Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision

message: It concerns me that a couple of people continue to characterise this as a dispute between Neutrality and Rex. There were six other people signing the request for a temporary order, and I'm quite offended by the characterisation that we would all "need to be banned". I've reverted Rex a grand total of four times, IIRC. I believe I've been pretty civil, as have numerous other people who have tried to reason with him. If there are issues with Neutrality's conduct here, then fine - but deal with that seperately, please.
That said, to be fair to Rex, his conduct outside of the John Kerry-related disputes hasn't, as far as I've seen, been overly problematic, so Fred's proposal makes enough sense. Ambi 05:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: 1) Edits by any user which carry an unreasonable degree of detail into the article, John Kerry, subverting its nature as a general summary of John Kerry's biography and background may be reverted by any other user. Users who repeatedly restore such detailed material which in the opinion of any Wikipedia administrator represent the intrusion of the Presidential campaign of 2004 into the article may be banned from editing the article until after the election. Refusal to respect such a ban shall be grounds for banning the user from Wikipedia until after the election.
Fred Bauder 13:57, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
::Most or all of the stated goal has been accomplished.  The blow-by-blow about the dispute over Vietnam events has largely been moved to the SBVT page.  The events themselves are reasonably included in a Kerry bio and would properly be there even if he weren't running for President.  I've suggested on Talk:John Kerry that "the story related by each witness" should indeed be moved -- some crewmember quotations remain, I favor moving them to SBVT -- but that the article should keep information about each incident, taken from the official medal citation and attributed thereto.  Kerry killed one man (Silver Star incident) and saved another's life (Bronze Star incident); such events belong in an encyclopedic summary of a person's life.  As for the wounds, I think the current level of detail is right.  We have only a few sentences about each incident, what happened, and the nature/seriousness of the wound.  The pruning of genealogical detail, which I mentioned above, has also now been accomplished.  In short, editing is proceeding in good order since the ArbCom blocked the problem user.
::The problem with the proposed "Enforcement" paragraph is that editors can reasonably disagree over how much detail is too much.  Such disagreements are now being handled in the normal fashion: polite discussion on Talk, plus edit summaries that explain and inform.  The proposal would create a dangerous situation in which even one administrator, who happens to disagree with a contributor about the appropriate level of detail, could unilaterally block that contributor for months.  I realize the block would apply only to this article but the stigma would still be significant.
::My response to Fred's question of "what do you suggest?" is that the ArbCom should simply direct that the current temporary block on Rex071404 is extended until the polls close.  That's all.  There's no reason to believe that the article presents an extraordinary situation that requires any further measures.  The biggest remaining problem is that the editing process could benefit from the participation of more people who favor Bush but who act responsibly.  That goal is likely to be more hindered than helped if there's a set of special rules in place just for this article.  So, my suggestion is a Return to Normalcy.  (Oops, sorry, that's POV, Harding was the first sitting Senator to be elected President.)  JamesMLane 14:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Notice that no problems have happened since Rex was blocked from the Kerry articles. Neutrality (talk) 23:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such problems are more likely to reoccur in the future, as election day draws near. I think it would be prudent for the arbcom to provide the community (by means of the admins) with some facility for handling any future issues. If such special rules are unneeded and unused, we have only wasted our own time, I hope. Martin 01:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement 

message: JamesMLanes says: "the article should keep information about each incident, taken from the official medal citation".  Ok, that's all well and good, but as the records show  in regards to the Silver Star, there are three different "official medal citation[s]". How would you propose to handle that? Rex071404 04:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  JamesMLane suggestion 

message: This latest edit  illustrates the extreme POV that Rex has consistently been trying to insert into the John Kerry and related articles and it also typifies the sort of irrational argumentation (mascarading as logic) that he uses to justify his POV as some sort of irrefutable, self-evident truth. To base an argument upon a litany of statements such as "Kerry himself does not claim ... " or "Kerry himself does not deny ..." is precisely the sort of preposterous nonsense that numerous editors (not all of whom are Kerry supporters, by the way) have been dealing with. A basic tenet of logical argument--simply because a person does not refute or deny every allegation made against does not prove the allegation true. Wikipedia is not the place to string together circumstantial evidence in an attempt to "prove" a POV. An article can report such that such a POV exists, but to go further than that is simply indulging political mud-slingers, IMO. older≠wiser 16:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course non-denials are not in and of themselves proof. However, 1st hand statements from eyewitnesses such as Admiral Schachte are and unless denied on a 1st hand basis, remain superior proof to anything that's out there. This is a basic tenet of the validity of evidence and the truthfulness of facts. In a factual analysis, un-rebutted facts are presumed to be true. It is therefore incumbent upon Kerry to rebut the facts. If he does not, we can infer that he has conceded to the truth of them. This is eminently logical and appropriate. And even if you disagree, characterizing my thoughts as "preposterous nonsense" is precisly the kind of spiteful bile which I have been up against throughout this entire process: Snide "know-it-alls" implying that I can not think or am otherwise defective. Do not again call me "irrational". You are no expert on what is and is not "rational" and such comments are only intended to offend. Please stop it. Rex071404 17:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not claim to be an expert on what is or is not rational, but I can recognize preposterous nonsense when I see it and I will point it out when I do. I do not feel there is anything I need to apologize for . older≠wiser 17:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Rex's latest edits on Neutrality 

message: The error you make is your effort to suppose that the contentions of these three persons is the sum total of all the available evidence. There is more than that and what I have said is that the preponderance of the evidence leans more against Kerry than not. As for wanting to look into it, that's only important if you want to avoid wrongly assuming that Kerry did deserve the 1st Purple Heart. At this point it really doesn't matter anyway. The SBVT people have focused on Kerry's lies and fakery and have clamped on like a pit bull. These allegations are indeed the "tipping point" which has begun the end of Kerry's credibility. If he does not release his full military records and diary (which he has not done) he will be unable to restore credibility on this. The very fact that Kerry is content to let his supporters and detractors duke it out in a "pissing contest" of allegations and cross allegations even though it's clearly hurting him with vets in key states  let's me know for sure that the alternative - releasing all the full records and directly addressing the charges themselves, is far worse. I am simply amazed that you seem unwilling to apply the correct political calculus to this. The issue about the 1st Purple is simple: If Kerry lied about that, his Vietnam exit was fraudulent. Suffice it to say, the allegations about the 1st Purple Heart are an absolute dagger at the heart of his credibility with Vietnam veterans. The point of all this is that there are many, many former grunts who are well able to surmise that Kerry gamed the system for the "3 and out" medals - and they resent him for it. The two things vets resent Kerry for the most is the gaming of the system for the "3 and out" medals and his 1971 slander against vets alleging war crimes. These are his two Achilles heels with the vets and he can do nothing about it. Having said all that, perhaps you should read this for a nice summary of the other evidence (other than what Admiral Schachte is also saying). Against the many pieces of evidence undercutting him, Kerry offers only denials through his campaign staffers and the word of two former crewmates. This is what I mean about "preponderance" of the evidence - there is more against him on this point than for him. In fact Admiral Schachte's comments are simply the coup de grace.
Now as to your silly "Bush=War Criminal" comments, please take note:
# Saddam invade Kuwait, our ally.
# That invasion was an illegal crime of aggression
# We justly drove them out in the Gulf War
# At the end of that war, Iraq was under military and economic sanctions
# This went on for more than 12 years
# Saddam and Iraq never fully complied
# Iraq was firing missiles almost daily at our "no fly zone patrols"
# These no fly zone patrols were part of the original sanctions
# The original negotiated cessation of hostilities required Saddam's compliance
# He never fully complied
# USA along with UK and others, invaded Iraq to depose the leader who refused to comply: Saddam
# This was done under the authority of the original sanctions against Iraq
# Even though no further UN agreement was required, Bush sought it anyway
# It was only after France, Russia and Germany (in order to hide their complicity in the oil-for food scandal and sweetheart oil deals) objected to a ratification of the pervious authorization, did we invade.
# Since no ratification was necessary, our Iraq invasion was legally sound.
Here are some links:
* link
* link
* link
* link
And of course, if Bush is a "war Criminal" so too is Senator Edwards:
* link
Some asked for a "vote" And they got one link
(Kerry and Edwards BOTH voted yes)
* link
Food for oil scandal: here, here and here
Also, my contentions being advanced against Kerry are based on bona-fide allegations from reputable sources which have not been debunked or rebutted. 
Are you saying that there is even one legal scholar of good repute anywhere in the world still advancing the "Bush = war criminal" charge on a basis that has not already been rebutted? If this is what you are saying, you are wrong. Various US legal scholars have debunked all Iraq-related "Bush = war criminal" charges - both domestic and international. I challenge you to send me even one link which proves otherwise.
Suffice it to say, I offer real allegations against Kerry, you offer false musings about Bush. I am not persuaded by your line of reasoning. 
Rex071404 06:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed -- and that, Iain, is precisely my point.  Rex persists in telling us what lines of reasoning he personally does or does not find persuasive.  I was trying to give him some perspective by pointing out that people differ over many issues related to the 2004 election.  I hoped my example would make clear that I wasn't singling out Rex's views about Kerry as being irrelevant, because I was characterizing my own views about Bush as being equally irrelevant.  Rex responded by arguing against the substance of my view of Bush.  He also reiterated his arguments about how he personally assesses the weight of the conflicting evidence about Kerry.  So, evidently, my attempt to explain my point to Rex has been a failure. JamesMLane 22:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to JamesMLane 

message: Members of the Committee,
I believe that your honourable Committee may be about to exceed the reasonable limits of its power. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision, it is suggested as follows:
"Edits by any user which carry an unreasonable degree of detail into the article, John Kerry, subverting its nature as a general summary of John Kerry's biography and background may be reverted by any other user. Users who repeatedly restore such detailed material which in the opinion of any Wikipedia administrator represent the intrusion of the Presidential campaign of 2004 into the article may be banned from editing the article until after the election. Refusal to respect such a ban shall be grounds for banning the user from Wikipedia until after the election."
In his vote, Daniel Mayer writes, "We should not be limiting what people who are not part of this arbitration may do." I would find myself in agreement. Policy states, "The arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to arbitrate." This clause appears to indicate, in my opinion, that the committee has no jurisdiction except where a specific request has been made. The complaints and counter-complaints filed by the parties only involve each other. They do not involve any third party. Consequently, I submit that the Committee has, at present, no jurisdiction over these third parties.
Moreover, the Committee is not empowered to make policy; it can only interpret present policy. By declaring a punishment for an offence which is yet to be committed by users who have no "criminal records," the Committee engages in a policy-making or legislative act which is beyond its proper boundaries. It also engages in policy-making by granting powers to Administrators.
The Committee also violates the principle of due process (which I feel applies because policy declares that "sensible 'real world' laws" should be taken into consideration). The proposal empowers Administrators to become judges, juries and executioners in their own right. Each Administrator could arbitrarily impose a punishment as grave as a two-month ban. There are absolutely no standards to govern the conduct of any Administrator; everything is left to the mere "opinion," and that too of "any Wikipedia administrator"—not a panel of Administrators where power can be checked, but a single Administrator.
Hence, I respectfully submit that the proposed measure encourages arbitrary exercise of power, and exceeds the Committee's jurisdiction. -- Emsworth 01:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your objections are well taken. A different remedy more narrowly crafted to the questions presented needs to be put forth. Fred Bauder 12:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
While relying on the opinion of a sole administrator may seem unreasonable, the penalty (not being able to edit the specific article for the next few months) is very mild for anyone who is interested in positively contributing to Wikipedia. Admittedly it is much harsher for anyone who might seek to edit Wikipedia to promote an external agenda, but such non-contributors do not concern me. Martin 01:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Power of the Committee

message: Rex has laudably retracted all counter-complaints.  How does that affect these proceedings, and the authority of arbcom to impose sanctions or restrictions on the complainants? Wolfman 15:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been following the dialog between several of my accusers. Primarily based on a few particular comments I read, I have a few minutes ago striken my overture of toning down the charges and counter-charges. Rex071404   15:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter Complaint

message: Extremely wary as I am after having viewed the fate of others who attempt this sort of thing, I am still determined to see the committee redress what I perceive to be a central problem.
The issue at hand is that this arbitration has been brought about by user conduct. It has increasingly become sidetracked to the issue of conflicting POV's, but that remains a distraction to the crux of the arbitration, which is how Rex relates with other users.
As I observe this dispute from the sidelines, what strikes me is the consistency of Rex's practices. He has an extreme preference for having the last word - thus seeing pages such as Talk:John Kerry and increasingly, this page, becoming bloated to ridiculous levels. For all Rex's supposed outnumbering, and for all the times he laments the conspiracy of harassment formed against him, one gets the distinct impression that the discussions and dealings with him are always dominated by him, both in terms of volume, and in terms of fierceness and intensity.
On that, the general level of vitriol in Rex's edits is (at least, from my experience) nothing short of astounding. He interprets every comment on his actions as an ad-hominem attack of the highest order and immediately responds in kind. It is important to note that the incendiary quality of his rhetoric has not gradually increased in response to a perception of being outnumbered or stymied, but rather has maintained itself at the same level since his first appearance. Personal attacks such as , even while Rex is in the throes of two arbitrations, have been characteristic of his editing style for as long as he has been here. By contrast, lapses of judgement by the editors ranged against him are occasional in their nature, and recognised as such. Observe Rex's regular practice of trawling the talk pages of other users, and immediately responding to any mention of him. Nothing similar is evinced by any other of the editors Rex is so fond of accusing.
In short, I think where Rex has been quite successful is in exploiting his situation. Accusations of cabalism are extremely easy to manufacture and require little in the way of support, especially if one is so unutterably self-righteous. Any accusation against Rex is immediately buried in a stack of hastily-assembled counter-claims that are in general quite successful at taking the focus off Rex's own conduct. The shrillness and intensity is apparently seen by the ArbCom as a response by Rex to his situation. But I believe, the narrow focus of Rex's edits, the amount of time and patience that he is willing to contribute in attacks against other users (considerably less than any of his opponents) and actions in general which seem to cry out for a volume control, indict him as a user who promotes disruptive tactics. The arbitration now seems to be an evaluation of how the users attacked by Rex should best respond, rather than the fact that Rex has been so combative in the first place. An injustice would be served if those users who were unfortunate enough to encounter Rex were to be further burdened and tarred for having the patience to endure him rather than buckle under the pressure. Lacrimosus 21:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacrimosus, the point you miss is that for those editors where there appears to be even the slightest glimmer of possible "peace" I do make overtures aimed at that. For example, I have reached out to Wolfman and to a measurable degree, some positive fruit has come from that. I have also been dialoging with Kevin Baas and we have both stated that we will be less quick to react adversely against each other. Also, I am in the middle of trying to make progress with Kizzle. I was in mediation with Nysus, but he quit the Wiki and has not continued the mediation. My three primary editorial foils right now are Gamaliel, JamesMLane and Neutrality. Occasionally Lyellin chimes in, but not in too of a confrontational manner. Here are the facts as they stand: Neutrality by and large ignores me and me him. Unless he reverts me without dialog, we seldom cross paths. Gamaliel evidences no indication that he wants anything other than to continue to think poorly of me. JamesMLane is actively working to make problems for me. And if you don't think that is true about JML see this edit of his . After a number of days of trying to beat me into submission on TfT, JML has resorted to  trying to give me the boot there. To me, this is mendacity laid bare. JML has zero interest in letting me have my own editorial views - which is a prerequisite of collaborative editing and Consensus decision making. It is impossible to reconcile JML's active efforts to harm me, with his duty to leave me be. I stand by my view that his methods towards me are imbued with mendacity - and I chose that word carefully. You can think what you like, but the logjam at TfT is not my fault. I have long ago made clear (see this reiteration of my position ) that I have stepped back from any current position on that page and have no objections to it being unprotected. The JML-led chorus of complaints there about their supposed need of me to answer questions is nothing but a straw dog being advanced by JML to block one of the few pro-Bush editors from this Wiki. If you can't see that, well, you are not looking. Also, if you don't think that there is an anti-Bush bias systemic throughout this Wiki, the please examine this edit  where I just now deleted the scurrilous Wiki link to the FALSE re-direct that an anti-Bush editor injected into the perfectly honest and correct Stolen Honor Documentary aka Stolen Honor page I just recently started. Please note, even though JML himself has been scrutinizing that page (which I wrote in almost it's entirety), he and the others have found virtually no POV material (alleged or actual) that they can attack. And since there is none to remove, what do the anti-Bush people do? They make some up. The phrase "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" while being part of an actual quote, does not name any actual group. There is no "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush". It is utter and vile anti-Bush POV to make a Wiki page "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" and then re-direct that page to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". In fact, that is about the most raw and obvious POV edit I've seen yet. Well guess what? JamesMLane's name shows up on the edit history for Stolen Honor. He is definitely watching that page. He asserts himself to be a champion of NPOV - but did he do anything to revert or remove the blatant "SBV for Bush" Wiki link or re-direct? The answer is no and that is an example of the mendacity of JamesMLane. Disagree if you want, but I am not persuaded. Rex071404   00:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, you already have one frivolous cross-complaint pending against me.  I hope the ArbCom will take note of that action of yours in reaching its decision.  If you think I've done something improper, you go right ahead and bring another cross-complaint.  When and if there's such a proceeding, I'll respond.  Until then, your latest accusations against me are utterly without merit, and saying that much is all the time I'm going to waste on the point. JamesMLane 02:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another user comments

message: Having still seen no further action as to permanent remedies, Rex has now launched strong and disgusting attacks on numerous users. On the evidence page for this very case, he has said JamesMLane is a "obsesed and weird stalker and I'm glad he doesn't know my real name. I feel that he is really sick and needs help". Straight under that, he's also made what I have trouble believing wasn't a gaybashing attempt, though he's since denied it. On Talk:Fulbright Hearing, he's said he was "amazed" at the "bottom feeding habits" of Gamaliel and JamesMLane. On the same page, he's referred to disagreeing editors as "jackals". And he's still attacking the integrity of his detractors, referring to their "single-minded pro-Kerry bias".
Around the time of the temporary order, Rex swore that he'd changed his ways and had stopped personally attacking people. These edits, all in the space of today, make a mockery of that. If nothing else, surely a personal attack parole is deserved here. One should not have to put up with regular personal abuse for being involved in talk page discussions. Ambi 05:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I decline to get roped into a "peeing constest" with Ambi over this. He is simply wrong in the entire tenor of what he says here. Gamaliel and JamesMLane are indeed stalking my edits. If that's not "bottom feeding" well then, what is it? Also, please note that Ambi provides not actual links to my edits, because if he did, the context would be clear. The comments Ambi complains about on the evidence page, in the manner presented, are not attacks. Rather, they are my opionion, being presented as evidence. And his flimsy chimera accusation of "gay bashing" is really disgusting and he ought to be ashamed. It is Gamaliel who made the gay joke not me! I am simply furious with you for your accusation, Ambi! Rex071404   05:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, I think Ambi is a woman. --kizzle 05:35, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so then, what does this tell you about how little attention I am paying to gender or sexuality roles here? Also, the term "peeing contest" refers to a futile display of one-upsman-ship. Even so, while it would not be effective as literal analogy in a mixed-gender dialog, it is still effective if all persons know it's meaning and it's used figuratively. That said, if Ambi is a woman and/or is offended, I'd be happy to apologize. Rex071404   06:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attack parole

message: I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision to turn into yet another interminable exchange of opinions, so I'm placing my response to Rex here.
One of his comments is:
:And look at Stolen Honor. Now that JamesMLane is finally being reasonable about what he is editing in, consensus was reach almost immedietely. See talk here. So on this point, again I ask, why are you blaming me? Rex071404   20:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rex's comments on the project page

message: I think it is clear that Rex is not gone and is not inactive.  Does anyone doubt that this is Rex?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex returns 

message: :So does this mean he will be banned for a year, or 6 months, or that he can edit but he has to cite sources every single time?  If there is no decision, when do you think it be reached and enforced? --kizzle 19:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Every day we wait, the situation gets worse.  --kizzle 01:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
What the hell is taking so long?  Now Rex has gotten yet ANOTHER page protected which needs to be unprotected in order to reflect the vast amount of information coming in about voter irregularities.
A decision needs to be reached now. --kizzle 22:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
:The latest page protection occurred after Rex made approximately eleven reverts in seven hours.  Details have been added to the Evidence page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Further misconduct as anon IP. JamesMLane 23:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: 3-0 in favour of banning him from reverting for six months. An outright ban? Rex gets special treatment, remember. Ambi 12:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for decision 

message: In this edit, User:216.153.214.94 says, "I have quit the Wiki."  Therefore, there could be no objection to an immediate block on that IP.  The contributions history gives no reason to believe that the IP has been used by anyone other than Rex. JamesMLane 07:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that Rex also claimed that "... I am quitting this Wiki, effective with this edit" under his original identity, and it caused some speculation about "well, if he's gone, the case is moot, isn't it?"  Given that he was not gone, I do not think we should view the announced departure of User:216.153.214.94 as reason to stop the case.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "216" says s/he's leaving

message: JamesF abstained on one of these points, citing "... and remove his ability to help fight vandalism? Maybe..."
Has Rex ever helped fight vandalism? Ambi 04:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to James