Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete due to request from Rex071404 on my user talk page. Gamaliel 06:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal[edit]

Attention any admin[edit]

Please delete this page: User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal.

It's my page and I am changing my position regarding the deletion of it from oppose to support. My reasoning can be found here Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if you can guess why... you get three chances, in case I made this too difficult--anon editor 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • fine, let's just start the whole thing over from sratch ALL comments, votes, etc.. from it's past life as an AfD, removed--anon editor 01:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still. Reyk 01:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is not anyone's concern - why are you bothering with my personal scratch pages? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and why are you bothering with personal attacks? let alone dedicating an entire page to them?--anon editor 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistating the facts; there are no "personal attacks" on that edits log. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good, because there are no personal attacks on this page either--anon editor 02:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's why I would not complain about it. Also, it's not true that I am "stupid". Rather, I am sometimes "pig-headed?...", but not stoopid (oops, maybe I should check that) Rex071404 216.153.214.94 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that it's stupid but since it's under a user page it really doesn't bother me. -Haon 01:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an article? No? Then to MfD it goes.  BD2412 talk 01:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • um, that's where it is already, for reference, please see this--anon editor 02:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops - got fired up because I found it on AfD (where it was still posted). All fixed. Happy, happy, happy.  BD2412 talk 02:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, I knew I forgot to do something--anon editor 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by the way - he can keep such records as he pleases on his own sub-page.  BD2412 talk 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, but when something like that becomes a hit list, it doesn't need to be here. Look at the Big Daddy case. This guy is either a clone or BD himself. No posts for 6 months...BD is banned...and then suddenly here is this Rex character. Yeah. --Woohookitty 02:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT "bigdaddy" I was on a self-imposed ban which had offical ArbComm sanction. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Problems like this need to be worked out on RFC, and if necessary RFAr. Deleting the page doesn't solve them at all. Also, calling these personal attacks is borderline. However, the idea that dewikifying the word "wound" is evidence of being in a liberal editor's cabal is a bit laughable. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He just returned from a self-imposed ban caused by a RfA back in April. --Woohookitty 04:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that he's had previous problems, which just goes to demonstrate that there are root issues that won't be solved by just deleting this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides BigDaddy, I also consider the recent consensus to delete Coolcat's ramblings. While this list has more specific charges, it also looks much more like a "hit list" to me than that ever did. Xoloz 03:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page will be useful as evidence in the fourth RfAr against Rex, which already seems inevitable. Besides, as one of the people listed on the page, I consider that being attacked by Rex can only enhance my reputation in the eyes of most editors. JamesMLane 05:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JML misstates the page - pease read it yourselves - there are no personal attacks on that page. Also, he is threatenting me "RfAr against Rex" Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, the only time you can stop somebody from threatening you is when they're threatening physical harm against you. Like, if somebody threatens to call a lawyer you can't get them hauled into court or jail for "threatening" you. There are no laws against threatening legal action against someone in real life, and there are certainly no rules on Wikipedia against threatening to take anyone into Dispute Resolution. Behave yourself, and you'll have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, people will be glad to see it go into Dispute Resolution and get settled. Jdavidb (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you contending that I have misbehaved? If so, how so? If not, why are you admonishing me? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know nothing about your behavior. I know that if you behave yourself, you generally won't find yourself involved in dispute resolution or anything. I'm not contending anything about you specifically; I am only contending that a cry that someone on Wikipedia is "threatening" you is irrelevant in any meaningful way either under law or Wikipedia policy. Jdavidb (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of that list of edits is to refract it over time - as a edits tracking device - should I have to refer to it to discern a pattern which can be pointed to during any official procedings. As it stands now, I feel that Accountable 1135 has pushed too far against me and ought to be sanctioned by Arbcomm. Suffice it to say, I feel that over time, the depth of the pro-liberal bias on various political pages will be clear. Please see my full details on the talk page of John Kerry. I think the facts support my position that critiques (even factual, tactfully written ones) are more tightly screened from entering biographic pages about Liberals, than they are with Conservatives. Look at the page for George W. Bush and see how critical/harsh it is. Then read Kerry's page and see that it's a virtual hagiography. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that's how I see it. Yet, certain others at Kerry's page gang up to block any edits at all from me there. As for the "cabal" titled page itself, I am only opposing its deletion so as not to set a precedent which prevents me from keeping an edits log. In no way is my log a "hit list" (as it's been called - whatever that means). Nor are there any personal attacks, bad words or imprecations on it. Because of that, if I assent to it's deletion, I am allowing an editor (who's edit history is suspicious to me) - that being Accountable 1135 - to boss me right all around the wiki. Also, I have already copied the "cabal" titled page to a less offensively titled scratch page and am working from my new page since yesterday. Even so, I am presenting my details here, so as not to let this complaint go un-addresssed. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 08:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To Rex: I couldn't have said it better myself. Your perceptions of the liberal bias on wiki and mine are the same. To those advocating deletion: Please...someone point out a personal attack on Rex's page! To Rex: They can't! (smirk) -- Lawyer2b 23:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I am tempted to stick with the principle that a user be allowed to do whatever they want with their user space, deleting something like this isn't unprecedented. In this case we have a known POV warrior previously sanctioned by ArbCom who has set up a personal "enemies list". This is especially problematic in the case of new users like User:Accountable 1135, who may be alienated into retaliatory behavior or run off of Wikipedia due to being listed as part of an imaginary cabal on a website they just started using. In the past Rex has run off new users with his behavior and we should not allow this to happen again. Gamaliel 08:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I object to Gamaliel's statement: "In the past Rex has run off new users with his behavior ". There has been no finding of fact regarding that. Rather my dealings with the ArbComm were principally as a consequence of my past over-wrought reactions to edit wars on certain political pages. Let me see, Gamaliel doesn't want me to exceed 3rr or he'll go after me at ArbComm (something he's done before). But when I do something as innocuous as keep an edits log on the wiki, in wiki format, so it will be ready should I need it (see JamesMLane above - already threatening me with ArbCom action), Gamaliel uses the rationale of a "new" user to justify hounding me over something that does not concern him, nor this "Accountable 1135". Please look at the edit history of "Anon editor", aka "Accountable 1135". His edit list does, in my assessment, resemble that of a sockpuppet. Oh and since Gamaliel want to stuff the past ArbComm issues in my face, let's not forget what one of the key ArbComm findings was "User Rex071404 and others including the complaining witnesses, Neutrality, Wolfman, and JamesMLane have in the heat of the US Presidential election focused on the article John Kerry and carried the issues of the campaign into the encyclopedia article in detail.". As it stands, there has to my knowledge never been any corrective edits done to tone down the nature of the edits that those three (among others) succeeded in putting into the John Kerry article when they won they edit war there against me (via the ArbComm case they initiated against me). Currently what is going on is that I am attempting to get a few minor edits into a few political pages and editors such as Gamaliel are blocking me at every turn. In fact Gamaliel has reverted me without edit summaries at more than one page see Killian documents and John Kerry for examples (perhaps also Stolen Honor). Suffice it to say, in my view, it's a hoot that Gamaliel calls me a "POV warrior", when clearly that shoe could be said to fit him - based on his reverts of me alone. anyway, this go round, I have been scrupulous to avoid 3rr issue and also avoid making personal attacks, the absence of which, makes it difficult for the loosely associated editors such as Gamaliel, JamesMLane and this new "Accountable 1135" to attack me on that basis. That's why they've searched high & low to find my personal scratch pages (which I did not tell anyone about). Since I have not transgressed on behavior (since my 10.18.05 return after 6 month hiatus), these various editors are left only to face the merits off my edits - a task which they have not shown much interest it. In my view, I think they prefer trying to push me around via Wiki "government" so to speak, rather that meet in the marketplace of ideas and develop sincere consensus with me at talk pages. Also, the fact that a supposed "newbie" editors (Accountable 1135) honed in exactly on me and my edits and already knew how to pursue this complaint against me, show I feel, more that he lets on. Suffice it to say, I do not feel it's unreasonable that I be able to keep a list of edits which I think are part of a large pattern of bias. However I do see how it's possible that the word "cabal" could offend. It's for this reason that as soon as I heard the 1st grumblings about that, I immediately took action and started a different page which does not have the word "cabal" in the title. Frankly, had "Accountable 1135" simply asked me to agree to rename that page, I would have readily agreed, The fact that he did not, but immediately leapt to adversarial action, backed up by long-time anti-Rex71404 stalwarts such as JamesMLane and Gamaliel, does I feel show that there is a core group of editors who are definitely opposed to my edits. And if I am a POV warrior (as Gamaliel claims) then certainly, I am not a politically Liberal one (look at my edits). Therefore, if I as a Conservative editor, am being blocked at every turn by a group of editors, is it reasonable to think that a) those "editors" are "liberal" and could rightly be characterized as a "cabal"? I think so, hence my having titled my own person scratch page that way. Having said all that, please note that not one of these complaining parties even asked me once to change the name (which is their only complaint that could possibly have merit). No, instead they want to prohibit me from keeping a list of evidence which shows their edit/revert actions in less than flattering light. Har! Contrary to the claims being made, there is not one personal attack on those pages (not any that I have edited - though I'd be sure to see the edit history before making conclusions). So then, what is this complaint all about, that certain editors do not like that I aggregate in one place a log which has links to the diffs of various edits? Why is that bad? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you object to the truth, but a review of the relevant talk pages of a year ago will show several new users you have alienated who suddenly disappeared from Wikipedia, and I fear that Accountable 1135 may be next. Accountable 1135 may very well be a sockpuppet, but in the past you have accused almost everyone you oppose, including a member of ArbCom, of being or using sockpuppets. Give it a rest. Gamaliel 17:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel's opinion of the consequences of past disagreements is not the issue here. Rather, what is the issue is simple: Should my page, which is harming no one, end up being castigated this way, when a simple request to me would garner my agreement to rename that page? Please note: so far, I am still waiting to see if anyone will ask me "will you agree to change the title of the page?". That said, perhaps the name of the page is a mere straw dog, being pointed to by those who would seek to prevent me from keeping an innocuous diff(s) log. Is Gamaliel saying that he does not want me to be allowed to marshal evidence for the RfAr which JamesMLane has basically already said (see above) he intends to file against me? And regarding G's "give it a rest" jibe, I've done no such "acccusing" against 1135 - rather, what I have done, only during the context of defending myself against 1135 initiated complaints, is point out that his edit history resembles that of a sockpuppet - so far as I see it. Hmmm... it's an interesting tact G is taking here: Attack me for making patient, detailed and discreet explainations on administrative related pages, which point out my perspective on things. Would Gamaliel prefer that I stand mute against these allegations? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is far from an "innocuous diffs log". Gamaliel 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Please explain. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up. Gamaliel 18:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me that circular answer. Show me enough respect to answer my question: How is my diffs log not innocuous? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I won't be responding to every misstatement Rex makes, here or elsewhere, I will point out that I haven't stated an intention to file another RfAr against him. I said only that another such proceeding "seems inevitable". The reason is that, in his first few days back, Rex is already engaging in the sort of behavior that earned him his two previous long-term bans. JamesMLane 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: JamesMLane just made a 100% false statement, which was; "Rex is already engaging in the sort of behavior that earned him his two previous long-term bans". #1) I had one long term ban, not two (other action(s) were not of near same length and by comparison, not long). #2) I was on a 6 month hiatus which resulted from me edit warring (I am not doing that now), exceeding 3rr (I am not doing that now), making personal attacks (I am not doing that now) and failing to obey an Arbcomm ruling to its full extent (I am not doing that now). Another FYI, in a previous tiff with me, there was an ArbComm finding of fact that JamsMLane had indeed committed at least one violation (see link above). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This whole exchange is, of course, quite outside the scope of the deletion debate. Nevertheless, because this page may be read by editors who aren't familiar with Rex's history here, I'll note that there were indeed two long-term bans already.
(1) The ArbCom ruling of November 13, 2004 included this remedy: "Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Remedies
(2) The ArbCom ruling of April 23, 2005 included this remedy: "Official sanction is given to Rex071404's self-imposed ban, and as a result his account and his IP address (216.153.214.94), as well as whatever other accounts are associated with this user, shall be banned for a period of six months from 16:28 15 April 2005 (ending 16:28 15 October 2005)." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3#Ban for revert warring and disregard for Arbitration rulings
Throughout Rex's involvement with Wikipedia, he has demonstrated (to my satisaction, at least) that he is a POV warrior, intent on pressing his political views and unwilling to let Wikipedia norms stand in his way. He is still exhibitiing that "sort of behavior" (the phrase I used), even though he hasn't violated the 3RR. JamesMLane 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by JML's post above, I've had one long term ban, self imposed, with official sanction. The four month "ban" was limited to political articles and was not a ban from the wiki itself. Also, the "sort of behavior" which JML now clarifies above to be "pressing his political views" is not in and of itself, the cause of my past bans. Suffice it to say then, JML's initial statement remains false, though his follow-up does clarify. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What possible justification is there for deleting this? There is no personal attack unless liberals consider being labeled liberal a personal attack. That this page is suggested for deletion just further strengthens non-liberals' (including libertarians like myself) belief that liberals are hypocritical. They fight for freedom of speech...so long a 'they' agree with what is spoken it. I got news for ya...deleting pages like this appears to others the way the conservatives' war on drugs appears to you -- worse than useless. -- Lawyer2b 23:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, sockpuppets and anons, don't get to vote, so go away, or come back when you have over a 100 edits, also, the right leaning liberatarian sockpuppet card has been way over played lately, try being a mime next time, way more origional, IMO, unless you think mimes are too french, then you could always try the Ima modern day cowboy sockpuppet, sure it's a bit less origional, but man, that one never gets old--172.164.81.152 03:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a sock-puppet (although I play one on TV) and I apologize for my uncivil tone. I am hopefully correcting that as we speak. I still believe what I believe and to see where I stand politically (and hopefully evidence of non-sockpuppetry) please see my entry on User_talk:Karmafist. -- Lawyer2b 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm also concerned at the sockpuppetry, partisanship and possible WP:U and WP:CIVIL/WP:WQT violations above: please people, keep your cool, or send anything past a reply to a reply onto the talk page and please keep the discussion to the content as much as possible. Karmafist 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_Editors_Cabal&oldid=1148190584"