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)