Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex0714042

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Rex0741404 has altered talk page comments and summaries in deliberately misleading ways.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Rex0741404 has changed what real users say on talk page, turning them into his sockpuppets. Rex has deliberately falsified running tallies on VfD subpages.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

On User talk:Rex071404:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. page history [8].

On this page (evidence posted 21:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)):

  1. [9]
  2. page history [10]

On Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Pro-Life_Supporters_&_List_of_Pro-Choice_Supporters (posted 21:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)):

  1. [11]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Don't misrepresent other people

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. page history [16]
  6. current page User_talk:Rex071404

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. —No-One Jones m 21:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC), who notes that Rex seems to have stopped now or not.
  3. Lyellin 00:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. older≠wiser 21:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Unacceptably uncivil behavior. The comments other users made were in no way provocative and Rex's edits to make them appear to say something else are appalling. I would have no problem with him simply removing the comments of persons he did not want to engage with, but this sort of vandalism is bad news.
  2. JamesMLane 21:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) In the course of this dispute, I prepared a summary (with edit links) of the first phases of Rex's misconduct. By this edit he posted my summary to his talk page, without attribution but with the new heading "Fair warning to talk page spamers". Rex evidently considered his "warning" to have been a success: [17]. He is quite unrepentant and will continue to act this way. I note in passing that this RfC covers only the tip of the iceberg of this user's disruptive conduct.
  3. Ambi 01:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) I concur with Bkonrad.
  4. Nothing short of appalling. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. As Bkonrad says, removing signed comments from your own talk page is one thing, but rewriting them to say things like "I enjoy eating feces" is quite another. In my book, this is both forgery and a form of personal attack. The VfD edit is equally dishonest, and innocent explanations are not credible, as pointed out by JamesMLane at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2/Evidence. --Michael Snow 16:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response (and further explanation by Rex)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Copied from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Neutrality_.28et._al.29_vs._User:Rex071404

I, Rex071404, fully apologize for the intentional insult(s) I made against others on my personal talk page recently. It was wrong. I should not have done it. It will not happen again.

Separately, I apologize to this Wiki, the Aribtrators and all others concerned for my grossly inexcusable edit which resulted in vote "tally" inaccuracies. Though I do stand by my defense of "harmless, inadvertant error" on that, even so, I acknowledge and accept that far greater care must be exercized by me prior to pressing the "save page" button. Therefore, I withdraw my "not guilty" plea on this and change my plea to "admit to sufficient facts" (Alford plea). I concede that my action therein has needlessly disrupted the operational continuity of this Wiki and I accept whatever punishment(s) the arbitrators see fit to mete out. Unless requested by the Arbitrators to do so, I will offer no further defense of my edit on the "6 vs 16" [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Further explanation by Rex as of 09.12.04

My explanation is simple: I did intend the "etc.", but not the "16". I was goofing with my edits - I did not realize that I had pressed "save page" with the "16" still in my text. Under no conditions would I think that changing that number could have been gotten away with. Had I noticed that my goofing resulted in the "16" actually getting posted, I would have deleted it myself. This is why I say it was a "an inadvertant error". It definately was inadvertant and it was an error. I am not saying that I wasn't goofing around, what I am saying is that I did not realize that the "16" had actually been saved. It really is that simple. And this is why I contend it was an error. Having said that, and listening to myself, I can see that goofing around was also wrong. I apologize. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 17:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies to the editors who were offended by the "nose-tweaks" which I posted on my personal talk page. That it was taken as being unfair by some is surprising to me, in that it was my understanding that my talk page was my concern, not that of others. This episode has cleared that up for me and I have adopted a new talk page policy as a result. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 21:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have reviewed the comments of Neutrality above and I do see that my edit to the "tally" of the VfD page was in error. The only explanation I can offer for that is that the "16" must have been a typo, when I cut and pasted in my answer. In my view, this was a harmless error and could have been easily corrected by anyone who bothered to read the page. That said, I apologize for sloppy editing.

The other complaints about me modifying comments on my own talk page has already been resolved and in any case would not have even occured if Neutrality had not started trouble today by spamming my talk page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 23:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

I'm not in any way involved in this dispute, but I think that Rex is entirely within his rights to edit his own user talk page and that this request for comments in entirely unneccessary as he is allowed to edit his own talk page.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. — i386 | Talk 17:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Rex0714042_43ca.html"