from. So on Talk:John Kerry on August 18 I asked “Why do the numbers keep fluctuating on this chart?”

Rex, who has been banned from editing John Kerry, responded to this query on my user talk page, as well as addressing a past point of contention between us. I replied to Rex, but made no comment about the “sponsorship of legislation” chart. Rex then said: “Why don't you go to the link to the Kerry official web site (the link is in the article) and add up the bills sponsored as I did? Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me. If you think I am wrong, go check the Kerry web site links and add up the bills yourself - you will see that I am right. Are you afraid to be proven wrong?”

My reply was, in full: “What the hell is your problem? I have not restored the John Kerry chart to its original numbers simply because I have not gotten around to it. Unlike you, I don’t hover around the same 2 or 3 articles, I do a lot of varied work here on wikipedia. And I shouldn’t have to justify my actions to you, nor should you be throwing out rude and shrill accusations and taunts like “Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me” and “Are you afraid to be proven wrong?”. This is exactly the sort of negative behavior I am talking about in my comments above, and in your reply you provide a prime example of it. This is why I do not believe you are sincere when you claim that you have changed or will change your negative behavior. Do not post here again unless you are prepared to be civil.”

Let’s be clear on exactly what happened here: Rex chastised me for not making the edits he demanded to an article he has been banned from editing.

At that point, I abandoned any interest in factchecking or revising this chart, as my past encounters with Rex have been emotionally draining, to say the least.

On August 25, Wolfman suggested on Talk:John Kerry that “The chart is so misleading that I'm inclined to cut it until a proper job can be done.” I agreed, and then cut it myself. That was the extent of my “tag-team” collaboration with Wolfman.

For the record, I have zero interest in the number of bills Kerry sponsored during his career beyond simply insuring that wikipedia presents factual information. I do not think the issue is particularly important nor do I think it makes a difference in how anyone will perceive Kerry’s fitness for president. Incidentally, the numbers on the chart Rex wanted included are actually higher (and this, according to Rex’s criteria, more favorable to Kerry) than the ones on the chart I cut. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 09:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex's last paragraph added after my response. Given that Rex has previously accused Wolfman of having a pro-Kerry bias, vandalism, and being Neutrality's sockpuppet, Rex has stoked plenty hostility of his own. I seriously doubt that my harmless comment informing Wolfman of these latest charges has done anything to alter Wolfman's opinion of Rex. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman's response[edit]

Please see Talk:John Kerry#sponsorship of legislation. I have not otherwise communicated with Gamaliel or anyone else about this section. Also note that over a week passed between the time we noted problems with the chart and the time we decided to cut it — that's a "tag team"? I actually had an edit conflict with Gamaliel as he happened to cut the table just when I was preparing the list of legislation. It seemed to me that a list of actual legislation might be a wee bit more informative than a (misleading) chart listing just numbers.

Also note, the number "57" Rex objects to came directly from the linked reference I used as a source [101]. I suppose the site means that it lists 57 selected bills. If I intentionally used the wrong number to inject pro-Kerry bias as Rex implies, you'd think maybe I would have used the "far higher" number Rex refers to. Exactly how is erroneously minimizing his legislative role supposed to make Kerry look good? This is the first I've heard that it may be an inaccurate tally — rather ironic considering that Rex's stated charge against me is running to arbitration without first pursueing dialogue.

Frankly, I think this "Evidence" is evidence of nothing more than hard work and good editorship, and I don't appreciate being chastised for it. Wolfman 16:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have now changed "57" to "hundreds"; Rex was correct that I had accidentally understated Kerry's legislative accomplishments.

The phrase "hostility" was used by Rex with regards to Gamaliel informing me of this latest complaint. So I'll add that, while I certainly do have strong opinions about Rex, I have no "hostility" towards him. Wolfman 21:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Additional evidence specific to Wolfman[edit]

Just now, here [102], Wolfman reverted me without comment and without addressing my specific concerns as expressed here and here. See the section which is awaiting a reply by other editors here. Please note that Wolfman did not reply to my concerns prior to reverting or concurrent with my edit. In fact, unlike my edit, Wolfman left no helpful information on his Edit Summary. Also, even though this particular revert and refusal to dialog by Wolfman was on the George W. Bush page, it is I feel, indicative of Wolfman's generally dismissive approach to the concersn of editors such as myself who may from time to time, disagree with one or more of his edits relating to Election 2004 and/or Bush/Kerry. Rex071404 23:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman's response[edit]

See Talk:George W. Bush#"Validity" I simply restored G's version, which Rex had removed. That's a whole one revert, and no less valid than Rex's own action. At Rex's request, I then restored his version.

Again, I note with irony that the stated charge against me is signing on to an arbitration request before attempting dialogue. Wolfman 00:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sidenote: So long as Rex is slinging mud my way, I might as well share this cute edit with the class.

Now, I'm taking this page off my watchlist; I've spent enough time on this farce of a counter-complaint. If anything dramatic happens that I need to know about, somebody please drop a note on my talk page. Wolfman 02:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 Counter-response to Wolfman - Validity[edit]

Wolfman omits important details. Please see entire dialog here. Please note also, that Wolfman's reverts were inaccuractely marked by him with a small "m" even though more than a minor amount of material was reverted. Rex071404 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did you, by any chance, see the very first line of my response? Look up about 4 lines. I didn't omit it. Wolfman 00:38, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evidence against one version of item 5 in "Proposed findings of fact"[edit]

I offer the following evidence in opposition to one version of paragraph 5 of the “Proposed findings of fact”, specifically the version that reads: “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'm one of the complaining witnesses in this matter whose views are being thus characterized. I do not believe that a significant POV should be downplayed on the basis that a numerical majority of the editors disagree with it. Furthermore, I haven't edited on that basis. The proposed finding should not be adopted.

For an example of the kind of behavior that this proposed finding refers to -- disrespect for a significant POV with which the editor disagrees -- I invite the committee’s attention to this edit by Rex. In shortening the discussion of the incident for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, Rex left in the criticism by George Elliott – who wasn’t there – while deleting the responses from three Navy enlisted men who were there and who disagreed with Elliott. Nor was this “inadvertent” or an example of Rex’s “goofing around”. Over the next several hours, when other editors restored the facts that Rex wanted to suppress, Rex repeatedly reverted to delete them ([103], [104], [105], [106], [107]).

In contrast, here’s how I handled the Silver Star dispute. If the proposed finding of fact were correct, I might have acted as Rex did in deleting material I didn't like, in this case Elliott's anti-Kerry statements. In fact, however, not only did I leave in Elliott’s opinions, but I edited the paragraph to make his anti-Kerry point clear. The paragraph had read:

The details surrounding Kerry's Silver Star award have recently become somewhat controversial. In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." [108] More recently, in August 2004, Elliott signed an affidavit stating "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong" [109]. This August affidavit was released in support of his July 2004 affidavit which stated in part "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occured in Vietnam...". It was after the release of this 1st affidavit, that Michael Kranish, of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott as having said "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here ... I knew it was wrong ..In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." [110]. It was the release of these two affidavits and Elliott's contention that the Globe reporter substantially misquoted him which resulted in controversy. While there has been contention from some Kerry supporters that Elliott's story has changed as the 2004 presidential race has evolved, for the most part, neither the Kerry nor Bush camps have commented about Elliott's statements or the press reports about them.

The task here is to present the multiple statements from Elliott. The wording above referred to his statements out of order, with his “That was a mistake” last, which might lead a reader to think that Elliott now considered his signing of the anti-Kerry affidavit to have been a mistake. That would be incorrect. Accordingly, with this edit I changed the paragraph to make the chronology clear. I broke it into two paragraphs, one for his pre-2004 statements and the second covering this year. In the second paragraph, I made it clear that Elliott’s latest word was an additional anti-Kerry affidavit:

The details surrounding Kerry's Silver Star have become controversial in the course of the Presidential election. In 1996, when Kerry was criticized about it during his Senate campaign, Elliott, the commander who had recommended the award, came to his defense. As recently as June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." [111]
In July 2004, however, Elliott signed an affidavit that stated in part, "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam..." Thereafter, the Boston Globe quoted Elliott as having said, "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here ... I knew it was wrong ..In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." [112]. In August 2004, however, Elliott contended that the newspaper had substantially misquoted him. He signed a new affidavit that stated, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong" [113] Yet to be clarified is whether Elliott would still recommend the award in consideration of the other factors recounted in the official citation.

(Thereafter, in the interest of uncluttering the main article, these pro and con statements were moved to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article.)

In short, contrary to the proposed finding of fact, Rex is the one who has unfairly slighted facts that he finds inconvenient and opinions with which he disagrees, while I’ve tried to give the reader a fair presentation of both sides of the controversy. JamesMLane 01:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 replies to JML's #5 concerns (above)[edit]

In regards to my edit which JML links to, wherein I deleted the conflicting accounts of the crew members, my edit summary stated this "Kerry Crewmates RE: Silver Star - Delete this section - the quotes offered contradict each other and the fact that the man is conceded to have been running away - see talk to JML - rem is POV rebuttal". Any reading of the personal accounts I deleted, makes clear that on their face, they do contradict each other. Now, since they were being offered to bolster the Kerry account of the very brief skirmish which led to Kerry getting a Silver Star, it is not unreasonable to expect that a) the witness accounts should not contradict each other and b) the witness accounts should not conflict with the narrative which they are supposed to be bolstering. As my edit summary made clear, the witness accounts failed both these tests and on the face of it, they are nonsensical if included in the article for the editorial reason offered, which was: bolster the Kerry account. These witness accounts do not do that. Also, at no time in their reverts against deletion, did the opposing editors actually speak to or attempt to rebut my edit summary. Rather, they simply ignored the point I raised and kept re-inserting the same self-contradictory text. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's response is a fine illustration of what I'm talking about. There is no dispute that Short, Thorson and Sandusky were present at the incident for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. There is no dispute about the accuracy of the quotations attributed to them (i.e., they really did say these things). As Rex explains above, he wanted to censor out these eyewitness accounts because he personally didn't find them credible.
Rex says that "it is not unreasonable to expect that a) the witness accounts should not contradict each other and b) the witness accounts should not conflict with the narrative which they are supposed to be bolstering." As a matter of fact, his point "(a)" is unreasonable. The eyewitnesses say what they say. In the messy real world, they sometimes contradict each other. The NPOV approach is to report their statements. A reader who considers them contradictory can decide how to weigh them. (I personally don't see a contradiction here. My edit, however, quoted their actual statements. Rex argues, "Any reading of the personal accounts I deleted, makes clear that on their face, they do contradict each other." I disagree, but if Rex is right, then the reader can see the contradiction. This is how NPOV works: We provide the factual information.) This also explains the error in Rex's point "(b)". Here again, I don't see any conflict, but that's immaterial. The eyewitness accounts are not offered because they're "supposed to be bolstering" a particular POV. They're offered because these are the guys who were on the scene and their recollections of what they saw are worth reporting. If there's some respect in which they don't bolster Kerry's account, fine, let the chips fall where they may. JamesMLane 04:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JML's point about the variances in eyewitness testimony is correct - multiple people seeing the same thing, can differ in in their accounts. However, for us as editors to use conflicting acounts to bolster a particular point, is flawed editing. Also, either the man was running away or he was not. Only one of these two witness can be in agreement with what actually happened and hence in agreement with Kerry - and that's if we accept that Kerry's version of these events is true (which I do not). Even so, all of this which JML now brings up, could easily have been brought up back then, but was not. Instead, my concerns were ignored by the group and my edits swept aside with reverts. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that the committee cares about what happened 35 years ago, you can read the details of the crewmembers' accounts here. I could draw on that article to try to explain to Rex why these accounts weren't "conflicting", but what's the point. He hasn't justified his position that a conflict among the statements, even if one existed, would be a basis for deleting all of them, as opposed to reporting all of them and letting the reader decide.
In response to Rex's complaint that none of this was explained to him at the time: If I had reverted one of his multiple edits that deleted this relevant factual information, then, yes, I probably would have at least mentioned that alleged conflicts among eyewitness accounts are no basis for suppressing them (although one would think that tenet to be fairly obvious). In fact, however, I was never the one to restore the deleted information. I inserted the crewmembers' statements at 16:42, 12 Aug 2004, and then didn't edit the article again for 31 hours. (I did make edits to the Talk:John Kerry page to answer other points Rex had raised. In this edit I answered a comment of his that related to the arbitration proceeding. Then, in this edit, I dealt with the following "issues": I refuted Rex's false charge that I had deleted criticism of Kerry; I explained my reordering of the Elliott paragraph; I answered Rex's false characterization of the history and purpose of the "Criticism" subsection; and I tried to explain to Rex why his insistence that his version was the "baseline" was misguided. On the crewmembers' statements, all I did was to point out that they (unlike Elliott) were eyewitnesses. I didn't try to explain to Rex why alleged contradictions are no basis for excluding facts. I had enough other Rex misconceptions to deal with. I did what I could and concluded, "At this particular moment, a RL commitment requires me to sign off and prevents me from answering everything else that might need answering.")
As for the editors who actually did revert Rex's biased deletions, I can't get too upset with their failure to walk him through the basics. Note the incident that I recounted above at section 2.2 (the second point thereunder). Our experience has been that multiple explanations of something that should be fairly simple are usually wasted on Rex, as he simply continues to do his reverts over and over. I can understand why the editors who kept restoring relevant factual information didn't see any point in trying to explain to Rex that his personal estimation of the witnesses' credibility wasn't a basis for suppressing their statements. JamesMLane 07:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Next, if you look below, you will see two versions of a section from the John Kerry page. The 1st one shows the section on the day of my last edit there, one month ago. The 2nd shows the same section one month later, after my voice had been silenced and the entrenced pro-Kerry editors there had free reign with no serious opposition. Please pay particular attention to the bold sentence (the bold is my edit here, for clarity. This sentence in the 8.14 version was not bold) in the 08.14 version which is missing from the 09.13 version. I point to the expunging of certain inconvenient facts as this, as one of the reasons I contend there is entrenced pro-Kerry bias among the entrenched editors there. Also, please take note, it was JamesMLane himself, who deleted that sentence (on 12:32, 2 Sep 2004) with this edit here with an edit summary explanation of this "rm implication that Kerry was negotiating for U.S. with Ortega" (the other missing item, the link to the photo was removed later by Wolfman here.) Suffice it to say, Senators are not authorized to enaged in high level negotiations with foreign leaders as that is the purview of the president. The deletion of this fact by JML (that Kerry was involved as described) is, I feel a perfect example of how he is so inclined towards sanitizing things to Kerry's benefit, that he simply is unable (or unwilling) to admit it. I on the other hand, have never hid my bias (take a look at my user page). Even so, this fact about Kerry's activities on that trip is true and does look bad for Kerry. What's JML's solution? Delete the fact. Did he try to re-write or soften the implication he is concerned about? No. What he simply did was completely delete a true fact. Is this pro-Kerry bias? I think so. JML apparently does not. Neither it seems, do any of the editors who are active there. Perhaps this is proof positive that I was outnumbered there. FYI: The two items deleted by Wolfman (the link) and JamesMLane (the sentence) were originally inserted by me in that form on 01:56, 9 Aug 2004 and 01:52, 9 Aug 2004

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Meeting with Ortega[edit]

(03:11, 14 Aug 2004 - just before Rex071404 was barred from editing John Kerry)

On April 18, 1985, a few months after taking his Senate seat, Kerry got his first taste of the Washington spotlight as a politician as he and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua and met the country's president, Daniel Ortega [114]. Though Ortega was democratically elected, the trip was criticized because Ortega and his leftist Sandinista government had strong ties to Cuba and the USSR. The Sandinista government was opposed by the right-wing CIA-backed rebels known as the Contras. While in Nicaragua, Kerry and Harkin talked to people on both sides of the conflict. Through the senators, Ortega offered a cease-fire agreement in exchange for the US dropping support of the Contras. This offer was part of the reason that Senator Kerry's trip was controversial, in that Senators, as a matter of traditional practice, do not directly negotiate for the United States in the area of foreign relations. The offer was denounced by the Reagan administration as a "propaganda initiative" designed to influence a House vote on a $14 million Contra aid package, but Kerry said "I am willing...to take the risk in the effort to put to test the good faith of the Sandinistas." The House voted down the Contra aid, but Ortega flew to Moscow to accept a $200 million loan the next day, an act which in part prompted the House to pass a larger $27 million aid package six weeks later.

Meeting with Ortega[edit]

(02:36, 13 Sep 2004 - after the remaining editors had John Kerry to themselves for a month)

On April 18, 1985, a few months after taking his Senate seat, Kerry got his first taste of the Washington, DC spotlight as a politician as he and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua and met the country's president, Daniel Ortega. Though Ortega was democratically elected, the trip was criticized because Ortega and his leftist Sandinista government had strong ties to Cuba and the USSR. The Sandinista government was opposed by the right-wing CIA-backed rebels known as the Contras. While in Nicaragua, Kerry and Harkin talked to people on both sides of the conflict. Through the senators, Ortega offered a cease-fire agreement in exchange for the US dropping support of the Contras. The offer was denounced by the Reagan administration as a "propaganda initiative" designed to influence a House vote on a $14 million Contra aid package, but Kerry said "I am willing...to take the risk in the effort to put to test the good faith of the Sandinistas." The House voted down the Contra aid, but Ortega flew to Moscow to accept a $200 million loan the next day, an act which in part prompted the House to pass a larger $27 million aid package six weeks later.

My difference with Rex isn't about whether Senators are authorized to negotiate on behalf of the United States. That's a straw man. Rather, our difference is about whether Kerry engaged in such behavior. As far as I can tell, there's not the slightest bit of evidence that he did so. Ortega made a proposal, which Kerry relayed to the President. I haven't seen any source that claims Kerry said something along the lines of "Well, we could go for that if you'd also include thus-and-such", or anything else that could be construed as negotiating for the United States. If there's any information to that effect, I'd be glad to hear it.
The actual basis for the contemporaneous criticism of the trip was the one that's reported in the article: the Sandinista regime's ties to Cuba.
With regard to Ortega's offer, the key criticism of Kerry wasn't that he led Ortega to think he had the power to accept the offer, or did anything else that could be called negotiating. The real criticism was that he and others in Congress (a majority) decided to take a chance on Ortega's good faith by voting against aid to the contras, and were then proven to be naive (or at least wrong) when Ortega accepted a loan from the USSR. Kerry's vote and Ortega's subsequent action are actual facts, so of course I didn't remove them from the article. (I personally consider this criticism absurd, because for a third-world country to accept a Soviet loan is not per se improper; certainly the U.S. wasn't going to do much to help Nicaragua develop economically. Obviously, however, my view that Ortega's conduct wasn't such a big deal is just my opinion, and is no basis for deleting the accurate report of what he did. I left the information in, respecting the societally significant point of view that it was important.)
With regard to the charge of slighting a point of view of societal significance -- which is what this whole lengthy discussion is supposed to be about -- I would have no problem with including a properly attributed statement. If someone notable had made this charge against Kerry, then the article could say, "Secretary of State George P. Shultz denounced the Senators for what he called 'directly negotiating for the United States'." In what I read about the trip, I didn't happen to see anything like that, but that doesn't prove there was no such comment. Obviously, however, the sentence I removed didn't report a societally significant POV; it simply asserted, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Kerry had engaged in such negotiations.
That the Sandinistas were friendly with Cuba, that Kerry voted against contra aid, that Ortega accepted a Soviet loan, and that three Kerry crewmembers made the statements they did about the Silver Star incident are all facts. They're all legitimate candidates for inclusion in a Wikipedia article (depending on what level of detail is appropriate). That Kerry was negotiating for the U.S. is not such a fact, however -- it's an unsupported insinuation. Its removal was perfectly proper. JamesMLane 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The fact inherent in the sentence which JML so eloquently argued against above, is not that Kerry "was negotiating". Rather the fact (an irrefutable one at that) is two part a) Kerry's trip was controversial and b) This offer was part of the reason. There is no arguing against those two truths. The historical record fully supports them both. JML's edit summary objection to the article possibly conveying an implication that Kerry was negotiating for U.S. with Ortega could, instead of deleting the sentence, just as easily have been dealt with by re-writing it this way: "This offer was part of the reason that Senator Kerry's trip was controversial, in that Senators, as a matter of traditional practice, do not directly negotiate for the United States in the area of foreign relations - which is what some critcs have said Kerry's dealings with Ortega had the appearance of" or something along those lines. The point is that Kerry did meet with Ortega, he was involved in the conveyance of a diplimatic offer and his trip was controversial. Frankly, from where I sit, it's the fact that Kerry has a past which includes controversial meetings with left leaning Ortega which must be kept out of the article by JML. If not then, the controversial meeting with North Vietnamese and the controversial 1971 testimony, his attendence at a controversial meeting where the assasinations of US politicians was discussed, along with this controversial meeting with Ortega, might tend to give a reader the impression that Kerry at times shown a pattern of involving himself in controversial dynamics that could tend to display a left-leaning moral compass. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And just in case JML would contend that Kerry's trip to Nicaragua was not controversial, here are some people who are still concerned with it - 20 years later ([[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)):

On Vietnam, Nicaragua and Iraq, there is a common thread of Kerry's which the pro-Kerry crowd must keep hidden: When Kerry spoke at the Senate in 1971, he claimed that the Vietnamese did not differentiate or care between USA capitalism and Communism - they just wanted to be left alone by USA. Likewise, when he went to Nicaragua, it was to add his imprature to the status quo there under Ortega. In fact Kerry explicitly linked USA policy betwen the two "If you look back at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution," Kerry told the Washington Post on April 23, 1985, "if you look back at the troops that were in Cambodia, this history of the body count and the misinterpretation of the history of Vietnam itself, and look at how we are interpreting the struggle in Central America and examine the CIA involvement, the mining of the harbors, the effort to fund the contras, there is a direct and unavoidable parallel between these two periods of our history." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37156]. One would not be foolish if they concluded that Kerry wanted to keep USA power out of Nicaragua - the same way he wanted USA power out of Vietnam. Now, why would this matter to anyone today? Well, if Kerry's long-term pattern is to constrain USA global influence, he can't very well be counted on to lead an intentional injection of it into Iraq now, can he? And in light of the pending election, it's perfectly rational why JamesMLane wants to minimize the pattern of anti-USA controversies in Kerry's past - because oh no! - someone might find our Wiki via Google and learn more about Kerry than JML wants them too! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PS: On this page here [115] JML says "I've had to devote way too much time..." as he explains why I am a problem. Frankly, this sentence is the key to why he wants to boot me off this Wiki. JML simply does not want to invest the required time to actually reach consensus with me when we differ (as we often do). That, combined with the fact that he, as am I, is quite long-winded, puts him in the position of perhaps doubling or tripling his work load - if he honestly dialogs with me. That's because - unlike some others - I don't simply acquiesce to his explanations. Rather, as you can see, I also have a point of view that I think ought to be considered. This does indeed frustrate JML as we often take an interest in the exact same articles. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again Rex turns to insults and strawmen to make his case. The key issue is not, as Rex absurdly claims it is, whether or not the Kerry/Harkin/Ortega meeting was controversial. It clearly was, and it is discussed as such in the article. The issue in regards to Rex’s precious edit was whether Kerry acted as a diplomat or a messenger. I wrote that paragraph and like JML, I came across nothing in my research to indicate that Kerry acted in any diplomatic capacity beyond conveying the offer to the US government. JML and I may very well be wrong, and if Rex could just simply quote from one of the 247 articles he posted links to here proving that point, then this would simply be over and done with. But he has not done that, instead he has constructed an elaborate conspiracy in which Kerry has spent 30 years attempting to sabotage US foreign policy and posits that JML and I and other wikipedia editors want to cover that up.

This is what we had to deal with for a daily basis for over a month editing the John Kerry article. It is absurd on the face of it and an insult to the many hours we have spent researching and writing and editing. The paragraph (without Rex’s precious sentence) I wrote is, I believe, accurate and NPOV. JML and I have very different opinions about the incident described. Personally, I think Ortega made Kerry look like a chump, and if I was trying to make Kerry look good, I wouldn’t have spent so much time working on a paragraph about an incident that made him look bad, I would have simply left in the original, sketchy 2 sentence version.

I have no idea why Rex’s precious edit makes Kerry look so much worse and I have no idea why taking that out “minimizes” anything. Instead of simply producing a reference which substantiates his claim that Kerry acted in the capacity of a diplomat, he insults and nonsensically changes the subject to whether or not it was controversial. This incident, I think, proves not what Rex wants it to prove, that there supposedly is an anti-Kerry cabal allied against him. It proves what we have been saying all along: Rex is clearly paranoid, he has repeatedly insulted us and our motives, and he is impossible to work with in a collaborative manner. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 08:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are the committee members getting tired of wading through all this stuff? Well, as Gamaliel said, this is what it's like, day in and day out, to try to improve any article that Rex feels strongly about.
As to his comments on the article's discussion of the Nicaragua trip:
Kerry's trip was controversial - Indeed it was, which is why I left undisturbed the assertion that "the trip was criticized", which is pretty much the same thing.
The offer was part of the reason - Actually, I think Kerry was being criticized before he even departed; but, anyway, I left in the factual statement, "The offer was denounced by the Reagan administration ...."
The passage should have been rewritten to assert that "some critcs have said" the point about alleged negotiating - I thought my prior response made clear that I wouldn't object to a statement along these lines, provided that "some critics" other than Rex or other diehard Kerry foes had made the charge, so that it could be attributed to someone whose opinions are worth reporting. Rex provided no such evidence when he first inserted this attack on Kerry. He still hasn't provided it.
(I wrote the foregoing and then got the edit conflict message because of the most recent edits. I confess I haven't gone through each of Rex's 15 new links to see if one of them satisfies the criterion of presenting a societally significant POV. If someone like Shultz said that Kerry was negotiating on behalf of the United States, Rex is free to call attention to that specific link. As for Rex's 7:44 edit: I have found "dialog" with Rex to be almost totally fruitless. So have several other people. Above you see just the latest example. I took the time to explain the specific edit of mine that he criticized. Obviously I'm biased, but I think his response -- including the "some critics have said" suggested rewrite and the list of links to anti-Kerry articles -- pretty much misses the point of everything I wrote.) JamesMLane 08:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In regards to JML saying my dialog "pretty much misses the point" - that's exactly right. I dislike Kerry and think he's a snobbish left-leaning chump, but JML apparrently does not think that. For this reason - exactly as JML himself argued above - we two "witnesses" are looking at the same thing (Kerry) and coming to opposite conclusions. However, in all of JML's (and Gamaliel's) comments, they did not make a strong case that the sentence which was deleted would have had a deleterious effect on the article - if left in as I wanted it (or perhaps modified as per my above suggestion). Suffice it to say, my line of thinking is this: If I'd like to put a sentence in and the case against it is not strong, then I see no reason why the other editors - as you see them do here - should be allowed to gang up and block me. That is however, what does occur. Frankly, I don't think my writing is so bad that this limited coitiere of editors should have veto power over my edits. Especially since as Gamaliel says above I have no idea why Rex’s precious edit makes Kerry look so much worse and I have no idea why taking that out “minimizes” anything.. If this indeed is the case - that Gmaliel does not view my sentence as making Kerry look "worse", then clearly he (at least) is not claiming my edit should be excluded because it's POV. No, what he and JML in effect claim is that my sentence so skews the truth about Kerry's trip, that it must be excluded as being false. Personally, I don't think that and even though as you see, I parsed my sentence for them - they brush my views aside. So what happens to Wiki editors who are - as I appear to be - "out of step"? Do we eventually get drummed out with a "hard ban" as JML is intending? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 08:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

begin opinion:
snobbish = top 1% is the base?
left-leaning = what exactly about that is bad?
chump = how is this term politically relevent?
end opinion

Also, you are not judge and jury on an opposing case being strong, as the representative of an opposite point of view. If you feel like your arguments aren't being taken seriously, make clearer and more concise arguments so that it is impossible to deny the conclusion given all the premises. --kizzle 01:03, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence&oldid=929814874"