Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:24, 27 Jul 2004), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Rex071404 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.
 * Description:
 * User:Rex071404, in clear contravention of established principles of Wikiquette, consensus-building and NPOV, has consistently inserted biased material into John Kerry, resulting in the eventual protection of the page. After being reverted numerous times by Jgm, Snoyes, Bkonrad and Etaoin as an anon, he got an account. Additionally, he was warned by Karada for not "playing nicely with other users."
 * He never uses edit summaries, even when reverting, and has violated the three-revert rule each day since registering a Wikipedia account. He has also repeatedly posted abusive messages on the talk pages of users Gzornenplatz, Gamaliel, Neutrality, myself, and even Cecropia, apparently before he realised that the latter was on his side. This user clearly hates Kerry, and this has been reflected in practically all of his edits on this site. He regularly "SHOUTS," even after being asked not to, and has posted extended rants about Kerry and those who disagree with his edits on Talk:John Kerry, which has had the effect of largely drowning out attempts by Neutrality, myself, and on the other side of the argument, Cecropia, at resolving this dispute.
 * I've provided four diffs here, but I could easily provide more. Gamaliel's talk page is yet another example of his harassment of a user, while that user tries to work out issues with him in a much more calm tone..


 * Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Applicable policies:
 * NPOV
 * Talk page
 * No personal attacks


 * Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
 * 
 * 
 * on Talk:John Kerry
 * (once again, I could find more, but I believe this illustrates the point)


 * Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~ ):
 * Ambivalenthysteria 07:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Gzornenplatz 07:34, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel 07:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * I disagree with Cecropia on this one. Rex needs to learn how to play nicely with others. older &ne; wiser 12:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * john k 16:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Kevin Baas | talk 17:56, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC) Re "learning the ropes": it's not a matter of ropes here, it's a matter of getting along with others; working cooperatively.
 * Neutrality 21:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * GeneralPatton 09:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Lacrimosus 09:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wolfman 08:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Lyellin 08:28, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) I believe I could actually certify this, but I'm not sure of the policies.
 * 172 17:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.


 * I am new here and none of these complaining persons have tried to help me learn the ropes. Rather, what has occured at John Kerry is the wholsale reversion of well sourced facts simply because pro-Kerry editors don't want it in. I am ready willing and able to learn the ropes. Who among you can show you've made any kind of effort to help me not blunder? By the way, I am the one who 1st opened this "Rfc" link, but did not know that I was supposed to comment 1st (see my other comments below). As a result, the comments made above me have improperly framed the issue as me being the problem. But that is not the case, the problem is the wholsale reversions of a controversal topic by the more exerienced Wikis who refuse to address the facts and refuse to dialog. All they want to do is complain about my approach. However none of them have addressed the truthfulness of the factual basis for my postings.

Before you leap to conclusions about revelancce, please lay out some criteria for measuring it. If not, you are just giving us your opinion. That is how we arrived at paragraph after paragraph of glowing BIO information about Kerry.

But everyone is jumping on me for drawing attention to the FACT that Kerry keps changing his story about notable episodes in the timeline of his life. So them since some off you still don't get it, here it is again:

How do you expect a full spectrum of people to want to participate in (or even read) this Wiki if all the long-timers do is leap to conclusions about how to hound new people who disagree with them into leaving.

For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose whole raison d'etre in this race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America. If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow. What good is it if you people keep censoring it?
 * Rex071404 20:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If anyone takes the time to read all the edits made to John Kerry, they would see that there is clearly a pro-Liberal editorial staff staked out there and that certain more experienced Wikis are trying to shift the focus away from the true facts I have been posting there, to the regrettable blunders I have made as a new user.


 * Please take note: Each and every Wiki who presonally pointed out my blunders to me in a polite way, has indeed received an apology.


 * I made mistakes in my editing, but not in my reporting - the facts I have posted are true and verifiable from rreliable sources.


 * Still, I am in favor of dropping the SHOUTING, but the pro-Kerry crowd ought to stop throwing their weight around and start adressing the true facts I have posted from reliable sources such as ABC News and New York Times.


 * By the way, I was the one who originally posted this this "Rfc" and due to my ignorance, should have made the 1st comment, but didn't. I am complaining about the pro-Kerry crowd's unjustified reversal of my 100% factual postings about Kerry. They made no efffort to resolve their complaints about tone, they simply delete me on a wholesale bassis.
 * Rex071404 15:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Once again, we have an article dispute showing up as a user dispute. As a matter of principle I oppose using RfC against individual editors unless the activity is really egregious and spans multiple articles showing the problem is the user, not the article. Rex071404 is new here and has been quite aggressive, it's true (remember we advise newbies to "Be Bold" then jump all over them when they are), but he is trying to move an article that hsa been, IMO, unreasonably POV in favor of Kerry, and has provided a lot of evidence to support himself that other editors have simply shrugged off and reverted.

I note that this behavior on the part of some has also turned up as a user dispute here against VeryVerily concerning the George W. Bush article, another article where Neutrality has been reverting. I'm starting to get the impression that some editors are bating people they don't agree with uncommented reversion en masse and then supporting user actions once the people have been provoked enough, without making a real effort to deal with the user in compromise.

I also note these comments on User talk:Neutrality:

==John Kerry==
 * I've had enough of this. What would you think about filing a RfC? Ambivalenthysteria 12:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And now he's threatened User:Gzornenplatz as well. Ambivalenthysteria 12:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've got Rex ranting on my talk page too. What fun. Gamaliel 21:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. Bring it up with RfC and/or ArbCom. Neutrality 21:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not a game. The examples given so far of trying to resolve the dispute seem to consist of "we're right and you're wrong, so get with the program." This is hardly the collegiality Wikipedia is supposed to promote. It happens Rex snapped at me on my user page. I explained what I did, explained Wikipedia policy, and showed him the right thing to do with an example. He apologized.

My suggested solution is to reject this, set up an alternate page (/Temp or /Draft) to hash out an agreed version, and post a link on RfC article disputes to get other user input. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Users agreeing with this perspective:
 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 08:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) Endorsing own summary.
 * 2) Sam [Spade] 06:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
Once again, Cecropia argues that this is an article dispute rather than a user dispute. That is not the case. There was hardly "uncommented reversion". The talk page shows that many users have calmly responded to Rex's points, not at all "we're right and you're wrong", which rather describes Rex's stance. The fact simply is that everyone other than Cecropia and Rex himself more or less agree that, in Ambivalenthysteria's words, "this seems to be an attempt at smearing through guilt-by-association". People have offered compromises, but Rex is not moving one inch and keeps restoring his version. Gzornenplatz 09:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * An similarly those opposing Rex have simply reverted, refusing to acknowledge any of his points in the article itself. Having a bunch of pro-Kerry people shrugging off something that might loom large (with Kerry's other VVAW activities) in a Presidential campaign is hardly responsive. There is a frustration factor, especially for a new user. As to article vs. user dispute, the agreement is going with me in the VV case. -- Cecropia | Talk 09:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Please don't insult other editors like that. I'm not pro-Kerry, I'm pro-accuracy, and I consider this whole "assassination" thing as a red herring that has nothing to do with Kerry and can only be intended as a smear by anti-Kerry people. This was explained by several people on the talk page, it wasn't "shrugged off". I'm afraid it's you letting your own POV get the better of you here. Gzornenplatz 09:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * By what standard of proof or evidence have you "considered" this to be a "red-herring"? One big point at issue here is how various pro-Kerry people put in what is essentially glowing Kerry campaign BIO details, but leap to expunge well sourced facts that make Kerry look bad. Of course this stuff make Kerry look bad, because it is bad! Tossing your medals away and lying about it makes you a fraud. Knowingly associating with persons planning a crime makes you a conspirator or at the very least, an accessory. Kerry, as a licensed attorney knows this. You want this information - even though it comes from NY Times and ABC News - kept out because it's true, it guts Kerry's credibilty and you know it. The Wiki readers are entitled to have the full story on these two topics so they can draw their own conclusions. You are advocating censorship!
 * Rex071404 16:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It has been said multiple times, by the party defending the persistence of disputed section(s?) on the kerry page, that these sections are campaign-oriented material. Well then they should be on the campaign page, not the Kerry page.  That's pretty straightforward, NPOV, and consistent with all other political person articles. Kevin Baas | talk 17:43, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to drag this page out here, but precisely why its a red herring, and not NPOV, has been gone over countless times on the Kerry talk page. Indeed, two more people, previously not involved, have also pointed this out since I posted this yesterday. However, that is beside the point. This is a user dispute, not an article dispute - I'm more concerned with his behaviour on user talk pages, and Talk:John Kerry than anything else. For that matter, I believe his statement directly above shows his bias against Kerry. Ambivalenthysteria 19:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason this comes down to an article dispute is because there is a tit-for-tat here in the bahvior of other editors on the Kerry page. I also can't treat this in isolation of what is going on on the GWB page, where there is a "user" dispute against VeryVerily, brought by Neutralty, who has been reverting on both articles apparently as an instrument of getting his version. On GWB the issue of consensus is brought up, but in order to achieve consensus on a disputed article, you need neutral editors. "Neutrality" should be brought up on a user dispute for his behavior on both articles, but I'm trying to follow a principle here. I'm disturbed that editors on some articles don't seem to be content with controlling most of the content, but want a veto on any content that displeases them, and then bringing user actions against those that defy them. If the editors who are in denial about the importance of certain of Kerry's actions weren't so bull-headed, this might not have escalated to this point. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the GWB dispute has to do with this one. To my knowledge, Neutrality is the only one, to my knowledge, who is a party to both. And as I said on Cecropia's talk page, I disagree that this user action "was brought because he defied" anyone on content. For if that was the case, someone would be taking action against Cecropia, who holds exactly the same POV. But no one is doing that, as there is no issue with his/her conduct. Ambivalenthysteria 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I will allow that I may not be making my point well enough. My complaint is not whether or not Rex's behavior is proper. My complaint is that an important dispute on an issue of fact is being stonewalled on both sides of the issue, and focusing on a user dispute is merely reinforcing the failure to remove real bias on the article page. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that the two can be dealt with concurrently. Ambivalenthysteria 20:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * User and article disputes should be kept separate, so that confusion and bias is not introduced into the dispute. I concur with Ambivalenthysteria: the problem is that multiple article disputes remain unresolved and apparently unresolvable.  The problem seems to lie, not with the issue of the article and the arguments put forth, but rather the attitude and behavior of a single individual - not with his views or beliefs, but with his method of interacting with others in a dispute: it does not work towards resolution, but rather obstructs it.  This is the contention.  This is the contention put forth and supported by the clear majority of those bearing witness, and it is the subject of this request, as specifically elaborated by those concerned.  They have every right to be so concerned and to voice their concern.  You have no right to defer/displace their concerns in defense of your personal motives - that is tacitly suggesting that their thoughts should be a slave to yours, which is clearly unjust.  However, you have every right to voice your independant concerns independantly; post another RfC.  The initiator of the RfC alone determines whether it is an article or a user dispute and it is ipso facto thus. Kevin Baas | talk 20:43, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

How do you expect a full spectrum of people to want to participate in (or even read) this Wiki if all the long-timers do is leap to conclusions about how to hound new people who disagree with them into leaving.

Before you leap to conclusions about revelancce, please lay out some criteria for measuring it. If not, you are just giving us your opinion. That is how we arrived at paragraph after paragraph of glowing BIO information about Kerry.

But everyone is jumping on me for drawing attention to the FACT that Kerry keps changing his story about notable episodes in the timeline of his life. So them since some off you still don't get it, here it is again:

For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose whole raison d'etre in this race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America. If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow. What good is it if you people keep censoring it? Rex071404 20:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.