Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence/rexlist

Harsh or biased comments made to or about Rex, by others on the John Kerry Talk page

• "I wish you and Rex would actually try to work with us..."

Gamaliel 21:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) [1]

• "I have been harassed the entire time by Rex, who spams my talk page with insults."

Neutrality 05:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) [2]

• "No, the "problem" is that you choose to infer the worst possible motives from any inconsistencies in Kerry's record"

older≠wiser 21:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) [3]

• "I doubt your shrill accusations will encourage anyone else..."

Gamaliel 04:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [4]

• "...quit spamming multiple talk pages with your nonsense..."

Gamaliel 06:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [5]

• "And you aggravatingly argue by nonsequitor."

older≠wiser 23:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) [6]

• "The concept of "an edit truce" is meaningless."

JamesMLane 06:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [7]

• "I think I'm the only one here that openly admits to perferring kerry..."

Lyellin 09:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) [8]

• "If anyone cares, I intend to vote for Kerry..."

JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [9]

• "...time spent trying to reason with Rex seems to be completely wasted."

JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [10]

• "This is not a debate about the facts..."

Lyellin 08:52, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) [11]

• "Rex, your most recent posts validate my conclusion that there's no point trying to reason with you."

JamesMLane 17:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) [12]

• "...don't mind Rex, he insults and belittles just about everyone who says anything remotely critical of his opinions."

older≠wiser 02:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [13]

• "I'll do my best to utterly ignore you in the future."

67.180.24.204 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [14]

• "The rest of what you wrote is so incoherent that I'm not even going to attempt a response."

Neutrality 20:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) [15]

• "When are you going to learn how the Wikipedia works instead of obsessing about the John Kerry page?"

older≠wiser 12:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) [16]

• "Rex, you are certainly not at a loss for words, however your words are often harsh and unreasonable, making it extremely unpleasant to deal with you. You apparently are too busy obsessing over this page (yes, I said it again and it is not an insult) to take an interest in how Wikipedia works and you continue to flout Wikipedia guidelines and when confronted with this plead ignorance due to being a new user. If your "new user" pleas were accompanied by even the tiniest bit of humility (like maybe ratcheting back on the histrionics for a while until you can participate in a non-disruptive manner), would go a long way towards rehabiliating assumption of good faith in your regard. older≠wiser 17:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [17]

• " My current inclination is to request that Rex be banned from editing this article and the other Kerry-related articles."

JamesMLane 06:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [18]

• "...arbitration may be the only answer to prevent periodic reoccurences of this nonsense."

Gamaliel 07:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [19]

• "I get a little punchy in the late hours and I do silly things sometimes, to amuse myself and to lighten up a ponderous argument like this one. I don’t apologize for it. I might if there hadn’t been a constant stream of weird invective coming from you..."

Gamaliel 07:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) [20]

• "I love this. You demand citations and explanations for an obvious joke and then you tell me to “please lighten up”. This is truly theater of the absurd. Gamaliel 08:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [21]

• "Sorry. It's hard to actually build a good article when you're under constant harrassment from Rex.--Neutrality 03:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [22]

• "I realize that you think just about everyone else is at fault and you're the only blameless one. Some of us disagree. JamesMLane 03:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [23]

• "This is an unmitigated disaster. The result of Rex's incessant harassment is that the page has been protected with a nutjob religious screed from an anon user included. Since I can't eliminate that rubbish or do anything else, I'll have to go to work on the Arbitratioin request immediately. I am totally out of patience. JamesMLane 03:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [24]

• "Keep talking like that, Rex, and you'll make an arbitration request quite easy.--Neutrality 05:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [25]

• "I'm not even going to dignify you comments with a response.--Neutrality 14:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [26]

• "My God, you are tiresome. You had two links to the same place in the same sentence, I deleted one. I would have done the same thing to any editor in any article on wikipedia, and I consider it a minor edit under any circumstances. End of story. Gamaliel 18:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [27]

• "I will second the "tiresome" opinion. I'd even go so far as to say tedious. older≠wiser 21:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [28]

• "Let's put aside these distractions about whether the baby Jesus is jealous of someone's finely honed language skills, or whatever it was. The fact is that your attempt to play the wounded innocent just won't fly. The "long-timers" here have been far more polite to you than you've been to us, even though you've given far more provocation for pointed remarks. JamesMLane 23:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [29]

• "...you are engaging in sophistic contortions in an attempt to prove your point."

older≠wiser 17:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [30]

• "The only "lack of sufficient rebuttal to facts I have presented" is in your own mind. You simply refuse to acknowledge when you are engaging in speculative argumentation under the guise of presenting facts (which only you consider to be unambiguous facts). older≠wiser 18:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [31]

• "Furthermore, from now on I will not waste any more time answering such comments. If you want to misread something I say, and triumphantly post your misreading here, you go right ahead. Just don't take my silence as agreement. My thoughts are found in my comments, not in yours. JamesMLane 07:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [32]

• "This one tiny point about the basics of Wikipedia linking policy has taken up an absurd amount of time already, thanks to you."

JamesMLane 07:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [33]

• "From now on, I won't be able to waste any more of my time trying to teach you anything. My further comments on your editing style will be given in the course of the Arbitration Committee proceeding instead of cluttering up this page. JamesMLane 07:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [34]

• "I am not going to bother to repsond to your irrelevant leading questions above"

older≠wiser 19:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) [35]

• "Do you actually ever comprehend what anyone else writes on wiki?"

Moriori 01:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) [36]

• "It distresses me greatly that I need to inform you that I believe you have no integrity whatsoever. I have never ever previously been motivated to say so to any wiki person. Moriori 08:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)" [37]

• "Rex's style of argument can be more exasperating and aggravating than it is persuasive, which is unfortunate because there are times when Rex does have valid points."

older≠wiser 11:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) [38]

• "I have never attacked your edits. You have only attacked mine. Neutrality 00:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [39]

• "I agree completely with Khaosworks. Rex has mentioned this theme before. It seems to be his fallback position as a justification for the incessant injection of anti-Kerry POV material. JamesMLane 09:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [40]

• "Oh, bullshit. It's true" (unsigned, but log shows it to be Neutrality) [41]

• Never edit my comments again. And don't lecture me about being "civil." Neutrality 02:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) [42]

• "You can speak bluntly without accusations and insults. Those aren't signs of bluntness and outspokenness, they are signs of rudeness and boorishness. Despite what you've claimed, you have engaged in personal attacks after that 24 hour ban. I hope you are sincere when you claim that you are making efforts to moderate your behavior. Gamaliel 19:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)" [43]