Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Below is a "Request for comments" for User:Robert McClenon.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Robert McClenon is a POV warrior/bully who has shown no restraint in his effort to push his POV and harrass anyone who stands in his way. Particularly disturbing is his creation of 4 RfC pages against those who disagree with him within a 30 day period. This despite the fact that he has only been a wiki member since July 2005. Famekeeper has irrefutable proof of McClenon's bad faith and on that basis signs this .

[edit] Description

User:Robert McClenon has created RFC's with the intent to intimidate and deny editors the right to work on pages where he pushes his POV, esp. the Ted Kennedy page. On one of his RfC attack pages, he unfairly altered the charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented. On the Ted Kennedy page, he created a biased poll designed to misstate the position of those who didn’t agree with him. He repeatedly insults other editors who do not share his POV as sockpuppets. He repeatedly refers to a “consensus” when none exists. He repeatedly pushes his POV into articles about politicians, their relatives and religious subjects. Although not an admin, he has threatened that new users will be blocked who do not agree with his POV. On one of his RFC pages, he offered to withdraw the RfC if conditions were met. When conditions were met, he refused to comply and created new conditions. There is proof that McClenon is at best foolish , in the middle that he is disingenuous , and at worst that he is outright dishonest. His means are those of a bully .

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Abused RfC process to harass others who do not share his POV

Altered RfC charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented

Created a biased poll designed to misstate the position of those who didn’t agree with him

Repeatedly insults other editors who do not share his POV by calling them "sockpuppets"

Repeatedly refers to a “consensus” when none exists

Repeatedly pushes his POV into articles about politicians, their relatives and religious issues

Threatened the blocking new users who do not agree with his POV

Offered to withdraw RfC if conditions were met. When conditions were met, refused to comply.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Neutral Point of View
  2. No Personal Attacks
  3. Civility
  4. Assume good faith
  5. Vandalism

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. 24.147.97.230
  2. --Agiantman 18:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. ---Ernestocgonzalez 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Antibully 00:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Famekeeper 07:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Sleepnomore 21:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has admitted to the following, "It is true that I wrote four user conduct RfCs in 30 days" "I think that I was using the Wikipedia process as it is meant to be used,"I then posted a RfC against Agiantman. In retrospect, I recognize that I made two mistakes." "I certainly think that I was making a reasonable argument about consensus." "As to the claim that I offered to withdraw an RfC if conditions were met, and then did not keep my word, that is not true...I admit to having made a mistake," "I admit to having made mistakes. We all make mistakes under stress. Perhaps my mistakes have been trying too hard to engage in dialogue with problematical editors." "I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor"

Gee.. Four RFCs in 30 days. That's one a week. All this while admitting to making mistakes. As you write an RFC to have me banned, you are working on three others? What is your problem? Do you see yourself as a police officer of this site? I suggest you drop them all immediately. Not only that, in your persecution of agiantman, you suddenly announce that you will take off 36 hours and then take it up again, like a mother telling a child, "wait until your father gets home". To attack another user via RFC, then hold it over his/her head for days...all the while during a period of admitted mistakes? I think your credibility is rock bottom. I don't see how you fit into this community. I suggest that you either drop all these RFCs now or stand ready to fight for your right to be here. You are nothing more than a wreckless bully of others.24.147.97.230 00:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) [edit]

I am new to wikipedia. I visited the Ted Kennedy article to see if he was still on the judiciary committee. When I read the discussion page, it prompted me to join. The few editors who want balance in the article, such as 24.147.97.230 and giantman, were being constantly put down by Robert McClenon and other bullies. Everything said in the section above about the harrassment doled out by Robert McClenon is correct. I think it is great that Robert McClenon is now getting a dose of his own medicine. Hopefully this will lead to him acting in a more civil fashion and create more balance in the Ted Kennedy article. (At least I can hope.)--Ernestocgonzalez 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

Hi! it's me again. this is my 3rd edit on wikipedia. I wrote earlier to support my friend agiantman, and then later to support Mr. 24. Agiantman told me at work today that he is finally charging Robert McClenon with all of the offenses he has been perpetrating against others. My response was that it is about time. I watched as Robert McClenon and his buddies tried to gang up on Agiantman and Mr. 24 because they don't like their politics. now i am reading that these are not the only dudes McClenon has harrassed! He seems to create one of these pages when ever someone is too effective in making a political point. Now the shoe is on the other foot! it also comes out that McClenon is vandalizing pages and lying about a consensus. If wikipedia can discipline an editor, Robert McClenon needs to be spanked for his bullying. Also, agiantman said I should come up with a sign-in name. From now on, I will be known as the antibully. I am not too interested in politics so I will mostly just try to help others who are attacked by bullies like Robert McClenon. If you know someone who needs help against a bully, give me a holla.--66.176.137.204 00:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks, buddy! And great new name! --Agiantman 00:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

[edit] Introduction to Response

I question whether this RfC has been properly certified. It has been certified by one signed-in user and one anonymous editor. However, I am willing to respond to a series of charges and counter-charges, and am willing to receive constructive criticism if I do need to change my Wikipedia behavior.

Please be advised that this response is long, because it addresses all of the points made in the RfC in the order in which they appear. I will provide a summary in the near future.

[edit] Overview

My anonymous accuser states that I am a POV warrior and bully and have shown no restraint to harass anyone who stands in my way. I disagree, and I hope that other readers can judge from the record and will agree. I have tried very hard to show restraint against when provoked by several different extremely stubborn editors who were unwilling to try to reach consensus.

I originally came to Wikipedia about six weeks ago because it was not Usenet, and it promised to be an electronic community in which there were policies to maintain civility. Perhaps I made the mistake of believing that it was possible to achieve civility. I had originally intended to submit articles on areas in which I had some knowledge that were not adequately described. However, it turned out some of the areas in which I had an interest and knowledge were areas where there were disputes.

[edit] Request for Comment Process in General

It is true that I wrote four user conduct RfCs in 30 days. They were all in response to existing article RfCs that had been posted by other editors, stating that they were having difficulty reaching consensus. In the first two cases, I saw that the problem was, in my judgment, that one editor was being difficult, in each of two different ways. In each of those cases, I tried to provide an outside opinion and to advise the editor who was being stubborn to be more reasonable. In each of those two cases, the user in question did eventually adapt, although not willingly. In each of those cases, I was willing to be bold. The first step had been taken of writing an article Request for Comments. I joined with other editors in taking the second step to resolution, which was discussion, and then took the leadership of taking the third step, which was writing a user conduct RfC. I think that I was using the Wikipedia process as it is meant to be used, which is to try to achieve consensus by discussion, and to take other steps when and as necessary. I am not sure what my accuser thinks should be done when discussion becomes stalled.

I hope that the Wikipedia community, on reviewing the record of those two RfCs, will conclude either that I acted reasonably, or that I made minor errors and will give me constructive criticism.

The four RfC's you created were not about stalled discussions; they were about specific editors. Rather than discuss topics, you chose to personalize each issue by attacking the editor with whom you disagreed. You are now creating RfC's about individual editors at a clip of one per week. This abuse of the process needs to be halted. The RfC process is not your personal attack tool to harrass, bully, and intimidate those who disagree with you.--Agiantman 04:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ted Kennedy Impasse

In the case of the Ted Kennedy article, the article was already under page protection due to revert wars when I first reviewed it. The article RfC had again been posted by multiple editors. The issue was whether to include a link to the fatboy.cc anti-Kennedy attack site. Links to this site were being repeatedly added from multiple anonymous IP addresses, and deleted by multiple signed-in editors. Kelly Martin then acted as an informal mediator (not via the formal MedCom process) to resolve the situation. Eleven signed-in users thought that the link was inappropriate. One signed-in user and twelve IP addresses favored it. She concluded that there was a consensus that the link to that site from the Ted Kennedy article was not warranted. The page was then removed from protection without the link.

The anonymous editors then attempted to add two more sections to the Ted Kennedy articles. A revert war then resulted in a second round of page protection. I did not request the page protection.

User:Kelly Martin's declaration that there was consensus is pure nonsense. Neither User:Robert McClenon nor User:Kelly Martin have any authority to declare when a consensus is reached and they have no right to ignore the legitimate edits of signed-in or anonymous users. User:Kelly Martin appeared to be just another editor who shared the pro-Kennedy POV. I absolutely believe that there should be a link to Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr's www.fatboy.ccsite since it is the largest, most comprehensive site devoted to Kennedy criticism. User:Robert McClenon has tried to intimidate and harrass anyone who tries to achieve some balance in the Kennedy article. To help achieve NPOV, there should be link to www.fatboy.ccunder a "Links Critical of Kennedy" section.--Agiantman 04:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon left out one very important fact. Kelly Martin was brought in to help come to an agreement by the anon. To read the description by User:Robert McClenon one might think that Kelly Martin was brought by some other party to police the anon, nothing could be more distant from what happened. The anon fed up with reverts and deletes looked for a mediator and brought one in. When the decision was agianst the anon he stood by it. Agiantman brings up a valid point, was Kelly Martin charged with the determination of a consensus? Perhaps that process was flawed and needs to be revisited when the protection is lifted. 24.147.97.230 15:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The User:Agiantman RfC

I then posted a RfC against Agiantman. In retrospect, I recognize that I made two mistakes. First, the greater disruption had been from the anonymous editors rather than from Agiantman. I should have requests comments about the anonymous editors first. I then did request comments about the anonymous editors. Second, I later found one more cause for concern, and added it to the RfC after it had been certified, noting in the talk page that I had made additions.

Perhaps the anonymous editor thinks that I should have found the incident of altering the quickpoll sooner. I wish that I had. Perhaps I should have submitted a second RfC against [User:Agiantman|Agiantman]], in which case I would then be accused of submitting 5 rather than 4 RfCs. Perhaps I should have given Agiantman a free pass. Constructive comments are welcome.

-Your biased quickpoll was an attempt to distort the views of those with whom you disagree. I fixed it to restore NPOV. You are not the king of all polls and head poll writer. You should have learned from the experience that your POV is too extreme for you to to write a poll in a NPOV way. Instead you chose to personally attack with your RfC pages. More on this in the next section. --Agiantman 12:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
-Your statements that I should have requests comments about the anonymous editors first. and Perhaps I should have submitted a second RfC against [User:Agiantman|Agiantman]] shows you to be unrepetent and unwilling to learn from your mistakes. Constructive criticism? YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE CREATED THEM AT ALL.--Agiantman 12:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Poll Claim

It appeared to me that there had been a consensus to include a one-sentence reference to the Palm Beach rape trial, but no consensus for a longer mention. The reason that I requested the poll was to provide one more opportunity to determine what the consensus was. In other words, I was willing to be shown to be mistaken about what I had read as the consensus.

You prefaced your biased poll with the following statement: In order for these quickpolls to find a consensus, they must both have two options only. Compromise proposals can be discussed, but the vote is for or against inclusion of the paragraphs as often inserted and deleted in the revert wars. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) You then created two categories: "Those who favor including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes" and "Those who oppose including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes." [1] I wanted a brief mention, i.e. the one paragraph. You were trying to force those who wanted a single paragraph to sign that they wanted something "longer." No one wanted anything "long" in the article about the rape incident. NO ONE. One paragraph is not "long" or "longer." By suggesting that those who wanted a paragraph wanted something "long," you were trying to rig the poll for your position. I edited the definition of the "in favor" vote, my vote, to say that "Those who favor including the one paragraph description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes." [2] I did this because it was accurate, neutral, and I should control what my vote is, not you. An extreme POV pusher such as yourself should never be framing the poll language for those with whom you disgree.--Agiantman 05:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

At no point did I ever use the word "sockpuppet" for anyone except multiple anonymous editors. It is often the policy of the ArbCom to assume that multiple anonymous editors are likely to be sockpuppets. I also note that in the case of one of the three diffs listed, I was criticizing the annotation of the RfC when another editor (agreeing with me on content) noted that some of the signatures were from first-time editors. I said that even if they were sock-puppets, they should not have their signatures annotated in this fashion.

[edit] References to Consensus

In two of the references to consensus, I was referring to the consensus that had been stated by Kelly Martin that the fatboy.cc link was not appropriate. It is true that my anonymous accuser disagrees as to whether there was a consensus. I think that the reason is that the anonymous editors think that he or they can outvote signed-in editors by using multiple addresses to game the system. I certainly think that I was making a reasonable argument about consensus.

-Again, neither User:Robert McClenon nor User:Kelly Martin have any authority to declare when a consensus is reached and they have no right to ignore the legitimate edits of signed-in or anonymous users. And the medal prominently posted on User:Kelly Martin's user page from User:Robert McClenon documents the POV pushing.--Agiantman 12:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In the third case, the evidence is only a history list and not a link or diff, so that I cannot respond.

[edit] Blocking Threat

The claim that I threatened to block new users is silly. I posted a statement on an anonymous IP user page advising any new users at that address that the address might be blocked due to 3RR violations or vandalism, and so suggested that any new users should create signed-in accounts to avoid being blocked. I was not threatening anyone, only noting that an administrator might block the address.

[edit] Withdrawal of RfC Issue

As to the claim that I offered to withdraw an RfC if conditions were met, and then did not keep my word, that is not true. The conditions simply were not met. I admit to having made a mistake, which was that I was (in response to some comments) trying too hard to be flexible. I should not have made that offer, and making it was a mistake. However, I would have struck out my signature to the certified RfC if the conditions had been met. They were not.

[edit] Summary of Policies

I have been accused of POV pushing. I deny that accusation. I am sure that a few outside opinions will say that I have done that, and I hope that more say that I have not.

-You have aggressively reverted numerous edits to the Ted_Kennedy article that might reflect negatively on Ted Kennedy. That is POV pushing.--Agiantman 05:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused failing to be civil. I note that my anonymous accuser has not included a single item to support that claim.

-Your creation of 4 RfC pages on individual users within 30 days is testament to your incivility.--Agiantman 05:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused of vandalism. My anonymous accuser has not included a single item to support that claim. The claim has been made in edit summaries that the deletion of questionable material was vandalism. It is not if it is done, even mistakenly, as a good-faith effort to excise questionable material.

-Altering RfC charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented is Sneaky vandalism SeeWikipedia:Vandalism--Agiantman 05:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused of personal attacks. The only evidence that has been submitted has to do with the fact that I suggested that multiple anonymous editors might be sock-puppets. I trust that the majority of outside opinions will agree that multiple anonymous editors may be sock-puppets.

-Actually, your frequent accusations that anonymous editors who you disagree with are sockpuppets, is secondary evidence of your personal attacks. Your creation of 4 RfC pages on individual users within 30 days is the primary evidence of your personal attacks. Interestingly, you have pushed your POV on 4 sites and you selected one editor from each site, the one most outspoken against your POV, to launch your personal attack RfC page. I guess you are thinking that if you can take out the leader, you will be able to intimidate everyone else into accepting your POV pushing. It is a disgusting and bullying approach to editing.--Agiantman 06:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been accused of not assuming good faith. I am not sure what the basis of that claim is, unless I should have assumed that multiple anonymous editors all were different humans.

-It is bad faith to harrass and bully those that disagree with you by creating RfC pages. It is bad faith to engage in sneaky vandalism by adding an extra charge to an Rfc after it was called a "farce" by one of the certifiers. It is bad faith to create a poll that distorts the opinions of those who disagree with you. It is bad faith to refer to a consensus when none exists.--Agiantman 06:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit to having made mistakes. We all make mistakes under stress. Perhaps my mistakes have been trying too hard to engage in dialogue with problematical editors.

[edit] Mediation

I am willing to resort to mediation with Agiantman with either JCarriker or Improv as the mediator. Is Agiantman agreeable to mediation?

I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor. Robert McClenon 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess Robert McClenon is confused, see below. A Request for Arbitration has been filed. Please read it. Robert McClenon 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) 24.147.97.230 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Robert McClenon 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. FuelWagon 04:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Though I'm not aquainted with the disputes raised, except the one of Famekeeper, I want to say that I cannot reconcile behaviour he's accused of here with his behaviour as far as I know it: Robert McClenon appeared to me as a cooperative, forthcoming and sensible editor, with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Str1977 12:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. (My comments would echo those of Str1977 above.) Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


I am open to mediation. However, I am skeptical of using User:Robert McClenon's choices as mediator. -- posted 03:37, 22 August 2005 by Agiantman

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside View By Sleepnomore

The RFC's spawned from the Kennedy debate are all rediculous. Each person inolved is guilty of violations of one issue or another. Each person involved could make a valid dispute. Its my opinion that the only way to resolve these issues is to ban each and every person involved -- particularly those that engage in personal attacks. - Sleepnomore 22:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. - Sleepnomore 22:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view by Noitall

Perhaps I will say more later, but this RfC is even worse than that filed against Agiantman. Agiantman should have read my comments and noted that I was against the RfC against him because I think RfCs should be for more serious matters, and you can read more on that page. Robert disagreed with the purpose of the RfC and thought they could be used as more of a problem solving tool. Even under that much much lower standard, this RfC should not have been filed. There is no purpose. I am also a little disappointed that Agiantman did not just move on from the issue when he had the chance and when Robert stated he would withdraw his endorsement if he agreed to a few simple little things. Instead, there is some urge to fight it out. I think the energy used in these Admin matters should be better used by cleaning up articles, especially of major POV. Let's move on (that one is for Kizzle) agree to work things out, and get those sockpuppets out of here. --Noitall 00:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View By Jmabel

I think Robert's conduct on these pages has generally been pretty reasonable. Frankly, I don't have a view on whether his accusations of sockpuppetry have been accurate, but I don't see that much difference as to whether we are really dealing with one individual manipulating several accounts or a slew of people previously uninvolved in Wikipedia coming in just to tag-team and try to get clearly POV edits into an article by force of numbers rather than by force of reason. The health of Wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia demands that we be able to resist that, and that is exactly what Robert was doing.

And this RFC appears to me to be, likely as not, simply retaliation for a much more appropriate one that he helped initiate.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. - Gamaliel 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Voice of All(MTG) 02:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)Also, all of those who voted for the RfC are obviously sockpuppets.
  4. RadicalSubversiv E 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. - RyanFreisling @ 18:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. -Willmcw 22:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC) This appears to be a bad faith RfC. (I also endorse the #Outside View by FuelWagon, though I'll only sign once). -Willmcw 22:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theo (Talk) 10:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Scimitar parley 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Str1977 22:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Septentrionalis 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Derex 04:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Hello? Is this thing still live? Isn't it time this unpleasant document was unlisted, and deleted or archived or something? One of the most cockamamie RfCs I've seen, apparently created to provide a forum for the kinds of personal attacks that aren't allowed on other wiki pages. The "evidence" against Robert consists of no evidence at all, just venting and sneering. Robert does us all a favor in taking the time to read and post reasoned comments on so many RfCs as he does, and this is what he gets for it. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by FuelWagon

Robert McClenon creates two RFC's, one against agiantman and one against 24.147.97.230

The RFC against Agiantman was certified by 5 users and endorsed by 6 more. The response was endorsed only by Agiantman. An outside comment by 24.147.97.230 defends Agiantman and attacks all the endorsers as "it's their way or no way".

Soon thereafter, 24.147.97.230 opens an original RFC against Robert McClenon. The entire "evidence" of Robert McClenon's violation of policy is ... filing an RFC against Agiantman and 24.147.97.230. Agiantman makes a large number of additions to the RFC against Robert McClenon, all of which boil down to Robert's RFC against Agiantman and 24.147.97.230.

And despite all the "evidence" against Robert, it appears to me that basically this RFC boils down to nothing more than RFC payback. Robert filed an RFC against Agiantman that about a dozen editors supported, so Agiantman is filing an RFC against Robert.

I also dispute the ability of an anonymous IP editor being able to "endorse" an RFC, but that's a separate matter. FuelWagon 04:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

  1. - FuelWagon 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. - Gamaliel 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC) ... adding: Most of the "evidence" isn't. Broken links, links to history pages (?) -- in other words, a whole lot of nothing much. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  4. - RyanFreisling @ 15:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Hipocrite 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC) - Additionally, the lack of edits by the certifiers lend a question as to their uniqueness.
  6. Str1977 22:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.