Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 1

message: I'm the "disinterested moderator" CK mentions above (not that I consider this a particularly "official" role, I just happened by), and at this point I think I'm satisfied enough that the talk: page discussion is going nowhere that I'll add my voice to this request. VeryVerily seems to be arguing vigorously against a position that is not actually being taken by those he's arguing against (both the editors on the talk page and the version of the article he was disputing), and I think the version he wants to replace it with is highly POV. I've tried at great length to explain why I think this but it just doesn't seem to be helping and VV has rejected all the other approaches to dealing with this that are suggested on the dispute resolution page. Bryan 01:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversation is indeed starting to head to nowheresville, because BD is simply not processing what I am saying, whether out of laziness or, whatever.  However, he is not an involved party here. VV 04:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought this comment back into the main page, since I consider this to be me "seconding" the request (as allowed for in the "what belongs in requests for arbitration" list) rather than an outside side-comment. Bryan 20:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred Bauder, why did you restore these comments here?  They don't need to be on the project page and in Talk. VV 23:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  BD's comment 

message: Would such a record qualify for the current events section? I do have warned Turrican not to "retaliate", I however point to the fact that VeriVerily did not manage to freak out others for the first time. Get-back-world-respect 05:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I initiated the last one, and largely because RfAr was being used so much against me.  And readers may note that Gz's was soundly rejected. VV 05:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You initiated the last one because you were the guy it took to tango. Get-back-world-respect 06:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, one's user page cannot be vandalized unless one has one.  So it's equally my fault. VV 06:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am completely sure he did that for no reason at all, just targeting a random user. Get-back-world-respect 06:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VeriVerily made it to the arbitration page three times in just about one week

message: Why is access to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168/Evidence limited and to whom is it limited? I can only see it or post to it while logged in. 168...
:I expect it's a caching issue.  Anonymous users retrieve pages from a cache, and this new page has presumably not been cached yet.  Try a hard refresh, or edit as a logged in user (who shouldn't hit the cache, but often have similar problems with images).  I know of no way to hide the contents of pages from any user, and why would we want to anyway? :)  fabiform | talk 06:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Access to Evidence

message: -> wikipedia talk:banning policy
Arbitrators don't set policy, just enforce it. Proposals to policy pages, please. :) Martin 23:26, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baiting block proposed 

message: Editing Talk:Alternative medicine after injunction "Temporary injunction: Irismeister cannot edit any page other than his/her user and user talk pages and his/her AC pages":   - David Gerard 22:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but the injunction is only a suggestion, not a ban. -- John Gohde |  Talk 22:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the suggestion's been taken  - David Gerard 22:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you are comparing apples to oranges.  You cannot compare a prohibited action of restoring a deleted page to a normal edit of a talk page. -- John Gohde |  Talk 09:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a suggestion it's a temporary ruling. Irismeister is banned from editing pages (except his own page and the arbitration pages) until the AC says otherwise. theresa knott 09:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay. Yes, Theresa is correct - it's a temporary ruling, not a suggestion. Martin 23:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Irismeister violation of injunction

message: I am interested in having an arbitration of wikipedia:civility and/or wikiquette violations made by a number of prominent admins. What is most important IMO is that a precedent be formed, and a consequence given, rather than any particular shaming, loss of status, etc... These rules are simply not being enforced, and when on off chance they are given any attention, it is only in opposition to those unpopular w the community. IMO prominent community members aught also to maintain minimum standards of conduct. Things like [this] are not good for anybody. Some of us have academic pretenses, and all of us make claim to being scholars of sorts. Ad hominem attacks, abuse or incivility of any kind really, are simply not acceptable. Sam [Spade] 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here’s just a hint of what’s going on among non-admins . I think something needs done about enforcing the violations of the existing wikipedia:No personal attacks / Wikipedia:Civility / wikiquette policies. NPOV in my opinion should be of a lesser focus for your committee, and is likely best solved by polite, well-reasoned intellectual discourse. Foul language and brutish behaviours hurt everyone when our (stated) goal is the compilation and promotion of reliable reference materials. As a volunteer, I simply ask for better; better enforcement of our current (and may I say excellent) policies. Thank you in advance, Sam [Spade] 22:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think it takes a committee to find a problem with Spleeman. Whereas figuring out what NPOV is... that may well take several committees. Snowspinner 22:50, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Sam on this point. Spleeman's behavior is unacceptable. Danny 22:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: But whats to be done between us danny? What can I do to assure you that I edit in good faith? I think I've offered one soloution, if you choose to accept it... Sam [Spade] 22:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sam_Spade] 

message: Could someone more expert in these things please look over User:The Trolls of Navarone's edits and talk page. If he's not a reincarnation, he's doing his best to look like one (a favourite slab of text of 142/Entmoots/JRR) and writes in an almost identical style. Some consider him a reincarnation already  but this appears disputed. I'm inclined to say "of course he bloody is", but would like the opinion of someone with more experience of the ex-user in question - David Gerard 13:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an expert on half of this conundrum, and can confirm that I am not the same user as 142/Entmoots/JRR etc. My IP address is on my user page for verification. Your humble servant, The Trolls of Navarone 22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't ban people. We ban on the basis of behavior. This account (Navarone) should be banned on the basis of displaying identical behavior to that which resulted in a ban before (almost certainly deliberately). - Hephaestos|§ 23:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Your username, your article edit history, your uncomprehending answers when questioned all virtually match those of JRR Trollkien. The community does not want that user here. Ergo the community does not want you here. - Hephaestos|§ 15:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: To be fair, by the same logic, an idntical IP doesn't really prove anything either. Shared ISPs, ownzed boxes etc can give false positives. Mark Richards 19:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, though I think by the time we're to the point of checking IPs we've probably already amassed a decent amount of other evidence on the matter. My point was really that, regardless of the IP evidence, I think the case for a ban of this user is strong. Snowspinner 20:14, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
I actually don't see any real evidence - sure, it looks like this user shares the politics of JRRT/EMT etc, but the edit history doesn't seem the same, except, as you note, an interest in some of the same pages. I don't think that we can say that users who agree with each other are the same, especially when there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that they are not the same (IP addresses) and nothing that the user has done that would warrent banning. Mark Richards 20:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think a user springing up shortly after a previous user was banned, with a very similar username, identical approaches to Wikipedia politics, an interest in the same pages is pretty compelling evidence, and the telltale awareness of Wikipedia policy, who runs Wikipedia, and the other various things one tends not to know as a brand new user builds a pretty strong case. An IP match would be a clincher. A lack of IP match would mean Entmoot learned about the wonders of proxies. Snowspinner 20:32, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
I can see how you might reach that conclusion, but its not evidence, its speculation. Mark Richards 20:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: under your rules of evidence we would never block anyone ever.  this is not useful. Morwen - Talk 20:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: seconded. "Don't do that then" is applicable here. Did you read the long note Jwrosenzweig left on your talk page? I don't see how you can read Navarone's user page and continue to assume good faith - David Gerard 20:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm sure Mark did see my note -- it's from weeks ago, and we've had good discussions.  I respect Mark, and respectfully disagree with him in this instance.  If the user in question is not this banned user, it is someone intentionally mimicing a banned user either to A) have us ban him so he can claim we are horrible and unfair, or B) taunt us about the fact that we are powerless to stop banned users from returning.  Whatever they're doing here, they are choosing to operate and portray themselves in a way that is specifically designed to distract the community from the cooperative task of building an encyclopedia.  Anyone who comes here with that goal, doesn't belong here.  That's my opinion.  Mark disagrees, and I respect his reasoning, but I don't think it workable, and I don't share his conclusions. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: You might want to chill out Heph. I am not in favour of troublemakers, and find your particular brand of self righteous abuse increasingly difficult to tollerate. To state that your accusation is baseless slander is to dignify it. I'll ignore it in the spirit of the holiday weekend. Stop looking for trouble, and get some rest. Mark Richards 23:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not aware of any abuse Heph, I try to be pretty tollerant. I meant the body of text that is accumulated by the Wikipedia project, as distinct from the Wikipedia software and community. Is there a better term for it? I don't believe that the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a reincarnated banned user is a helpful one. Believe it or not we are on the same team Heph, I simply don't believe that the methods you are espousing are good for the project or reduce the effect of these users. While we're at it, reverting edits without explaining why doesn't help you to win friends and influence people. Take her easy, and have a good weekend, Mark Richards 04:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably a better term for it, maybe the "Wikipedia text and images"? (Of course that's what you meant, sure, yeah.) And yes, that's the problem, you're too tolerant. This place is in a sort of crisis if you haven't noticed. Please stop contributing to it. - Hephaestos|§ 06:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: My userpage gets vandalized, and that makes me a problem?  That's an interesting leap of logic. - Hephaestos|§ 00:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problem is that you seem to involve yourself in almost continuous conflict. Even people who basically like you and are very much trying to find common ground. Trying to pick a user page blanking fight with a user that has done nothing to you except disagree with you is only the latest. I think that there is a word for users who seek out conflict, but it slips my mind right now. That's the problem. Mark Richards 16:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another 142/Entmoots/JRR reincarnation

message: Mark, I believe it would be helpful if you would show greater respect for the project's history, which is extensive and extends considerably beyond your time of involvement here.
By original intent and choice, as well as ongoing tradition in the minds of many if not most contributors, Wikipedia is the project and the text and images here are Wikipedia (though Wikipedia is many other things as well, not least of all a community).  The GFDL is the choice of license, and is a means to an end rather than an end itself.  Trivializing Wikipedia by calling it merely as an "access provider" to a purportedly independent "GFDL text corpus" is both factually inaccurate as well as being an affront to the project.  In like fashion, referring to Wikipedia as an "accumulator of text" is inaccurate, and an affront.
The GFDL is an imperfect license.  Those involved early on chose it with awareness of its flaws.  GFDL is widely used and, though it has not received scrutiny in a court of law, is regarded as among the most likely licenses to remain enforcable.  Alternative licenses, such as those promulgated by the Creative Commons, were not in widespread use at that time.  And the cost and uncertainy of developing a Wikipedia-specific license did not seem worthwhile.  Some of these discussions are archived on the meta and on the mailing list, if you should wish to review them.
Wikipedia (the content) is something that has been created by Wikipedia (the community).  It is not a mere aggregation of GFDL documents authored elsewhere.  The license serves the community, not the other way around.      The collaborative authorship model, and the totality of Wikipedia's editorial policies and community culture have a key role in overall authorship.
There are all manner of shortcomings of the GFDL, and I take no position on its interpretation.  Many have raised questions about attribution, joint authorship, handling of cover texts and invariant sections, and whatnot.  The only opinion that matters on these subjects is that of a court of competent jurisdiction.  Such an opinion is likely to come with the passage of years.  Until then, we will all have to do the best we can, and each act according to the dictates of our own conscience.
Wikipedia chose GFDL, in awareness of its faults, to allow reuse in other media, to allow forks, and to ensure the availability of the content in perpetuity.  The GFDL serves Wikipedia, not the other way around.
UninvitedCompany 00:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No dispect was intended UC, but I do feel strongly that the purpose of the Wikipedia community is to build an open content encyclopedia, I don't know what it would mean for it to be the other way around. I thought that the intent of the project was to build a free and open encyclopedia, that would not be 'owned' by anyone in a restrictive sense. The fact that the license allows use by others and forks means that the total amount of free and open encyclopedia that can be built is bigger than Wikipedia itself, also, the GFDL material contributed by Internet Encyclopedia, WikiTravel, WikiQuote and Wiktionary to name but a few are part of the GFDL corpus, but not Wikipedia. I don't think that to point that out is disrespectful at all. Perhaps I was misunderstood.
I don't really understand your points about the relationship between the GFDL text and the community and software. Props are due to the founders, their vision, the contributors and all involved, but the fact is that when someone presses 'submit', they maintain copyright over the material, and grant generous terms of use to anyone who wants to use them under those terms. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an effective and good way to build this corpus of open and free content, and it is a great front end to edit and view it, it is also an excellent group of people who do this, but it is not the same thing as the material licensed under the GDFL, which is not licensed exclusively to it (that's what 'free' means). I don't understand how pointing out this fact about the license is disrespectful or an afront. It's there in black and white, and it's not a bad thing. Mark Richards 02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Off topic on the GFDL

message: Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV
Evidence moved here Re: Snowspins advice. Sam [Spade] 22:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that deletion of evidence is a bad thing, perhaps archiving this in your userspace would be a better idea than archiving it on the talk page? You could then, perhaps, let the arbcom members know on their talk page that the evidence is there and that you're concerned about it being removed? Snowspinner 21:36, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
====discussion re: evidence====
Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV
**I am removing links to an already settled dispute with VeryVerily and long-delisted request for comment pages reinserted by Lir. A resolved dispute with VV and delisted pages are irrelevant to Lir's bogus request on this page. (Indeed members of the arbitration committee are fully aware that this dispute has been settled, and they should stop Lir if he reinserts these links once again.) 172 18:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: see "Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV". We simply responded to that request. Sam [Spade] 20:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads to me more like a prediction than a request, and even if it is a request, Stevertigo (SV) is a mediator and not an arbitrator, so it wasn't necessarily desired by the Arbitration Committee. I think it would have been better to let the arbitrators speak for themselves if they wanted to see evidence in support of a request for arbitration. --Michael Snow 20:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV
**I am removing links to an already settled dispute with VeryVerily and long-delisted request for comment pages reinserted by Lir. A resolved dispute with VV and delisted pages are irrelevant to Lir's bogus request on this page. (Indeed members of the arbitration committee are fully aware that this dispute has been settled, and they should stop Lir if he reinserts these links once again.) 172 18:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: see "Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV". We simply responded to that request. Sam [Spade] 20:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads to me more like a prediction than a request, and even if it is a request, Stevertigo (SV) is a mediator and not an arbitrator, so it wasn't necessarily desired by the Arbitration Committee. I think it would have been better to let the arbitrators speak for themselves if they wanted to see evidence in support of a request for arbitration. --Michael Snow 20:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion re: evidence

message: Would it be acceptable to merge the two cases involving both myself and 172?
Sam [Spade] 03:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I suggest the following guidelines for content of Requests for Arbitration and regarding titles for requests. Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
===What belongs in Requests for Arbitration===
* The complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can without a lot of work find an example of what is being complained of. It is good if there are links to any policy which is claimed to apply.
* The Answer which should address the matters raised by the complaint explaining why the complaint is ill-founded. Again, links to evidence showing how  what you say is so are useful.
:It should be emphasized that this rebuttle should address the specific claims, regarding either (a) whether the events in question did or did not occur, or (b) whether the events cited constitute a violation of policy.  The user should avoid rhetorical or deferrential ranting, and avoid ad hominem attacks on the plaintiff(s). Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
* Any Complaint by the "defendant" against the user who made the original complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
:I don't think this should be on here.  It obscures the issue.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  If the defendant has a complaint, it should be filed separately.   Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
* Information regarding what steps of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
* Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they should be expected to have to respond to.
:They should not be expected to have to respond to it.  each side makes a statement, and that statement should not be interfered with.  The defendant should not attack the plaintiff(s), but should address the specific allegations on factual grounds.  If this is done, there is no need for the plantiff to post a response.  this is not a dialogue, and definitely not a fight. Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
====What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration====
* Comments regarding the viability of the complaint especially by persons not involved in the matter.
* Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
* Essentially any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.
:*violations of policy/etiquette, such as personal attacks.
:*counter-claims - they are irrelevant.  if the defendant is really concerned, and not simply trying to defame/discredit the plaintiff(s), they should file a separate complaint. Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
===Titles of Requests for Arbitration===
In the first instance the title of an arbitration request derives from the initial request made by the first person who makes the request. This person may or may not be a prinicipal participant in the matter depending on who else joins in the complaint and how much they participate. However if they are a principal participant and especially if a counterclaim is made either against them or an other important participant in the matter it is reasonable that the title may be changed to reflect the major participants in the matter, not just the name of the original defendant.
===Deletion of evidence by participants===
Each party may present the evidence that they regard as relevant. The other party should not remove the assertions of the opposing party or the links they suggest are relevant.
===Changing of titles of requests===
Arbitrators may change the title of requests to reflect both the general nature of the matter as well as the identity of the main participants. If the complaint is generally the work of one user or a counter-claim have been filed against a user as a part of the case they may be identified in the title. The participants in the matters should not be involved in struggles to change or revert the title of a matter in order to suit them.
: These seem a good codification of the current unwritten rules; I like them.
: James F. (talk) 12:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The unwritten rules work well enough, but I've no objection to Fred writing them down... :) Martin 22:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some propositions regarding content of Requests for Arbitration

message: Arbitrators may change the title of requests to reflect both the general nature of the matter as well as the identity of the main participants. If the complaint is generally the work of one user or a counter-claim have been filed against a user as a part of the case they may be identified in the title. The participants in the matters should not be involved in struggles to change or revert the title of a matter in order to suit them.
: These seem a good codification of the current unwritten rules; I like them.
: James F. (talk) 12:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The unwritten rules work well enough, but I've no objection to Fred writing them down... :) Martin 22:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing of titles of requests

message: Almost all the comments in the arbitration requests page seem to be repeated twice.
Someone should merge both copies.
cesarb 12:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Déjà vu? 

message: I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage: 
*As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor
**Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Muriel needs her mind read, her motivation intuited, or her opinions stated for her. Nor is she in any danger of being labelled or punished on the basis of a label. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  172 discussion 

message: :Yes, the second poll is currently at 5-1, but you were already reverting when it stood at 5-0. I don't know how you can accuse others of turning this into a revert-fest, when no one reverts as much as you. If polling is no substitute for discussion, reverting isn't either. The issue here is not about the content of the article (I have no problem with your version of the popularity section myself, I just don't think it should be pushed against consensus), but about your behaviour, which only results in the page being protected half the time. If a poll goes 20-3 against you, you can't just say everyone is biased or uncommunicative. It's up to you to make your case on the talk page and try to convince people to change their vote. Gzornenplatz 22:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
:::: I object to the basis of this complaint against VV as being unfounded and fraudulent. As another editor who has been recently active on the George_W._Bush page, I have been watching and measuring the activity on the talk page there. I can tell you that the comments and questions I raise, do not garner full participation from the same various editors who now complain about VV. Suffice it to say, because these various editors refuse to deliberate, they ought not to be allowed to complain about VV at this time. I recently ran into revert war trouble at John Kerry and found the same symptom there: A few loosely aligned pro-Democrat edtitors reach a partial consensus among themselves, and then close their minds to even the most well reasoned and fact-supported rebuttals. Rex071404 07:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Material added to VerilyVerily's response

message: [Placed here, as the case is being refused very shortly after the comment was posted]. James F. (talk) 00:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note of grievance re. VeryVerily 

message: When is there likely to be any update in the matter of Kenneth Alan? Mintguy (T) 21:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I only pop up every once in a while, being quite busy.  This must disappoint you because there's no more mob scene.  I'm not interested in these games you play.  If you've got a problem with each offhand instance that my screen name appears, I suggest you consult a therapist.  This is the best advice I can give, for I will never fit your ideal of perfection.  Just look at you, probably after having seen a few minor adjustments in my edits, automatically fixated on exterminating me once again.  I disagree with your editing style, but you don't see me following you around on those things.  I have better things to do, unless you get really anal like this and I feel compelled to show up again in my own defense.  Get it right; do not talk about me, do not talk to me, and do not think about me.  Leave your monomanic stalking behind, and you'll be happier!  Thanks:)  Kenneth Alanson 12:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenneth Alan

message: The RfAr asserts that changes to Stolen Honor were not vandalism but were instead being made in the course of an edit dispute.  Rex responds by defending his position in the edit dispute, thus helping to establish that there was one, and by lashing out at me and other Wikipedians.  Because his response in no way undercuts the RfAr, I see no need to reply to him here. JamesMLane 17:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was indeed vandalism in that the (POV) edit which kept getting re-inserted was indeed also oddly defective punctuation wise, with the word "Kerry?s" instead of "Kerry's" in several palces, The perp(s) who kept inserting that, seemed to have no interest in correcting it, just re-inserting it. Also, a normal response would have been to dialog on talk page. The perps(s) did not do that. So as I see it:
*a) POV edit
*b) multiply inserted
*c) with odd "?" marks where they don't belong
*d) no talk page dialog,
makes a strong case for vandalism. 
Rex071404   20:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rex's responses to the Request for Arbitration