Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

I, on behalf of Wolfman, JamesMLane, Gamaliel, Gzornenplatz, Lyellin, Neutrality, John Kenney, Bkonrad and myself, hereby file an arbitration request against Rex071404. We seek relief from the personal attacks of Rex071404 in the form of a personal attack parole and a formal injunction against editing the John Kerry page. The behavior that caused this complaint — which has caused Rex to be given a 24-hour ban in the past — is listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence. Ambi 06:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: A total of eleven users supported my Request for comment, as opposed to two for the counter-version. Rex has said mediation is "not ripe at this point." (See RfM). In addition, Rex has been blocked for 24-hours by Snowspinner, which has not seemed to have had much effect.

Supplement to complaint: request for temporary injunction

I join in the complaint and add a specific request that the Committee immediately issue a temporary injunction. I will elaborate on my reasoning and on the supporting facts on the /Evidence page. JamesMLane 08:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This effort is in my view, a blatent attempt to silence a dissenting voice.

there are two issues here, one if which has been mooted by my new approach to inter-editor dialog. The other, is a mater of perspective.

1. 1) Various users have complained about me posting harsh assements or comments on my Edit Summaries or talk page entries. While previously, there was some merit to these complaints, there no longer is, for I have as of at east several days ago, desisted from such entries.

As my name shows, I have been here for lesss than a month and each week, my courtesy to others has grown. There is no rational basis to infer, suggest or anticipate that I will make rude comments about others. I am not doing that and any suggestions that I am, or will is groundless.

1. 2) The rest of these complaints all derive from the fact that I am basically the lone dissenting voice on the John Kerry page. The entire page has been extremely pro-Kerry in it's POV. Virtually every time I make an edit that certain users disagree with, they immediately jump on it and revert it.

Please look at the latest (08.09.04) John Kerry talk page dialog about the Campaign HQ building break-in involving Cameron Kerry. The New York Times article which I am sourcing and linking to clearly states "he and an associate broke into the building where the phone lines were housed".

This statement of fact is unambigious, yet the other editor involved here, keeps reverting me and justifies hi actions based on and older Boston Globe article - and his personal surmise of other, disparate facts.

I fail to see how this other user can simply declare his edits to be superior and superceding - and then even after I supply the information which shows him to be wrong turn round and add to the complaint against me here....

How does allowing such a complaint procesc against me to go forward, contribute to an egalitaran Wiki?

Here in summary, are the facts:

1) I have responded to each and every comment made to and about me. Excepting the few that I may have missed - I always ddialog and I always repsond. This cannot be said about many of those who now complain about me.

2) As demonstrated by my continually improving dialog tone on the John Kerry talk page, I am mindful of the other users wishes to avoid harsh interpersonal comments and I am abiding by it. This too, can not be said about the others. Just yesterday in fact, one of them posted on the John Kerry talk page, this about me: "you are tiresome".

3) The sections of John Kerry text which I have wrangled over have inarguably gotten better since I joined up. Please review the history of the edits on the contested sections and you will see this to be the case. My participation, when blended into the edits made by others has helped hone the text in some areas to an improved state.

I am not sure, beyond this, how to respond, other than to say, on the various comments pages complaingin about me to date as well as on the John Kerry talk page, I have received some support. A review of the various comments sections so far, will reveal this.

For example, just recently, a well known and respected fellow editor, after reviewing in detail - and making copious Talk Page notes, agreed that the facts which I asserted about John Kerry's military medical records were indeed correct: John Kerry, to date, has released only a summary of his military medical records. And yet, until the others would conceed on this point -which they did not do even when I showed them the facts, there was no way to reach consensus on the description of JK's 1st wound. It was only after another editor who has more group recognition back me up and agreed that I am corrrect: "So, after further research, I'm going to have to side with Rex on this point.", that we resolved the edits to that section.

Obviously, since I have no power here, those that do are free to do with me as they wish. However, if the end result desired is an improved John Kerry page, then I should be allowed to stay. I have contributed positively to the end result of that page. And while doing so, have grown in my role. Even so, I leave the decision to you.

Rex071404 14:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

1. Accept - this does look like a case of an overly aggressive user. --mav 08:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. Fred Bauder 12:22, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. Martin 22:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Accept. James F. (talk) 23:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Principles

Findings of Fact

Remedies

Enforcement