Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence

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

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

Personal attacks

Overview

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

Personal attacks

Attacks on Neutrality

"[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.

"Neutrality again tries to pick an arguement with me."
"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."
"Right at the beginning of the 1st edit war (which he started)..."
"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..."
"In my view, I think that N. was trying to get the last post in again last night - just like he did previously."
"For this reason, I am wondering if he is showing the requisite emotional and intellectual detachment which is needed to hold Wiki leadership positions."
"Please study Neutrality's edits on John Kerry, those edits ARE NOT "neutral" Is he a Kerry campaign troll? - 06:38, 25 Jul 2004
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why do you let Neutrality run wild? ? [1]
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)
"How can I complain about this pattern of slapping me down that Neutrality is engaged against me?" (from requests for mediation, undated)
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)
"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]
"So you were OBVIOUSLY LYING..." [3]
"Just as I predicted, you snuck the last revision onto John Kerry just preior to having you buddy "protect" the page." [4]
You disgust me! [5]
"You should definately change your user name because you are NOT neutral!" [6]
"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]
"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

"Such tweaks are indicative of either a pro-Kerry bias or a needless attempt to stir up hostilities...." - 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attacks on JamesMLane

"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)
"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)
"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

"It's NOT an "irrelevancy" and you are PROVING your BIAS by saying that!” -17:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"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)
"Also, it is indeed you who, without valid cause (and possible pro-Kerry bias), keeps butchering this” 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
“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)
"Please re-do your math.” - 18:20, 31 Jul 2004
"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)
"Such tweaks are indicative of either a pro-Kerry bias or a needless attempt to stir up hostilities...." 07:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Now comes user Gamaliel showing overt anti-Christian bigotry” - 03:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attacks on Lyellin

"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)
"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
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

"Frankly, that smacks of bigotry to me. You aren't a bigot, are you?” - 06:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"There is no contradiction except in your own limited mind." 05:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"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
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)
"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

Please FULLY read all comments before continuing to feign confusion. Thank you! 15:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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

A quote from where? Your pro-Kerry archive? 19:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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

"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)
"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.

Edit summary attacks

"rv Neutrality has again made a wholesale revert without comment - blatent bias!" [8]
"rv -This page has been re-open for less than an hour and already Neutrality is reverting me again without comment" [9]
"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]
"rv Wolfman again reverted my proven and agreed as correct facts - and he made another snide comment to boot!" [11]
"rv - Wolfman made another unwarranted revert - restore to JML version" [12]
"rv - Neutrality just reverted me again with no comment - BIAS!" [13]
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]
"rv Wolfman - stop playing games!" [15]
"re-revert Neutrality's pro-kerry biased versions - he has started another edit war" [16]
"Nuetrality just reverted me again without discussion - this is an un-revert" [17]
"User Neutrality has again immediately reverted my edit - I accuse him of intentionally provoking edit wars and of pro-Kerry POV bias" [18]
"Gamaliel: You just posted an intentioanlly obfuscating edit summary" [19]
"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

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)

Unhelpful/abusive comments on talk page

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

"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)
"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)
"I could have been MUCH harsher than I have been!" - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
"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
"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
"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
"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
"You remove one of the most well documented examples of Kerry two-face-ism that is extant."
"Kerry is, was and always has been a phoney!" - 08:29, 25 Jul 2004
"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
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)

Abusive comments

"The obvious goal that some here have of keeping this page sanitized in a pro-Kerry manner..." - 06:58, 3 Aug 2004
"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
"Frankly, I feel that the three of you are being very petty." 06:28, 3 Aug 2004
"...prior to the tag-team changes being made by Neutrality and Wolfman" - 04:34, 3 Aug 2004
"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
"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
"...why the pro-Kerry POV'rs here are so oppossed the the few links which are very important..." - 20:26, 1 Aug 2004
"The pro-Kerry bias of the John Kerry editors shocks me!" (date unsigned)
"You guys are ganging up on me and are misinformed about Kerry!" - 08:10, 25 Jul 2004
"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
"Here are the facts you people keep obfuscating" - 00:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"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)
"The fact that you can't see the pernicous effect of the liberal media bias, helps explain yours..." 09:10, 29 Jul 2004
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)
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))
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The painful truth about the pro-Kerry shills here is that they are censors, plain and simple! 04:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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

[25]

Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry

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.

Request for immediate temporary injunction

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. V V 05:47, 14 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)

Rex lists his facts

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" 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". [26] 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

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

Gamaliel 21:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) [27]

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

Neutrality 05:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) [28]

"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) [29]

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

Gamaliel 04:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [30]

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

Gamaliel 06:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [31]

"And you aggravatingly argue by nonsequitor."

older≠wiser 23:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [32]

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

JamesMLane 06:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [33]

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

Lyellin 09:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) [34]

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

JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [35]

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

JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [36]

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

Lyellin 08:52, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) [37]

"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) [38]

"...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) [39]

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

67.180.24.204 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [40]

"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) [41]

"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) [42]

"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)" [43]

" 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) [44]

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

Gamaliel 07:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [45]

"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) [46]

"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)" [47]

"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)" [48]

"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)" [49]

"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)" [50]

"Keep talking like that, Rex, and you'll make an arbitration request quite easy.--Neutrality 05:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [51]

"I'm not even going to dignify you comments with a response.--Neutrality 14:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [52]

"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)" [53]

"I will second the "tiresome" opinion. I'd even go so far as to say tedious. older≠wiser 21:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [54]

"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)" [55]

"...you are engaging in sophistic contortions in an attempt to prove your point."

older≠wiser 17:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [56]

"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)" [57]

"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)" [58]

"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) [59]

"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)" [60]

"I am not going to bother to repsond to your irrelevant leading questions above"

older≠wiser 19:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [61]

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

Moriori 01:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) [62]

"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)" [63]

"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) [64]

"I have never attacked your edits. You have only attacked mine. Neutrality 00:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [65]

"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)" [66]

"Oh, bullshit. It's true" (unsigned, but log shows it to be Neutrality) [67]

Never edit my comments again. And don't lecture me about being "civil." Neutrality 02:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) [68]

"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)" [69]

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

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. Guan aco 01:01, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

My basic contention (as of 16:27, 14 Aug 2004)

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 premume 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

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" [70] page,

- 03:29, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M December 1 (Holidays and observances - + Human Rights Day) (top)
- 03:22, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) September 11, 2001 attacks (top)
- 03:13, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M John Kerry (Minor grammatical edit.) (top)
- 03:12, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) September 11, 2001 attacks (Better intro.)
- 03:07, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Constitutional bases)
- 03:07, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Gzornenplatz (Suggestion)
- 03:05, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Constitutional bases)
- 03:04, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Constitutional bases)
- 03:03, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M John Kerry (Minor grammatical edit.)
- 03:02, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Better introduction.)
- 03:01, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Talk:John Kerry (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - 08.13.04 v.2 - (please comment))
- 02:59, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 (Better introduction.)
- 02:55, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people (Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation)
- 02:53, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M User talk:Jwrosenzweig (Congratulations)
- 02:52, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Jwrosenzweig (Arbitration)
- 02:49, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Raul654 (Other Congratulations)
- 02:45, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) M John Kerry (Minor grammatical edit.)
- 02:41, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User:Neutrality
- 02:30, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atlantium
- 02:25, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User talk:Everyking (Barnstar) (top)
- 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, not a single one consisted of anything being typed onto the John Kerry talk page. This, I feel, is clear evidence that Neutrality has not been regularly abiding by the spirit of discussing changes prior to reverting someone aggresively.

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.B_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 persnoal talk page message or a 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: [71]

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 Neutraliy 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)

Corrections to above in progress, please wait Rex071404 17:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My basic contention (as of 16:27, 14 Aug 2004)

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 premume 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