Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence

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

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

message: This content duplicates that on the attached project page. Accordingly, I have deleted it, as it interferes with the arbitration process to scatter identical evidence in multiple places.
Thank you for your co-operation. Martin 21:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ambi.  I never gave much credence to the argument that there was a "new Rex" who had learned his lesson and would become a model Wikipedian.  This counter-complaint conclusively demolishes that argument.  It will also, of course, cause yet more waste of time among people who could be doing lots of other things to improve Wikipedia.  I've been told about long-term problems caused by other users, but, if we look only at the disruption caused during a new user's first month, Rex must be a strong contender for Rookie of the Year. JamesMLane 08:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Mbecker agreed with Rex on one point, but I wouldn't say he's generally aligned with Rex.  Cecropia certainly seems to be though, and has been unfailingly polite and cooperative in his edits and discussion.  To my knowledge, Cecropia's edits are seldom (if ever) reverted, so Rex's complaint of being picked on for his views rings hollow.Wolfman 20:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harsh or biased comments made to or about Rex, by others on the [[John Kerry]] Talk page 

message: This counter-complaint is a vexatious one if ever I saw one.
Firstly, at the time this arbitration request was filed, all of us had exhausted all previous options. The RfC had been strongly supported, and a good faith request for mediation had been "indefinitely postponed". As the arbitrators began to draw up a temporary order, Rex suddenly reversed his position on this, presumably to save his hide - but by then, it was a bit late.
Moreover, his complaints against Neutrality are somewhat hypocritical, as at least on #2, #3 and #4, he's been just as guilty as Neutrality, if not more so. Ambi 08:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ambi.  I never gave much credence to the argument that there was a "new Rex" who had learned his lesson and would become a model Wikipedian.  This counter-complaint conclusively demolishes that argument.  It will also, of course, cause yet more waste of time among people who could be doing lots of other things to improve Wikipedia.  I've been told about long-term problems caused by other users, but, if we look only at the disruption caused during a new user's first month, Rex must be a strong contender for Rookie of the Year. JamesMLane 08:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Mbecker agreed with Rex on one point, but I wouldn't say he's generally aligned with Rex.  Cecropia certainly seems to be though, and has been unfailingly polite and cooperative in his edits and discussion.  To my knowledge, Cecropia's edits are seldom (if ever) reverted, so Rex's complaint of being picked on for his views rings hollow.Wolfman 20:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses 

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

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

message: If one desires to include oneself amongst the complainants, does one just add oneself to the list? Or must only the original complainants be included, and a separate arbitration request filed? -- Emsworth 20:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be best to inquire with one of the arbitrators. Neutrality 20:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I'll just add evidence as a third party. -- Emsworth 02:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional complaints

message: I would like to suggest that the Committee reconsider its ruling relating to the validity of counter-complaints. I feel that such complaints should only be admissible if relevant to the original charges. Otherwise, the respondent would be able to divert attention from the primary matter (John Kerry) by introducing irrelevant charges against the complainants. The respondent could just "hijack" the proceedings, and every edit made by every party would become a matter of concern to the Committee, even though such edits may have no bearing whatsoever on the original complaint. Undue complications would arise where multiple users are involved; evidence and claims not at all relevant to the original complainant's concerns would be introduced. 
This scenario may, of course, seem unlikely. But it would be made more likely by allowing irrelevant counter-claims to be introduced, as, say, the statement "Rex071404 can because he has had charges made against him file counterclaims against all those who have filed charges against him" may reflect. 
I do not propose that all counter-claims be dismissed. Instead, only charges, countercharges and evidence pertaining to the original complaint should be admitted. If there is a separate concern, then it should be addressed in a separate request for arbitration. Otherwise, the very subject of the arbitration—the neutrality of a particular article, the purported vandalism of a particular page—would be changeable entirely at the will of one party. 
In making these comments, I specifically have in mind the charge of "anti-Christian bigotry" that has been levied.
-- Emsworth 02:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter-complaints

message: Maybe we should just have a vote on the subject... like a VFD style thing to determine whether this rex should be banned? Is that a good idea?
:I don't think it is.  Even though a VfD is supposed to be argued on the merits, a decision is actually reached based on the numbers -- so although most of the time it works like it should, the process can be subverted to be a popularity contest.
:I don't think we want to set a precedent for running arbitrations the same way.  The result would probably be the same for Rex -- but if he was banned because a majority of people voted against him, then everyone else would be living constantly in fear of the same thing:  getting banned because a large enough number of people just decided that it should be so.
:Rex's punishment is coming because there are certain rules that all Wikipedia editors are supposed to follow, and he has been clearly, repeatedly, and knowingly violating those rules.  I believe that given the flagrancy of his trespass, the appropriate punishment is a ban.  Since he has only gotten worse in his behavior, not better, I personally don't see any reason for the ban not to be permanent.  But the point is, when the boom is lowered, it won't happen because 51% of us, 75% of us, or 99% of us didn't like Rex; it will happen because Rex knew the rules and broke them anyways.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  vote