Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2/Evidence

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.

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

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. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

On User talk:Rex071404:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8]
  8. page history [9].

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

  1. [10]
  2. page history [11]

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

  1. [12]

Contents

[edit] User:Rex071404 3

I've titled this request with a "3" to distinguish it from the two pending arbitrations concerning this user.

Complaint: Rex has abused the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page by listing good-faith editing disputes. In related and unrelated instances, he has made personal attacks on other users by calling them "vandals" for nothing worse than disagreeing with him.

Evidence. There was a content dispute at the Stolen Honor article, in the course of which Rex reverted other editors twenty times in one day (by SWAdair's count -- see [13]). The article is about a video that criticizes John Kerry, and the dispute concerned whether to include certain information about the video's producer. Rex's edit summaries included multiple reiterations of such phrases as "remove once again the tag-team POV vandalism" (see, e.g., [14]); "restore page which is under attack by POV edit vandal" (see, e.g., [15]); and "restore page which is under attack by POV sockpuppet vandal" (see, e.g., [16]). In addition to these uncivil summaries, Rex added three listings to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, publicizing to the whole community his personal attacks on two of the editors who disagreed with him about the content of the article. See [17] (against Antaeus Feldspar); [18] (charging Sahara with being a "sockpuppet reincarnation of Antaeus Feldspar" and with vandalism); and [19] (listing Sahara again 24 minutes later). Rex's attack on Sahara came on the latter's first day as a logged-in contributor to Wikipedia. [20] Aside from the Stolen Honor dispute that prompted the improper ViP listings, Rex has made other accusations of vandalism in cases of editing disagreements; see, e.g., [21] ("rv - Feldspar appears to be a sockpuppet or vandal") and [22] ("restore again after JamesMLane's umpteenth POV vandalism").

Why mediation not attempted: Rex has previously engaged in such conduct and has been warned to desist. He listed an edit dispute as vandalism. [23]. His improper addition to ViP was soon deleted by an uninvolved admin, —No-One Jones, who commented, "editing disputes are not vandalism; please do not bring them here". [24] He also took the trouble to explain the point at greater length on Rex's talk page. [25] Of course, he shouldn't have needed to do so. Just a few weeks earlier, Rex himself, in complaining to the Arbitration Committee about Neutrality, had quoted a warning left for Neutrality by Guanaco, stating that disputed edits to the John Kerry article were not vandalism. [26] Mediation is not sought because Rex has already been advised of the policy, and has even referred to it himself when he finds it convenient. He simply refuses to follow it. Mediation can't tell him anything he doesn't already know, and the Mediation Committee and the parties to a mediation don't have the authority to change the existing policy.

Policies violated:

  • Substantive editing disagreements are not vandalism; this rule applies even if one editor contends that another has violated the NPOV policy. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not
  • Stating or implying that another user doesn't sincerely believe in the merits of a challenged edit violates the policy of assuming good faith.
  • The "Vandalism in progress" page is to be used "only ... for repeated malicious vandalism". Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
  • Accusing other users of being sockpuppets or vandals violates the no personal attacks policy.
  • Attacking Sahara on his or her first day violated the policy of "don't bite the newbies". (Incidentally, when Rex's attack prompted Sahara to reciprocate with personal attacks, several of us explained to Sahara why this was improper -- and Sahara apologized. One might think that Rex was a newcomer and that Sahara had been here more than two months, instead of the other way around.)

Proposed remedy: Some of the information above has been presented to the committee in the earlier of the pending arbitration proceedings, as background to the discussion of Rex's having threatened an anonymous newcomer with a ViP listing [27]. That proceeding concerns many other issues, however. This complaint asks that, for the specific offense of repeated improper listings on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Rex be banned for 24 hours. The points addressed in the two pending proceedings would not be covered by this one-time limited ban.

I am authorized to state that Antaeus Feldspar joins in this complaint. JamesMLane 06:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User JamesMLane states "I am authorized to state that Antaeus Feldspar joins in this complaint." I ask: How could there be such "authorization intimacy between those two unless the is and was collusion in the relentless edits between them at Stolen Honor? Also, please take notice that very shortly after Sahara quit injecting those malicious edits, Gamaliel (another of the early tag-team revert warriors on that article) came on line and between he and I, we arrived quickly at a compromise text. Which I might add, has not been complained about nor modified by "Feldspar", "Lane" or "Sahara". Also, please note that the edit which I kept reverting was vandalism (see it here [28]) in that for no valid reason it had ? marks in several places instead of ' as in "John Kerry?s".
Please also note that JamesMLane has stated to several other users in the recent past that he has it as a personal goal to drive me off the WIki with a hard ban. And, please take note that both Gamaliel and JamesMLane have an odd habit of arriving at pages which I've created and then making problems for me there.
As written by me originally, Stolen Honor was eminently fair andd NPOV. The only bona-fide issue that came up was that the Republican/Sherwood Nexus was complained about as not being made clear. However, it took many reverts by me to actually extract this concerns from Gamaliel and JamesMLane - who would not be clear on the talk page about what bothered them.
At no reasonable point during the dialog, did those two simply come out and say "we want to show the Republican connection". But, as soon as it became clear ebnought to see that's what JamesMLane wanted, I got on it immediately both in standing aside while JML made an edit and by defending his edit when others came in and egregiously modified it wihtout talk dialog.
The simple fact is that Gamaliel knows darn well that piling on oodles of anti-sherwood information is not appropriate at the Stolen Honor] page as there does exist a personal article page for Sherwood so his personal details - which accuse him personally (as in the "moonie" attack) belong there. Here in its entirity is my attempt at dialoging with the insitgators of the edit war (please not that they do not offer counter arguments to the poinst I raise (reposted here, vebatim) Please note that the bolded text is that resulted in the edit war and is made bold here for clarity:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex's copy from Stolen Honor talk page (Because Rex's wholesale copying of material rather than linking to the version of the talk page that supports his contention made effective editing of this page difficult, I have moved that material to a subpage of its own. I hope this will make the actual issues clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Suffice it to say, based on the utter failure by JamesMLane and Gamaliel to use dialog based on Consensus decision making to raise and discuss to a conclusion their concerns, makes it clear that they have no interest in doing anything but stoking controversy. Please see this edit here [29] where JamesMLane basically admits to sockpuppetry (perhaps via Feldspar or Sahara) and please see this verbatim dialog between myself and gamalile where I aske him to got to mediation with me:


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex's copy from second talk page (Because Rex's wholesale copying of material rather than linking to the version of the talk page that supports his contention made effective editing of this page difficult, I have moved that material to a subpage of its own. I hope this will make the actual issues clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC))

In my view, based on how Gamaliel and JamesMLane keep intentionally and agressively confronting me across a limited few articles (including those I've started and have been helping to develop), I feel that those two are POV edit war instigators in "sheeps clohting" and should be viewed as such. I ask the arbitrators to view the end result of my contributions to Lawrence v. Texas where other than the intentional hassles user Neutrality dropped into my lap, the edits and talk page dialog when smoothly and the end result was accepted by other enitors gladly. In fact, other than the disruption caused by Neutrality's failure to dialog there, that was a pretty good example of Consensus decision making and compromise. Also finally, please note none of these complainers who were hell bent to inject anti-Sherwood material inot Stolen Honor have since or during done much of anything to Carlton Sherwood. This I feel underscore my accusation that these trouble makers (Gamaliel and JamesMLane) has as a singular goal, not the creation of an encyclopedic referrence about Stolen Honor but rather, the injection into that article of "negatives" (as Gamaliel referred to it) so as to damage the credibility of a documentary which is quit damming to their champion John Kerry. The arb committee ought to remember that those two were prime movers of the complaints against me then and still now. And the only ongoing nexus is that I am pro-Bush and they are pro-Kerry. Lastly, other than perhaps there being too many external links which damn Kerry, I'd like to hear from the arbitrators as to whether or not Stolen Honor is merely a POV screed. If it's not, then I think I have done a good job of shepherding it to a decent state. I would have preferred though, to not have to have battled G and JML to get there. PS: I am utterly convinced that Sahara a "sockpuppet" and I think the timing of the 1st edit by that user name in the height of the edit battle helps show this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 16:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, please look at this [30] and this [31] to get a flavor of how JameMLane goes out of his way to make edits which look as bad as possible for Bush [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 16:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea why I am mentioned extensively above other than Rex's dislike for me or my membership in his imaginary anti-Rex conspiracy. Most of the quoted text above has nothing to do with the charges that he abused the Vandalism in Progress page. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, please see here where User:Gamaliel and User:Antaeus Feldspar between have ganged up to harras the latest page I created. this is typical of Gamaliel, he hassles me at just about every page I create or am involved in. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 23:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a regular participant on Votes for Deletion and I vote on many articles that do not involve Rex at all. I voted on at least a half dozen articles today alone. There is no collusion here, just paranoia. Again, I do not see why he is bring me up again here or what this has to do with the stated charge of Rex's abuse of Vandalism in Progress. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


As a party to this Request, I would like to hereby reiterate my support of the facts put forth by JamesMLane, and address the Response by Rex. My apologies if in any place I fail to follow the proper form through my inexperience with this process.

Rex did in fact take inappropriate steps to attempt to bar a good faith edit to the Stolen Honor article. [32] My edit was reverted, and Rex left false information on my talk page, telling me that the issue had "already been debated and resolved" [33]. He made no claim at this time that the edit was "overt vandalism", a charge he would later make. He did state that "If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you." [34] However, since he made no references to any policies he claimed I was in violation of, there was very little way to interpret it except as a warning not to contravene his personal wishes about what was to go in the article and what was not. Certainly, had he actually believed me to be in violation of any Wikipedia policy, his obligation would have been to assume good faith and notify me of which policy I was violating.

The claim of "vandalism" did not surface until his edit summary of 19:15, 27 Sep 2004, [35] when he described the edit he was reverting (for the fifth time in less than two hours) as "POV vnadalism [sic]", despite Wikipedia policy that even an actual NPOV violation is not vandalism. He did not profess on the talk page to believe that he was dealing with "overt vandalism" until he was notified that he was in overt violation of the three revert rule, at which point he professed to believe that my "repeated injection of inappropriate content" was "overt vandalism" (again, in defiance of actual Wikipedia policy) and professed to believe as well that he was not bound by the three-revert rule in cases of "overt vandalism". Another user asked Rex to cite his reference for that assertion; Rex has failed to do so.

Rex has made wild accusations against me accusing me of religious bigotry, claiming that I "hate moonies" (despite my never having edited any other article that even touches on the Unification Church), and accusing me of bad faith for changing Rex's chosen section title of "Sherwood's personal page", which assumed not just one, but two points in dispute (that the edits were "personal information", and that they belonged on "Sherwood's personal page".) Even when I changed the section title a second time, to a neutral description of the edits under discussion ("Sherwood information on Stolen Honor article") Rex changed it to the even more POV version "Personal attacks on Sherwood do not belong in Stolen Honor article". At no point did Rex voice any actual argument why "Sherwood infomation on Stolen Honor article" was unacceptable, but further attempts to keep the section title as one that accurately described the material under dispute in a way that endorsed neither POV were reverted along with an accusation in the edit summary naming me as an "edit vandal".

At this time, a new Wikipedian, Sahara, seeing the fray, stepped in and began to revert Rex's deletions of the disputed material, which he was still describing as "vandalism." Based on no evidence other than her edits, professing to find her ability to edit wiki syntax suspicious, and never having attempted to speak directly to her, he immediately began referring to her as "the sockpuppet vandal". Though he had no evidence whatsoever that Sahara was or is a sockpuppet, let alone of whom, that did not stop him from asserting as fact that she was a sockpuppet of myself on Vandalism in progress. Twice. He made the same personal attack on myself there, accusing me (falsely, as we have seen) of vandalism, sockpuppetry, and ignoring the talk page. It is my understanding that Rex knows quite well from previous experience that an edit dispute is neither vandalism nor to be listed on Vandalism in progress -- the original Request as filed by JamesMLane makes the citations.

Rex continues to make insinuations that I am a sockpuppet, whether by simply putting my name in quotes ([36], [37]) or by professing to find it odd that JamesMLane described himself as "authorized to state that Antaeus Feldspar joins in this complaint." It would be a breach of the assume good faith policy to leap from that authorization to the conclusion that I am a sockpuppet. It is far more than that, however; it is deliberate deception on Rex's part -- since he visited my talk page both before and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=6215651&oldid=6215319

after] JML submitted this arbitration request and knew that I had authorized JML to submit this arbitration request on my behalf as well as his own.

Despite Rex's occasional pretenses to value consensus, my suggestion of a means by which we might achieve actual consensus was immediately shot down by Rex in a dismissive manner, claiming that I was "beating a dead horse". When remonstrated for his incivility, Rex's reply only spelled out his previous "beating a dead horse" comment, by linking to a non-encyclopedic article he had created seven minutes previously, which spelled out that by using that idiom, he was stating that "a particular request or line of conversation [was] already foreclosed, mooted or otherwise resolved". So in one edit, he purports to JamesMLane that he believes "It is equally important that your concerns be heard and accomodated by the group as anyone else's"; in his very next edit to that same article he derides any further conversation about the article content as "foreclosed, mooted or otherwise resolved."

Since he had brought the Beating a dead horse article to the attention of everyone following the article, I followed the link to the article, and found it nothing more than an explanation of the idiom. Rather than trust my own judgement in the matter, I checked Wikipedia's deletion policy and found that it, did, indeed, fit the description of articles that did not belong on Wikipedia. Following proper Wikipedia procedure, I listed the article on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Rex may describe this as "a vindictive listing by a disgruntled editor who has been in a revert war with me and is stalking my edits" but the fact is that the edit is completely in line with Wikipedia policy. This is an insult to my character, describing my actions as "vindictive" and "stalking his edits" instead of assuming good faith.

Whether Rex actually believed his characterization or not, it was a characterization he proceeded to live up (or rather, down) to. He began a series of what I can only characterize as harassment edits, to articles in which he had never shown any interest before, reverting my edits and calling them "nonsensical", describing my comments as "confused", inserting "facts" of dubious veracity and dubious relevance on others. It would strain imagination to believe that he was not himself "stalking my edits" as he had accused me of. But he went even further than this; there is no benign explanation for his edits to my talk page ([38] ,[39]) merely to inform me of what my watchlist would already have notified me, had I been interested enough to watch that article for changes.

Rex's "Response" to this Request for Arbitration consists not of adequate explanation for his outrageous behavior but merely more of the same behavior: falsely asserting that consensus was (at some point) reached and therefore anyone who doesn't agree with that consensus (!!) is in the wrong; repeating his personal attacks on myself and Sahara and JamesMLane with accusations of "collusion" and of sockpuppetry, of which he misdescribes this passage as an admission; attributing ulterior motives to edits and to editors he disagrees with; in short, Rex's "defense" serves to verify his offenses.

Rex has raised many accusations. In my opinion, none of them, save one, is even faintly credible; to show that I am acting in good faith, I will explain the evidence that Rex has purported to believe is proof of my "vandalism" (despite the fact that he was publicly making that accusation before the phenomenon that he now cites as "proof" began.) The evidence is this: after certain of my edits, characters that had previously appeared on the edited page as "'" would subsequently appear as "?" -- hence, "Kerry's" would become "Kerry?s". As I speculated previously, and subsequently confirmed, there are certain characters that appear in my browser as if they were apostrophes, but they are not, nor are they saved as apostrophes when the page is edited and saved. I have in fact investigated with a hex editor; an actual apostrophe is ASCII 27, and the "apostrophes" that appear as question marks after saving are ASCII 3F -- apparently "smart quotes" inserted by editors that some people use.

Rex's charges are again shown to be baseless; while there is a technical problem (caused by two computers; the one which puts a 'smart quote' where a real quote mark should go, and mine, which renders it as it was intended but saves it as it actually is) it is just that: a technical problem. Rex's accusation that this constitutes "vandalism" is just like all his other accusations: preposterous. That being said, if any Arbitrator actually does find any charge of Rex's against me credible enough to wish me to answer, I stand ready to answer. (Just to underline the absurdity of Rex's pretense that he abided by Wikipedia policy, trying to accomodate all good-faith edits, while I plotted to vandalize the article with formatting errors -- here is an error that Rex himself made, which I fixed -- which Rex himself then reintroduced into the article by repeatedly reverting my edits regardless of their actual content.)

As for proposed remedies: I freely admit that I do not have experience in this area, and so I do not know what is typical for such egregious behavior (if indeed anything can be 'typical' for such egregious behavior.) I do know, however, that it has to be something that does not require cooperation on Rex's part; he has shown time and again that, whether his disregard for all community standards stems from willfulness or actual incapacity, it is total: he may make occasional pretenses to abide by the rules, and even cite them when he perceives it to his advantage, but he can never be trusted to obey them. I would state that nothing less than a ban can be appropriate for Rex's misdeeds, and I will hereby state that, for whatever my judgement is worth, there is no upper limit to the length of that ban where I would believe it "too long".

-- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What A. Feldspar neglects to mention is that of the (5) active editors who were working on Stolen Honor prior to his arrival (3) of them had more or less agreed to keep the majority of Mr. Sherwood's personal information on the article page which deals with Mr. Sherwood personally, that being Carlton Sherwood. That can be confirmed by reading this Talk:Stolen_Honor/Archive which is the full page of talk that had been archived just prior to Feldspar's arrival on the scene. Suffice it to say, if you read that archive, you will see that there had already been much dialog on the same issues that Feldspar and Sahara jumped in with both feet over. Suffice it to say, at the article Texans for Truth my nemesis JamesMLane had gone to great lengths to insist that only precisely on-topic text and links were going to be allowed, in other words, things which he asserted were tangential to TfT had to go on the George Bush service controversy page. Now comes this article which I started and both he and Gamaliel insist on stuffing it with information that is critical of Sherwood's activities or past that are not related to the documentary itself. This entire dispute boils down to JamesMLane, Gamaliel, A. Feldspar and Sahara in series demanding that material which readily fits in at Carlton Sherwood be inserted both there and at Stolen Honor. Suffice it to say, since I had already endured so much hassle over so little simply to clear the deck with the few cooperative editors at Stolen Honor, it made no sense to me to just sit back and let a series of editors who, offering no rationale justification for the actions were demanding the insertion of "attack material" regarding Sherwood. That and the odd "?" issue (for which I do now accept Feldspar's belated though cogent explanation) combined with the fact that all (4) of the editors who revert battled me in series were all reinserting the exact same text - without dialog on talk page let me to stand my ground and fight back. At this point, I still suspect Feldspar as being either a spare identity of one of my long term editorial opponents, or at minimum, a very skilled user (look at that edit above!) who could easily have agreed to take some time and talk, rather than join in on a "let's overpower Rex" pig pile. As for Sahara, I remain extremely suspicious of "sockpuppet" status there. Even so, I call the attention of the editors to the current (as of this edit) status of Stolen Honor. Frankly, I do not see how anyone looking for NPOV can reasonably object to it's composition. This argument simply boils down to several like-minded editors singularly focusing on pummeling me into submission and/or building a portfolio of complaints so as to ban me from the Wiki. Personally, I'd like to know, has Feldspar created even (1) article worth reading? I've recently started Fulbright Hearing, White cracker, Gil Clancy, Jay Alan Sekulow, Useful idiot, Axis of Eve, Stolen Honor, Lake of fire, Beating a dead horse and others. Frankly, I simply do not understand why it is JamesMLane and Gamaliel have been so persistent in chasing me from article to article. And as for A. Feldspar I did snoop at a few of his edits today. However, nothing I did there was baseless . Rather, a few minor tweaks were done on some pages from his contributors list both for the sake of the edits themselves and to see what his reaction would be. Also, I added some nice material to the Dedham Mass page and have initiated a discusion at ME 262 Talk page - both of which Feldspar got snotty with me about on his talk page. Personally, I think his call for a long Wiki "ban" backs up my suspicions that he is somehow aligned with JamesMLane, et al, beyond this Stolen Honor issue. Lastly, I will note that JamesMLane has the most annoying habit of simply quitting a thread of dialog when it's pointed out to him that he's wrong. If you count all the edits that he and I have clashed over, across every single page we have dialoged over, unlike user Wolfman and even now Kizzle, JML has never, not once (to my recollection) ever conceded that I have been right about even one single point - not one. Suffice it to say, Wolfman and I have duked it out the past, yet the detente I launched under the initiative "Wolfpeace" (and adopted in good faith by Wolfman - see my talk page) has led to us being able to collaborate on Sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry without problems. Even now, the newcomer Kizzle who initially was caught up on some edit issues, has moved towards peace mode with me concurrently as I have to him. Frankly, it is users like Gamaliel and JML who reject peace (I have offered it to both on their talk pages and both have declined) and who (as Gamaliel does) stoked the flames of hostility by calling me a trouble maker on the talk pages of new users. Suffice it to say, I will be glad when election 2004 is over. I predict that JML and Gamaliel with cease chasing me around beginning Nov. 3rd. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 07:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief for sanity's sake:

  • What Rex doesn't tell you is that the article contained such positive pro-Sherwood irrelevancies such as his Vietnam decorations and his work on a government anti-terror website. What we wanted to introduce was a couple lines on a book he wrote about the Unification Church, specifically evidence that the book was in fact approved by the moonies. Evidence that a journalist is less than impartial is surely more relevant to an article on a documentary by that journalist than that journalist's work as an government webmaster or what he did in Nam.
  • I voted on the Beating a dead horse article because it showed up on VfD, where I am a regular participant, and I would have found it anyway because he posted a message on Talk:Stolen Honor saying "Gamaliel, you are Beating a dead horse". How can he say I am chasing him when he posted a link to the article directed at me?!
  • People are aligned simply because they agree on something that Rex disagrees with? Apparently consensus is now evidence of conspiracy.
  • I did not "reject peace". Rex wants mediation, and I asked him if he would kindly stop insulting me saying things like I have a "warped, spiteful mind" [40], an insult he leveled about a half hour before his latest peace overture. He has declined to say whether he would stop personally insulting me. Why should I have to go through mediation to get someone to stop calling me names?
  • For a third time, Rex has typed in a lot of text but failed to address the charges at hand, namely his abuse of Vandalism in Progress. These charges have nothing to do with me and I played no part in filing this request, yet he keeps bringing me up, I guess because I'm on his hit list. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 08:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, Rex's "defense" only serves to confirm his offenses.

  • He confirms that what he described as "overt vandalism", he knew to be an edit dispute instead;
  • He repeats personal attacks on myself and Sahara, accusing us of sockpuppet status;
  • He debates in bad faith, assuming the very points under dispute ("attack material") as fact;
  • He assumes bad faith, seeking a preposterous explanation ("Kerry's" became "Kerry?s" after Feldspar's edit because Feldspar is a vandal) when one of his intelligence could clearly construct a legitimate explanation (it is a technical problem -- which was already explained)
  • He admits that his edits are motivated by his desire to get a "reaction" from me;
  • He blames other users for his problems instead of taking even the slightest bit of responsibility for them.

Rex is impossible to deal with. He cannot be trusted to heed his responsibilities to Wikipedia. He clearly knows them, well enough to give them lip service, well enough to cite them if it fits his needs of the moments -- but he ignores them when they are inconvenient, and invents new rules that he pretends to be Wikipedia policy.

Is it, as Rex claims, the fault of others who cannot accomodate his point of view? This would not be a laughable 'defense' if Rex could even pick a point of view and stick to it. As it is, Rex purports one minute to find it very important that JamesMLane's views be represented in consensus, and the next minute to find it utterly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of my views being so represented, while purporting to believe that I am JML.

His harassment edits continue, and he admits that they are to "see what [the] reaction would be." Why, certainly, he purports that the edits are "for the sake of the edits themselves" -- this is about as believable as the jealous ex-boyfriend's pretense that he just happened to have twenty errands that day that took him directly past his victim's house, and that those fifteen people who called that day and hung up without saying anything were fifteen wrong numbers that just happened to call that day, et cetera. It is clearly nonsense even without looking at the edits themselves, but if you wonder whether they are in fact edits that improve the article ([41], [42], [43] [44]), then take the opinions of other editors on the matter.

There is no way to co-exist with Rex because he can never see a situation where he doesn't deserve to get his way. If a single person speaks up to oppose his views, that editor is refusing to abide by consensus. If two people agree on anything that opposes his views, that is evidence that they are colluding against him, or perhaps the same person. If someone reverts his edits, they are perpetrating and perpetuating an edit war; if they decline to continue the edit war and seek some more reasonable means of resolution, they have yielded.

The mere fact that Rex's abusive, deceptive behavior occurs in a thousand separate lies and harassments cannot be allowed as reason to take them one whit less seriously. He has shown that, whether unwilling or actually mentally incapable, he cannot be trusted to abide by his responsibilities to Wikipedia. There is no reason he should be allowed its privileges.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Feldspar, is that he is simply unwilling to admit it, even when he is proven wrong on the facts as they apply to an article. See Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts. Also, please see the article itself and the edit he reverted me on three times there. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 20:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I rest my case; this is the very same edit on which Rex took my choice not to pursue a revert war as yielding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/1/0/2)

  1. Reject, with a caveat - drop this summary into the evidence page for the (already extant) Rex case. →Raul654 07:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject. Please add this to the existing case. Fred Bauder 11:47, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    I'm marking this as an 'other' rather than a reject. James F. (talk) 00:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept as merged into existing case. James F. (talk) 00:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rex07404 responds

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.

Seperately, 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)

[edit] Further explanation by Rex 09.11.04

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 ]] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rex's falsification of VfD voting

Rex now states that his falsification of the tally "must have been a typo, when I cut and pasted in my answer." This defense is not credible. In the edit in question, Rex wasn't doing anything with his answer. He'd voted and commented several hours previously. The user doing the tally had missed Rex's vote, which Rex had included in a response to another comment rather than flush left, but Rex didn't add his own name to the list of "Keep" voters. Nor did he change the "Keep" tally from 6 to 7. Instead, he changed the tally from 6 to 16. He also added an "etc." at the end of the list of six other users' names -- an addition that offered at least a small amount of concealment for the fact that the tally, as revised by Rex, was grossly inaccurate. JamesMLane 00:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree

JML is not familiar with my editing methods. It is patently absurd to suggest that an editor can "modify" or "conceal" easily visibly votes. My accusers, in their accusation offer no rational theory as to what the objective of this supposed vote manipulation was. I can only point out my view which is: JML has a stated express goal of getting me "hard banned" and his fine tooth combing of my past edits to find this one SNAFU is proof of what he's up to. Here a link to his edit where he stated his "hard ban" goal to another editor. I have over 2,500 edits on this Wiki and this group of accusers find only this one where they claim "vote cheating" malfeaseance [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 17:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your allegation of my "fine tooth combing" of your edits is false. As the page history shows, I cast my vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Pro-Life Supporters & List of Pro-Choice Supporters at "05:05, 9 Sep 2004". When I voted, I followed my usual custom and Watchlisted the debate. At least once before your edit, I revisited the page to look at other people's votes, because I was interested in the subject. When you edited the tally at "19:19, 9 Sep 2004", it showed up in my Watchlist and I went to look again. That's how I found and corrected your falsification. I haven't gone through all your edits with a fine-toothed comb, although heaven knows someone should.
I agree with you that your action wasn't rational but you obviously hoped to convey an impression that there was no chance that deletion would be approved. Such a tally at the head of the page might deter some pro-deletionists from bothering to vote. You certainly haven't offered any explanation of what you were trying to type when this unspecified "typo" occurred. Were you trying (quite legitimately) to add your own name to list of those voting "Keep"? No, because you didn't do so. You didn't even enter Rexx or some other version with a typo. It's obviously your usual practice to save an edit and then look at it to see what else you might want to change, since you so often edit in spates -- but in this instance you falsified the total, added the "etc.", made no effort to add your own name, and walked away. I can't see this as an accident. By leaving your own name out, you provided an arguable justification for the "etc." in that not all "Keep" voters were listed. The "etc.", in turn, was necessary so that the falsity of your concocted tally wouldn't be obvious on its face. The whole episode would make a Florida election official blush.
Incidentally, as is clear from the edit of mine that you cited, for you to be banned is indeed a desire of mine. To call it a "goal" might imply that I'm actively working toward it, which I'm not, as the cited edit also makes clear. The reason is that the ArbCom would need to see a substantial dossier before taking such a drastic step. I don't want to do the work of compiling all the evidence. It would be such an undertaking that I'd rather wait and see if, by some miracle, lesser measures suffice. So far, your one-day block by Snowspinner and the temporary Kerry-related block by the committee have done no good. You've now engendered a second arbitration proceeding, plus a Request for Comment, and if I'm not mistaken there's a mediation pending on a different dispute, so I'll let those processes go forward. I'd rather devote my time to the two articles that are currently protected because of edit wars involving you -- not to mention time I hope to spend on many worthwhile Wikipedia tasks that aren't related to Rex damage control. If the current trend continues, however, then this community will eventually lose patience with the enormous drain on other people's time that you're causing. JamesMLane 20:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read my comments to Michael Snow, here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 17:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dialogue between Rex071404 and Michael Snow

Copied below from our respective talk pages is the full exchange between Rex and myself. In the end, Rex contends that the addition of "etc." to the disputed VfD edits was also a mistake, possibly resulting from an improper cut-and-paste from his text editor. --Michael Snow 18:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not say the "etc." was a mistake. Where do you get that from? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 21:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suggested that you explain how "etc." could be a good faith edit, and you responded, "But that's the reason I tell you that it was a mistake..." Perhaps I misunderstood what the antecedent for "it" was in this context. --Michael Snow 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

begin copied dialogue

If you read this and the associated comments by me on Kevin Baas's talk page, as well as the history of edits on my talk page, you would have clearer view of the provocation I was repeatedly subjected to by Neutrality, et al.
Even so, in light of the "feces" edit battle on my talk page, I do see how you would be skeptical of my explaination about this "tally" controversy.
However, you really ought to consider that I have shown clear proficiency in locating links to past edits and for that reason, I would not possibly think that any edit I make would somehow be invisible to others who can view the same.
Certainly, you are not suggesting that I "manipulated" a tally with the aim of going undetected do you? Such a proposition flies in the face of the known fact that I have several editors who despise me (JML in particular) and review every edit I make. In light of that being the case, how do you suppose I hoped to remain undetected with a suppsedly intentional vote tally manipulation? It simply makes no sense. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 17:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know that you and Neutrality have a considerable history. I am also aware that various people may be monitoring your edits. I am not going to speculate on your reasons for editing the vote tally as you did, or whether you might have hoped this would go undetected; I can't read your mind to determine either of those things. My position is simply that the content of the edit in question indicates that it was not an accidental mistake, and what you offer as your "only explanation" on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex0714042 is not a plausible explanation. --Michael Snow 18:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But, in order to come to that conclusion, you have to disregard my assurance that it was a mistake. If not, then you are not assuming good faith. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 18:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assumed good faith when I first looked at the evidence. I considered the content of the edit, as well as your assurance that it was a mistake. In my opinion, that assurance fails to explain the content, particularly the "etc.", because you claim to have made a typo, and etc. is a rather difficult combination of characters to accidentally type in. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence shows your assurance to be implausible, and my assumptions of good faith about the edit stop at that point. If you would like to explain how the "etc." was a good faith addition, please feel free to do so. --Michael Snow 18:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that's the reason I tell you that it was a mistake - I am not sure how it happened. My only surmise is that because I sometimes copy out a section (into Cetus word pad - a program I use) and then add in my comments, spell check and re-insert, something must have happened. Frankly, I did not even remember that edit until it was brought up. Also - you've see my edits - when have I ever failed to explicitly state my concerns or comments? If I had problems with that RfD, then you can be sure I would have explicitly said so. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 18:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end copied dialogue

On Michael Snow's talk page, you claim you "have shown clear proficiency in locating links to past edits and for that reason, I would not possibly think that any edit I make would somehow be invisible to others who can view the same." But in the past you have demonstrated the opposite, that you lack the ability to interpret edit histories correctly, as you have twice attributed to me edits that I did not make, and one of those times you claimed I blanked a talk page which you yourself accidentally blanked. So your "proficiency" doesn't seem like much of a defense to me. Also in the past you have repeatedly altered the comments of others, not just in the incident on your talk page, but also on the talk pages of articles. They were all relatively minor and insignificant edits, but they show a clear pattern of disrespecting the integrity of talk pages and the comments of others and your willingness to alter them to suit your needs. I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the VfD vote tally had you not tacked on "etc." on the end and if you did not show an escalating pattern of making edits in your favor. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how the "etc", under cuts my defense. The "etc" was added to draw attention to the tally in that the bullets in the columns did not line up and I was having trouble distinguishing the comments - nothing more. Also, Gamliel, as you yourself know, when I wrongly made a "protected" edit the other day, I immediately admitted having inadvertantly over-stepped my authority and immediately aplogized. You yourself were involved in that and very well know that to be the case. And frankly, until you pointed that issue out to me, I had not considered that the "protected" tag was reserved, even though NPOV (which I can use) is not. This "6" vs "16" issue is being blown way out of proportion. You do indeed know this to be true: When I am wrong, I do admit it and fess up right away. Our differences have been over editorial standards - you should not be so quick to toss my entire credibility baby out with the bath water of editorial standards differences [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 18:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc title edit

It is being claimed above that this [45] is "cheating" by me. I don't see how, since others (including Neutrality himself) have changed the text of RfC positng summaries which I posted myself. Also, on this edit in question, my edit summary clearly says "If you are going to acuse, please do so accurately. Thank you.". I ask this group, if that edit is cheating, how so? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 17:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] JML's goal of getting me "hard banned" from this Wiki

Here a link to an edit by JML, where he states his "hard ban" goal to Neutrality. These two seem inordinately focused on making and/or amplifying trouble for me. Here is another, where JML is even more explicit with Kevin Baas. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)