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)

I, Rex071404, contend, complain and charge as follows:

1. These listed editors have abused the Wiki process by bringing an Arbitration complaint against me prior to exhausting attempts at dialog, so as to silence the one strong dissenting voice on John Kerry.
2. Neutrality in particular, in light of his knowledge of and familiarity with Wiki methods, could easily have taken a less confrontational approach with me than he has.

About Neutrality in particular, I contend:

1. He has left multiple false and misleading edit summaries, while reverting me.
2. He has engaged in a pattern and practice of doing John Kerry related reverts to me, virtually every time I edit that page.
3. He has far exceeded the reasonable limits on both acrimony and edit/revert wars against me that a skilled Wikpedian should.
4. He has gone out of his way to stir up animosity against me rather than try to reduce it.
5. He steadfastly refuses to dialog with me on John Kerry talk towards the goal of reducing our edit conflicts.
6. He follows me around the Wiki, wrongly deleting my comments (without so much as a talk page notification)

Against Wolfman, I additionally complain as follows:

1. He makes mocking, snide edit summaries and talk page comments
2. He is very harsh and aggressive in his approach to me
3. He violates the "3-revert rule"

These charges were updated by me just now - Rex071404 03:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comes now Rex071404 and adds to his cross-complaint, the party Bkonrad, citing this reason: Personal attacks.

Initial evidence:

Please see this and this

Rex071404 17:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First, I'm honored to be included with the other persons that Rex071404 has listed cross-complaints against. I don't really see much to respond to at this point. Rex071404 wrote something that I thought was preposterous nonsense (and still do) and pointed this out. Rex071404 was offended by this. What can I say? I have no control over what Rex071404 takes offense over. I do not feel I said anything that constitutes a personal attack on Rex071404. If the arbcom or anyone else feels otherwise, please let me know. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 18:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Update: I see Rex has finally actually brought a charge against me. As to that, I refer you to the dispute in question from Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Archive 2#Media Bias down through the next couple sections focusing on his NPOV tag. It would have seemed rather logical to include the SwiftVets page in the initial injuncion, as the most contentious material from the John Kerry dispute was moved there after Rex's ban. Wolfman 04:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a place to respond to the Cross-Complaint or to comment on the arbitration request more generally. So, I'll just respond to the Complaint as the arbitration request is already pretty detailed.

The only complaint I see here against me specifically is that I signed on to a request for arbritration. That's true. I stand by that.

Rex also generally alleges a lack of dialogue before arbitration. I disagree. A quick look through the acres of discussion on Talk:John Kerry shows why. See in particular the August archives 1 & 2 (from when I was editing).

As to the 5 complaints by Rex against Neutrality in particular, I disagree. Yes, I suppose everyone could be a bit more diplomatic and patient. But, in my view, Neutrality's behavior has generally been quite reasonable and often commendable. I'm not aware of any misleading edit summaries by Neutrality -- a couple obvious jokes aside. I'm also not aware of Neutrality reverting Rex without good cause.

One last thing, I stumbled over the cross-compaint almost by accident. It might be nice to leave a note on the user's discussion page if a complaint is filed against them. Wolfman 08:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the only complaint against me is my role in bringing the complaint against Rex. In general, the bringing of a frivolous complaint could reasonably be grounds for a complaint. In this particular instance, however, the support on the ArbCom for the complaint shows that it wasn't frivolous or even premature. I've already summarized the other steps that were tried first. I won't burden the ArbCom with a detailed backup of that history (specific edits, etc.) unless one of the members asks me to do so. I note that what I've written here in my own defense is also true of Gamaliel and Wolfman, but the latter seems to have dropped out or changed his user name, so he may not know of Rex's cross-complaint against him. JamesMLane 21:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry has screens and screens and screens worth of archived talk. There has been nothing but dialogue on every tedious point.

I have no wish to silence a strong dissenting voice. I do wish to silence a voice which has nothing but insults and contempt for people who disagree. Rex can be the former if he choses to stop being rude and starts to adhere to rules for normal civil conduct. He has chosen to be the latter, and he should suffer the consequences of that choice. Gamaliel 17:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

• 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 least 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.

• 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 his actions based on an 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 process 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 dialog and I always repsond. This cannot be said about several 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 some 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 complainingg 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 backed 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)

I, Rex071404, hereby withdraw any and all cross complaints and/or counter complaints I have lodged in the course of this particular proceeding. It is not my goal nor desire to see harm or sanctions be placed on others and for that reason, I hereby cease to request sanctions against any whom I have complained about in this proceeding. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:07, 10 Sep 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)
5. Recuse. →Raul654 23:13, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Rex071404 is banned from editing the pages John Kerry; John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004; and John Kerry VVAW controversy until the final decision is made in this matter. This is based on his churning of the article over petty matters as well as repeated efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view as illustrated by these edits: [1], [2], [3] ; [4], [5], [6] and [7]

6 out of 9 active arbitrators voted to accept this order as of 24 August 2004 - no votes against.

Principles

Findings of Fact

Remedies

Enforcement