Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Proposed decision

message: i suggest you look at the recent RVs of 172, and tell me he is not doing as much (if not more) "aggressive RVing" than me. as i have said i am limiting myself in editting and discuss changes on the Talk pages. this is absurd. J. Parker Stone 22:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 172 is not before us. This will give you time to hit the books and do some research. Fred Bauder 02:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
fine, then Davenbelle. there has been no one who has done as much unexplained RVing and shown such an aversion to discussion as him.
and i have a bunch of other stuff to Bauder, this isn't a profession. J. Parker Stone 04:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I would have no problem with the proposed one-year ban on editing political articles--not that my opinion matters, this is an arbcom affair.  It would give him the opportunity to learn courtesy and good editing discipline, away from the naturally inflammatory environment of political editing.  I don't agree that others have been as aggressive or more aggressive than Trey and I don't find his manipulation of my disagreement with 172 and El_C amusing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Tony. — Davenbelle 04:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
once again, no one has provided ANY evidence that I have been more "aggressive" outside of their own personal opinion. Davenbelle in particular has never discussed edits. and i didn't mean to manipulate anything. i was just pointing out that you had disagreed with them last time.
i don't see how a one-year ban is gonna make any more difference than, say, a one-month ban. J. Parker Stone 04:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: My impression, without doing extensive research, is that there is a great improvement. I hope that if this partial ban passes you continue to improve and when you return to editing political articles that you are prepared to back up your edits with citations to substantial references. Fred Bauder 14:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
this is far more than a "partial ban." as i said, i don't see how shortening the ban to one or two months would make much difference. and if there's been a "great improvement" (i thank you for the compliment) why is this one-year restriction needed on me, but not summary RVers like Davenbelle? he has made NO efforts to make his case on Talk pages, as I have documented J. Parker Stone 20:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: once again, no one has provided ANY evidence that I have been more "aggressive" outside of their own personal opinion.
I for one have extensively documented your behaviour, first in the RfC and then in this ArbCom case. You may wish to disregard this evidence but clearly others aren't. -- Viajero | Talk 15:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One-year ban?

message: I'm a little perplexed that Fred thinks this is the biggest deal. None of the changes on that page were citation-related, they all had to do with language. J. Parker Stone 23:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate media

message: I know it's summer but can we wrap this case up plz? kthx J. Parker Stone 02:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration speed