Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2

Case Closed on 16 Nov 2004

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.

Statement of complaint

Rex071404 has deliberately and maliciously modified the comments of other users in an deliberate attempt to distort the meaning of their comments. In addition, he has deliberately changed vote tallies to distort the VfD process. Furthermore, he has done so with the knowledge that this was improper, on multiple pages to multiple users. Rex continued this even after being warned several times. I request that the Arbitration Commit impose some form of disciplinary action on Rex.

Also, please note that this request is distinct and separate from other matters currently in Arbitration that involve Rex. Evidence can be found at /Evidence; a copy of this complaint can be found at Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2. Thanks.

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[Editor's note: I moved the proto-request page to /Temp, and have fixed the above from the original; please do not create case pages prematurely. James F. (talk) 11:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments

[Re: Fred's comment]

He has only apologized for changing the comments of others on his userpage. He has not apologized for changing the vote tallies on VfD [1]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see [2] Fred Bauder 01:01, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

To be quite frank, Rex is lying [3] He put an "etc." at the end, which clearly indicates that what he did was not accidental. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I concur that Rex's statement of a "typo" is utterly incredible. Look at the edit cited on the evidence page. Fred's endorsement of Rex's claim of a "typo" give me no confidence in his neutrality on this matter. He should be recused.

That is a farce of an apology. If Rex apologized in a manner resembling what VV has suggested, I would quickly rescind my endorsement, but with this farce, I am unmoved. Kevin Baas | talk 03:12, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

What is being suspected as Rex's motives here? Was he allegedly trying to "fool" the admin who carried out the deletion into thinking there were ten invisible Keep votes? VV 20:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note that Rex still does not admit that his edit on VfD was not an error. This "Alford plea" is just as much a sham "apology" as the last one. As an interesting sidebar, an interesting article: [4]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk) _PP!]] 20:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We are not concerned with Rex's motives - they are irrelevant. Althought I would not use as strong wording as N., I am in agreement with him in that I still don't find this apology sufficient, for reasons including the preposterous "error" explanation. I think Rex has to be willing to give up some face and also explain his loss-of-restraint (without accusing) before people will be willing to accept his apology. People understand we're all human. Kevin Baas | talk 18:06, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

I, Rex071404, fully apologize for the intentional insult(s) I made against others on my personal talk page recently. It was wrong. I should not have done it. It will not happen again.

Separately, I apologize to this Wiki, the Aribtrators and all others concerned for my grossly inexcusable edit which resulted in vote "tally" inaccuracies. Though I do stand by my defense of "harmless, inadvertant error" on that, even so, I acknowledge and accept that far greater care must be exercized by me prior to pressing the "save page" button. Therefore, I withdraw my "not guilty" plea on this and change my plea to "admit to sufficient facts" (Alford plea). I concede that my action therein has needlessly disrupted the operational continuity of this Wiki and I accept whatever punishment(s) the arbitrators see fit to mete out. Unless requested by the Arbitrators to do so, I will offer no further defense of my edit on the "6 vs 16" [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My explanation is simple: I did intend the "etc.", but not the "16". I was goofing with my edits - I did not realize that I had pressed "save page" with the "16" still in my text. Under no conditions would I think that changing that number could have been gotten away with. Had I noticed that my goofing resulted in the "16" actually getting posted, I would have deleted it myself. This is why I say it was a "an inadvertant error". It definately was inadvertant and it was an error. I am not saying that I wasn't goofing around, what I am saying is that I did not realize that the "16" had actually been saved. It really is that simple. And this is why I contend it was an error. Having said that, and listening to myself, I can see that goofing around was also wrong. I apologize. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

1. Decline, please consider accepting his apology, also [5] Fred Bauder 00:42, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) Accept, kind of hard to explain the "etc", Fred Bauder 14:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
2. Reluctantly accept -- apologies can cover much if sincere, but this looks like a little too much misbehavior for the kind of apology I see Rex offering. Jwrosenzweig 14:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. James F. (talk) 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Accept. Things don't add up, etc. the Epopt 00:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5. Though I'm outnumbered (looks like we have four to accept), I vote to reject. Martin 20:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)