From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 15:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Involved parties 1.1 Request 1.2 Nominal defendant 2 Statement by party 1 2.1 ArbCom actions requested by party 1 3 Statement by party 2 4 Additional statements 5 Preliminary decisions 5.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/1) 5.2 Temporary injunction (none) 6 Final decision 6.1 Principles 6.1.1 Edit warring 6.1.2 Verifiability 6.1.3 Civility 6.1.4 Sockpuppets 6.1.5 Requests for comment 6.2 Findings of fact 6.2.1 Users with similar editing patterns 6.2.2 Edit warring 6.2.3 Personal attacks 6.3 Remedies 6.3.1 Bans for edit warring 6.3.2 Article area bans 6.4 Enforcement 6.4.1 Enforcement of editing restriction

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Request

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

[edit] Nominal defendant

• 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and other anonymous addresses

[edit] Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words
Either a single anonymous editor, using multiple IP addresses but primarily 24.147.97.230 , or multiple anonymous editors, have been engaged in an extended edit war on the Ted Kennedy page, and now also the Rosemary Kennedy page.

A complete list of addresses in use is found at Wikipedia: Requests for comment/24.147.97.230.

There are two issues, content issues and conduct issues. I am not asking the ArbCom to resolve the content issues. However, the conduct issues make it impossible to resolve the content issues. The page has been under page protection twice in the past two months to stop the edit wars and revert wars.

The content issues are whether particular sections that are negative to Ted Kennedy and to Joseph Kennedy Sr. should be included. The majority of signed-in editors think that these sections are non-encyclopedic and should not be included. The anonymous editors have insisted on continuing to add (revert) the same sections. They have accused the other editors of failing to negotiate in good faith.

The first content issue was the inclusion of an external link to an attack web site from the Ted Kennedy page. Multiple anonymous IP addresses added the link, no more than three addresses in a 24-hour period, which appears to be gaming the system. The page was then protected by an admin. After some search for a mediator, Kelly Martin agreed to try to mediate. This resulted in her conclusion that there was a consensus against inclusion of the link.

The anonymous editors have now tried to add the link to the web site for Rosemary Kennedy, who was only a victim and should not be the subject of having her family ridiculed. Claims that there was a consensus against the inclusion of the link are being rejected.

There were two more revert wars over the inclusion of material of little encyclopedic value. Editors who think that these paragraphs should not be included have been willing to have quickpolls on their relevance. However, the anonymous editors have altered the polls, and have accused their opponents (incorrectly) of POV pushing and disregard for consensus.

Since discussion is not working, and requests for other methods of discussion are not working, I request arbitration as a last resort.

[edit] ArbCom actions requested by party 1

I am requesting, as an interim measure, that the ArbCom issue a temporary injunction against anonymous edits to the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles until this matter is arbitrated.

When the ArbCom accepts this case, I request that the principles cited include a statement that disputes should be resolved by consensus, but that consensus does not mean unanimous consent. (These anonymous editors are arguing, based on competing dictionary definitions, that consensus does mean unanimity, and so are demanding a liberum veto.) I also request that a statement be made that, in an encyclopedia, which is a compendium of knowledge, editorial judgment is required as to what is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

[edit] Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Hello, I'm not sure exactly what User:Robert McClenon is really looking for here. This user has filed FOUR RFCs to have users blocked in 30 days, the same 30 days of his new membership. I am the target of one of these RFCs. This is an average of one per week. As to my conduct, my conduct is proper. The issues I have involve a group of editors who delete and revert material on pages related to Kennedys. They are extreme POV pushers and refuse to negociate. As to User:Robert McClenon, If he can give a specific and exact description of what his is looking to come to an agreement on I would be willing to participate. It is a bit of a surprise as this user wrote this today, "I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor. Robert McClenon 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)" 24.147.97.230 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional statements

The full text of the request has been placed on the Talk page; this includes a number of additional statements.

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/1)

• Abstain, for the time being. →Raul654 02:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse Fred Bauder 14:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse (served as mediator in dispute) Kelly Martin 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 15:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] Edit warring

1) Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three-revert rule, consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Verifiability

2) While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways; for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Civility

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Sockpuppets

4) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Requests for comment

5) Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the open part of the dispute resolution process, which seeks community input regarding specific topical, policy, and personality disputes [...] to request broader opinions [...]. A user RfC is intended to help resolve disputes and is not in itself an attack; users are expected to cooperate with this process.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Users with similar editing patterns

1) The same dubious content added by 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) has been inserted by several other anonymous IPs as well as named users Labgal (talk · contribs) and FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs).

Passed 6-0

[edit] Edit warring

2) 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) as well as several other editors with similar editing patterns have repeatedly inserted dubious content into articles on the Kennedy family, against the consensus of other editors of the article, and has mischaracterized the efforts of others to remove it as "vandalism". [1], [2], [3]

Passed 6-0

[edit] Personal attacks

3) 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks ([4]) against other users who have challenged his/her editing behavior.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Bans for edit warring

1) Labgal (talk · contribs), FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs), and 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, are banned for three months for edit warring.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Article area bans

2) Labgal (talk · contribs), FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs), and 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, are banned from editing articles and talk-pages related to the Kennedys for one year.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of editing restriction

1) Should Labgal (talk · contribs), FishingGuy99 (talk · contribs), or 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, edit any article which relates to the Kennedys within the time that they are restricted for, they may be briefly banned, for up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After the 5th such ban, the limit on the length of a ban shall increase to one year.

Passed 6-0