Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rex071404

In response to Cecropia's outside view, I humbly disagree. It does span multiple articles, because of his repeated harrassment of users who disagree with him. That's where it goes beyond an article dispute, and becomes a user dispute. I'd also suggest that his continued ranting on Talk:John Kerry makes it a user dispute.

I've tried repeatedly to discuss the article with Rex, and I've usually received a half-shouting reply suggesting that how dare I disagree with him. As I said to Cecropia earlier, and also on Talk:John Kerry, I don't disagree that the current article has POV problems, but Rex's version was far worse, and reflected his stated hatred of Kerry.

While he may have apologised for his rude behaviour on Cecropia's user page, he has not done the same for mine, or any of the numerous other users mentioned in this RfC. I would also disagree that the examples given take the form of "we're right and you're wrong, so get with the program." Two of the three examples (both of which were completely ignored) are from people from outside of the parties to this dispute, warning him in relation to his behaviour here - Sam Spade and Karada.

Furthermore, I question what Cecropia is trying to prove with the section from Neutrality's talk page. At this point, I'd spent several days dealing with this user, and getting absolutely nowhere. As had numerous other editors, as mentioned in the RfC itself. With that comment on his user page, I was simply inquiring of the other parties to the dispute as to whether that was the best course of action. They agreed that it was, and thus, here we are.

That said, I do agree that we need to set up a temp page to hash this out - preferably with some outside assistance, and someone prepared to do extensive research into Kerry's whole involvement with VVAW. We need to find a middle ground between the current version, which at times reads like "other people allege this, but it's all a load of rubbish", and Rex's, which distinctly implied that Kerry had something to do with, or implicitly supported, a plan to assassinate US senators, and had a pervasive anti-Kerry bent right through it.. Ambivalenthysteria 08:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think more effort should be made to engage Rex to bring him in line. My comment about Neutrality's talk page wasn't to dispute your posting, but the "bring it on" response. I don't see any indication that editors on Kerry have done anything substantial in terms of Rex's comments, except to revert, with the exception that they replaced the section on VVAW, which was a short shrug-off with a long and detailed shrug-off.

I am also conscious that Neutrality has behaved similarly on George W. Bush and then brought up VeryVerily on charges. So far on that "user" dispute, most agree with my summary.

As to the article itself, I am not an active editor and don't have a strong feeling about a specific solution except that it should be a lot more NPOV than it is now. As to needing an "outside person," this wouldn't be necessary if anyone had simply followed the links I suggested or Neutrality's own Google search beyond the first page. We don't have to come to a "bottom line" (was-wsn't) but report fairly what mainstream newspapers have reported. This isn't rocket science. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Despite the best efforts of Cecropia and Rex to paint Rex as a poor innocent country boy victimized by us cynical city folk, the record is clear on Talk:John Kerry and the talk pages of myself, Neutrality, Ambivalenthysteria, Gzornenplatz, etc. Both of them throw out accusations of bias, lying, whitewashing, etc., impugning our motives and then accuse us of baiting them. We've been accused of ignoring discussion and merely reverting repeatedly, but this is simply a lie. Look at the edit history, every single edit I've made to the disputed section is different as I repeatedly tried to craft a compromise version, efforts dismissed with a wave of the hand and accusations from them of bias.

A recent comment by Rex on Talk:John Kerry encapsulates this nicely I think: "You do search corpses for empty roecket launchers if you are a phoney opportunist who expects to be going home real soon and you are trophy hunting..." I think it's clear that Rex is not interested in neutrality, balance, and compromise but instead wants to shout down those who disagree as loudly as he can. Gamaliel 16:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You think that because you want to think that. Have you bothered to try to look at the core of this dispute which is my frustration that the pro-Kerry squad keeps reverting on a wholsale basis, 100% factual, well sourced links to items about Kerry, simply because they don't want them in the article.... What's the matter, can't you handle the truth? Where is the NPOV in that?

Rex071404 17:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that anything which is 100% factual and well sourced ought to be in the article? There are many grounds to object to something's inclusion beyond whether or not it is true. In this case, relevance would be the motivating factor. john k 17:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see, from your perspective, 100% true information that indicates serious flaws in the character and truthfulness of a man who is a leading candidate for President, is not relevant. But endless minutae about his personal life and his abbreviated four month tour of duty in Vietnam, is?.....

Rex071404 17:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Kenney: Are you saying that anything which is 100% factual and well sourced ought to be in the article? Are you honestly serious? You concede this may be 100% factual and well-sourced and you think it can be left out? The VVAW was Kerry's key to political recognition. It launched his political career. Before VVAW he was an unknown. Less than a decade after he left, he was a United States Senator. The circumstances of his leaving the organization (when and how) are obviously of importance.

I'm not painting Rex as poor innocent anything. He needs to learn how we deal with others on Wikipedia. I've defended other editors I've been at odds with personally. Obviously, I've defended Get-back-world-respect who even recently has followed me around on some pages to question my motives but that I've seen gradually get with the program to become a valued editor. I also have in mind a prominent, long-term and very good editor (172-Abe Sokolov) who has been in disputes with many, including me. There was a movement among a lot of other good editors to ban him as punishment for his behavior. I thought that was counterproductive and said so. 172 has tightened up quite a bit and we've retained one of our most prolific and intelligent editors.

In the instant case, this isn't a matter of defending Rex personally. I don't know him as he is brand new and he may or may not turn out to be a good editor or even stay on Wikipedia. I have no personal stake in Rex. I have explained why the VVAW is relevant and I get shrugged off also. I'm protesting what I see as an increasing tendency to "own" articles by a partisan few and shrug off other perspectives with reverts and now with user actions. How about if we try to make this an article dispute first with input from those not close to the Kerry article and then, if Rex doesn't learn to discuss with a greater degree of calmness and collegility (and others respond in like fashion) we can talk user dispute. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that Rex refuses to compromise in the least bit. The primary issue for most of the "Kerry sycophants" (as he has described anyone who disagrees with him on this) is primarily the relevance of including copious details about a meeting some 30 odd years ago that Kerry may or may not have attended in an organization that he quit at about the same time anyway. Secondarily, it is about how such facts should be presented in the article. Certainly there are some facts that could be presented, but Rex seems intent on forcing an interpretation that is as negative as possible for Kerry. Other editors have tried to compromise and include some mention of the meeting with what little actual facts are known, but Rex seems to be intent on drawing out the trail of circumstantial evidence to damn Kerry by association. Rex continually presents his argument as "irrefutable facts" and refuses to acknowledge that he is spinning a story just as much as anyone involved. His spin is to attribute the absolutely worst, most base motives to Kerry as the explanation for any inconsistencies in Kerry's many years of public life. And the main reason this is worth consideration at RFC is that he uses derogatory labels for anyone who disagrees with his version (labels which certainly border on, and which perhaps are explicitly, personal attacks--but which are definitely contrary to the spirit of Wikiquette). older≠wiser 19:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The truth on the Kerry meeting is in between. Absent the sound and fury the editors insisting on shrugging off the event are every bit as biased and stubborn as Rex. By making this all about Rex we are allowing a whitewash of an incident as important as many old incidents in the Bush article. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between disagreeing about the substance and bad behavior (and I agree that some on the other side of this disagreement have not always displayed exemplary behavior). Even though many dismiss the event as insignificant, several have been willing to include some mention of it and have tried to work towards an acceptable wording. But from what I have seen, Rex refuses to accept anything other than his version. And dismissing any expression of disagreement with Rex's self-proclaimed "100% truth" as a whitewash is unfair. I am not familiar with the past edits and discussions of the Bush articles, but simply because there may have been unfair edits in that article does not excuse uncivil behavior or unfair edits in this article. older≠wiser 20:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please be aware, I have not commented on the substance of Rex's "100% truth" when talking about whitewash. I am talking about the version he was protesting, and the new expanded version, which is also a whitewash. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From my vantage point, it appears that the editors who keep deleting my 100% accurate facts about Kerry, have in mind a form of "compromise" which madates that links to mainstream, verified, accurate (albeit, not positive for Kerry) news reports MUST be deleted. This logic is absurd! If Kerry were an ax-murderer, would we be forced to remove links about this, simply because it's not nice? The simple fact remains that NOT ONE of the persons complaining has made even the SLIGHTEST effort refute the true facts I have posted from ABC News and NY Times about Kerry. Is everyone here so fixated with "process" (ie; "users") that they can't recognize true "content" (ie; "pages")?

Rex071404 19:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, if Kerry were an ax-murderer, it would stay, because the content would be much more directly relevant. However, if a friend of a friend of Kerry's was an ax murderer twenty years ago then it would not. No one is disputing, I believe, that there was a meeting and that stuff was said. Many people are disputing, however, what relevance, if any, this has to Kerry. Ambivalenthysteria 20:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

However Kerry is, I am persuaded, an obfuscating waffler who dissembles and changes his story over time to suit the current state of his career. I have followed his career close up for many years (I am in Massachusetts) and I am NOT a Republican. Rather, I am an Independant (in the parlance of MA, it's called "unenrolled", ie; no party affiliation - simply am registered to vote). The pro-Kerry people only THINK I am biased against him due to politics. I am not biased and not due to politics. Rather, it's Kerry hideous waffling and dissembling over the years that concerns me and the few points in his BIO which I have focused on, if presnted factually, allow anyone who cares to look with an open mind the oppotunity to see that as well. It's regrettable you ddon;t see that... Rex071404 20:32, 30 Jul 2004 (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 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 20:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to Cecropria

Four points:

1. This RfC is not about me, it is about Rex. Go start another RfC if you want to complain about me, or take it up with Arbcom. I will be happy to respond to any charge you bring aganist me.
2. This user has harassed me and others, and has spammed/insulted me and others on multiple talk pages, yet others continue to believe that all users involved in an edit dispute have equal validity to their claims, and that all trolls are equivalent to established users. I understand the importance of not biting the newcomers, but Rex has been warned repeatedly by MANY users.
3. Even when I called a vote, and tried to nail down what specific part of the article you disagreed with, you refused to give a single suggestion or specificity.
4. Also, note that I was not the one who started this RfC nor the second, third, or even fourth certifier, and yet Cecropria continues to portray me as the originator behind the dispute. S/he points to the George W. Bush dispute as "proof" that I am some type of "POV warrior." Not only is this irrelevant to the John Kerry article, it is also misleading. I did nothing wrong, and only reverted the wholesale changes that VeryVerily made against clear consensus that was voted on at Talk:George W. Bush.--Neutrality 21:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counterpoints to Neutrality

1. I am not taking a position that Rex's behavior is appropriate, but I see the use of user actions as an inappropriate way of avoiding dealing with a biased article. In addition to his rantings, Rex also presented extensive material in support of his rants, and those points have all been shrugged off. The current section is ridiculous.
2. As a question, what do you hope to accomplish by this RfC. Everyone agree Rex is bad? Chase him away? What?
3. I point out again, I have not been active in this article or GWB for quite some time. I have a special interest in Kerry vis-a-vis the VVAW because I was a Vietnam Vet who happened to be at the 1971 march (but not as a member), and took an interest in Kerry because of it. I know how he was viewed and am well aware of the zeitgeist of the era. I presented a number of links to follow in the hope other editors would correct the article, as well as specific reasons why this is an important issue. I am sorry to have allowed myself to be drawn into this and don't want to have to continue to repeat the same points over and over to have them ignored.
4. I am sorry to have to repeat once again that consensus is useless in dealing with factual material when the bulk of the editors on Wikipedia are anti-Bush and pro-Kerry as indicated by the thrust of each article. The national consensus is almost painfully evenly divided between Bush and Kerry on substantive issues (75% of US voters recently said that the outcome of the election will make a big difference no matter who they prefer) and this is hardly represented here. Unless half the voters are fools Bush isn't so obviously bad and Kerry so obviously good as the articles suggest.
5. To ask why I don't bring you up on RfC shows you don't acknowledge my point at all. I think RfC is the wrong way to deal with users. I think you (Neutrality) have the makings of a fine editor, but I think you give your feelings too much free rein in article space. I thought you were correcting that, but now I have my doubts. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Second Response to Cecropia

• "In addition to his rantings, Rex also presented extensive material in support of his rants, and those points have all been shrugged off."
  • What do you think about this proposal for the disputed section: John Kerry/Neutrality? What exactly is wrong with that section?

It's too long. It's too wishy-washy. It softens this up too much.

Rex071404 02:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• As a question, what do you hope to accomplish by this RfC. Everyone agree Rex is bad? Chase him away? What?
  • To establish some sort of community agreement on the matter, and if needed, to present this to ArbCom at a later date.
• I point out again, I have not been active in this article or GWB for quite some time. I have a special interest in Kerry vis-a-vis the VVAW because I was a Vietnam Vet who happened to be at the 1971 march (but not as a member), and took an interest in Kerry because of it. I know how he was viewed and am well aware of the zeitgeist of the era. I presented a number of links to follow in the hope other editors would correct the article, as well as specific reasons why this is an important issue. I am sorry to have allowed myself to be drawn into this and don't want to have to continue to repeat the same points over and over to have them ignored.
  • This is an important issue. Many users want to take the entire section out, and I disagree with them. I want an unbiased section, too.
• I am sorry to have to repeat once again that consensus is useless in dealing with factual material when the bulk of the editors on Wikipedia are anti-Bush and pro-Kerry as indicated by the thrust of each article. The national consensus is almost painfully evenly divided between Bush and Kerry on substantive issues (75% of US voters recently said that the outcome of the election will make a big difference no matter who they prefer) and this is hardly represented here. Unless half the voters are fools Bush isn't so obviously bad and Kerry so obviously good as the articles suggest.
  • The political opinions of Wikipedias are irrelevant. They weren't voting on who they think would be a President, but on which version they thought was the most NPOV.
• To ask why I don't bring you up on RfC shows you don't acknowledge my point at all. I think RfC is the wrong way to deal with users. I think you (Neutrality) have the makings of a fine editor, but I think you give your feelings too much free rein in article space. I thought you were correcting that, but now I have my doubts. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My feelings do not own me. I wrote an unbiased piece on the medal controversy, I wrote an unbiased piece on George W. Bush's popularity, I wrote an unbiased piece on the Kerry's military service, and if Rex will let me, I can write an unbiased piece on this. But it seems nobody is interested in compromise or voting, but only on branding people.--Neutrality 22:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counterpoint to Neutrality

Even the mere fact that you so doggedly insist that your writing (and only your writing) on these disputed sections has been "unbiased" shouts out loudly as to how profoundly biased you indeed are.

But since you want to write, why don't you write a sample 'Medal Toss' one and a sample '1971 VVAW'and post them here. I will do the same and we will see if we can merge them into something we all can accept.

Further, if you were to reflect on this and also your immediately above comments; the ones wherein you imply that I am a "troll" and that you are somehow more 'equal' because you are established, I suggest that therein is the crux of why you have kept at the task of deleting my posts to those sections, even though at one point in the middle of this your talk page said you were going to stop... the crux of this is that your pride has been wounded by me, the new guy who trampled on your flower bed of fulsome praise for Kerry.

The simple truth remains that I have delivered a rational summary of documented facts. The only bona-fide dispute is than certain people don't like my editorial tone. It is incontrovertable that ABC News and NY Times did in fact report those stories which I have linked to.

You aren't telling me that you feel your mind is too weak to craft a truthful article that you'd accept, but one which does indeed referrence to my links, are you?

If so, perhaps you are not up to the task of having reversion power and/or being an editor. Perhaps you would be more comfortable reverting yourself to troll status.

That is what you implied I am, is it not?

Rex071404 22:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok everybody, even the current VVAW web site seems to strongly imply that Kerry did NOT quit in July, 1971

In fact, the VVAW themselves could be properly interpreted to back up PRECISELY what I have been saying which is: Kerry was still active with VVAW sometime into 1972.

FYI: Read this!

Rex071404 02:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It says "by 1972" Kerry had moved on. I would normally parse that as equivalent to "at some point before 1972". It's essentially ambiguous phrasing.67.180.24.204 03:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And this is why the word "by" was carefully chosen, If they were willing to say what you are now thinking, they would have said it. However, they did not, because they know it's not true. Kerry left no sooner than Jan. 26th, 1972 as evidenced by a NY Times article I have linked to in the disscusion which is going on (and also linked to below). Remember, it's also true to say that by 1970, the Beatles had broken up. Of course it was Dec 31st, 1970 that McCartney sued the other three for dissolution of the group and that was the beginning point of the final break up. Same with Kerry, it's not enough that he simply drifted away from VVAW, what matters is when he actually stopped saying he was with them. Kerry was still saying to NY Times on 1/26/72 that he was a VVAW leader. Rex071404 07:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Just out of curiousity, can someone locate for me where to find the policy behind this statement that's on the top of the project page -- I can't seem to track it down:

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)