Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404

Harsh or biased comments made to or about Rex, by others on the John Kerry Talk page

[snip]

This material appears to duplicate that at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Harsh_or_biased_comments_made_to_or_about_Rex.2C_by_others_on_the_John_Kerry_Talk_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 21:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why are these "Harsh or biased comments made to or about Rex, by others on the John Kerry Talk page" appearing on multiple pages? See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence older≠wiser 09:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea. I have fixed the duplication I have seen. Martin 21:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban

Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that you do it so easily based on what amounts to their half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.

With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.

For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.

But alas, this Wiki has turned into basically a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggressive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.

Rex071404 16:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I moved this from my Talk, because it is addressed to us as a group, not individually.

I arbitrate for the benefit of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, and as a project to build an encyclopedia. The 2004 election is a matter of supreme indifference to me. Wikipedia will no doubt still have an article on Kerry when he is dead and relegated to history. Martin 22:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "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."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me sevral days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are referring to these edits: [1] and [2].

I note that this material is (as of this moment) present on the Evidence page. I understand therefore that this particular matter is resolved. Martin 22:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is as important...

(to Martin) as you say it is to you, why do the Arbitrators let Neutrality run hog wild?

He curses people on article talk pages (me)
He taunts people on their personal talk pages (me)
He recently reverted John Kerry 9 times in one day - and not for vandalism
He has a misleading user name [3]
He deletes people's evidence (mine)
etc., etc., etc.

Rex071404 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor possessed of infinite time and patience. Martin 17:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I object to the involvement of Raul654. "I think that my involvement was small enough that I can judge this case fairly. →Raul654 07:32, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)" I don't agree with that from my observation of his behaviour on The Wikipedia.WikiUser 20:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Based on this user's past history on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, I think this is merely an attempt to sow Dragon's teeth. →Raul654 20:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Does User:Wikiuser have specific examples of concern regarding Raul654's impartiality towards Rex or other parties to this particular dispute? Wolfman 05:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object to the personal abuse against me above by Raul654. He's got no right to make up a lie about me and post it in an attempt to goad me. It's tytpical behaviour though of him and his chums and it proves my point about him again. And he'd better stop posting mesages and pretending they were posted by me.WikiUser 20:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- (A) I copied your comment to this talk page, and as I was removing it from the article itself, you edit conflicted with me. (B) To answer wolfman's question - no, it's a baseless charge, and it's fairly obvious this user is a troll attempting to create an issue where none exists, by making grandious and baseless charges. →Raul654 20:44, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like people to note the typical authoritarian "You can not say something I don't like, or have a view I don't like" comment by this user. Typical of him and the arbitrators. Re his "(A)": he did not post a quoyte from but, as I already said, posted it so it looked as if it was a post FROM ME. Re his "(B") it ia personal abuse to call me a liar and a troll and all the other goading nonsense. The record shows- He said ""I think that my involvement was small enough that I can judge this case fairly." I merely said I didn't agree: "I don't agree with that from my observation of his behaviour on The Wikipedia." Fair comment. Now we're not even allowed to have a view or open our mouths at all. According to the mighty "arbitrators"!WikiUser 20:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, you have no specific complaints about his impartiality in this particular case. Wolfman 03:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex's departure

I somehow wonder if Rex is deliberately leaving until the election is over in order to circumvent the proposed decision upon Rex and the others involved in the case (see Enforcement point 1.5). [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:36, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Rex hasn't left. He just voted on Neutrality's adminship. Gamaliel 07:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And right under our noses as well! [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:01, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention with a second identity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy on main page

This subhead, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404#Retaliatory_vandalism, is duplicated on the main page; can any User correct this on the precedent page, or is this the province of the Committee? Thank you. nobs 02:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]