Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments of User24.147.97.230 1.1 Reply 2 Outside View by FuelWagon 3 Editing behaviour of user Robert McClenon 4 Coloring Outside the Lines 5 Mediation and Arbitration 6 McClenon Editing, no reply 7 McClenon /Famekeeper Relevant Example

[edit] Comments of User24.147.97.230

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]

[edit] Reply

It has been pointed out to me that it is not up to me to "drop" any RfCs that have been certified. An anonymous editor states: "I suggest that you either drop all these RFCs now or stand ready to fight for your right to be here." Very well. I will fight for my right to be here, and for the right of Wikipedians who admit to making mistakes but who try to contribute constructively to be here. Robert McClenon 13:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by FuelWagon

I have no doubt the whole POV pushing posse will be here to defend one of their own. There is certainly no shortage of POV warriors who run with User:Robert McClenon. But if there are broken links here, please let me know and I will fix them. Thanks! --Agiantman 05:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing behaviour of user Robert McClenon

I duplicate this unanswered question to McClenon here . I say that I have found this user to be curiously concerned with what would appear to be the diminution of historically sourced questions -ie history . The particular question I ask here below relates to an unacceptable editing tag he placed , and which epitomises all the doubts I have about this user . Here is the edit I question , see below line 77 at [[1]] and removal of reference to 1937 and 1938 .

McC- I ask you to explain to me why your edit of 00.49 , 19 August upon the Hitler's Pope article is not dishonest  ? I see that your description of your edit (rm) is this : removed much biographical material that is copied from Pope Pius XII , very heavy copy editing of very badly edited article . Much more cleanup is needed.

In the most civil terms I can muster , I ask you to explain how this qualification explains your removal of several important and full non -biographical Cornwell references  ? I will expect an answer that addresses this actual question , not an answer to other questions , and not your current suggestion that what you removed now be re-inserted . You plainly were not removing "clearly biographical" information that " belonged in the biography " . It is not enough to say that this was a mistake - I can see no mistake , and I can see no justification for calling this surreptitious because mis-labelled removal a mistake .

You have not answered the short question I once previously asked you , which is how you knew to ask me about grave sin etc . The question I ask you here is very much easier - why should I not qualify your removal referred to as dis-honest  ?

If you stick to this policy of it being a mistake , then I think you warrant attention solely as an editor who arrived upon the WP simply to create Rfc's , and not with any view to the designed expansion of the WP . In which case the above Rfc against you is thoroughly justified . People who actually work to create fuller understanding by real contributions are, then ,being abused by your presence ...............

I do not know that it is appropriate for me to sign against McC on the Rfc , but that depends upon him here answering this . I do not accept mistake as sufficient . Indeed I have found that this user whilst claiming a sort-of intermediary role, is not prepared to read relevant material . Maybe he doesn't read that which he edits and removes , in which case any means of removing his hand from the WP must be beneficial . I do think he should remain under scrutiny , indeed that this Rfc was placed somewhat at my behest , therefore it is becoming untenable for me not to support that part of it which I do understand . Famekeeper 08:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coloring Outside the Lines

It was my understanding that the "Response" was supposed to be my response, not a combination of my response and the response to my response. Robert McClenon 13:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think threaded discussiosn of this nature are generally discouraged on the RfC page itself. It would probably be better for Agiantman to create another "response" section, or copy them here to talk. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation and Arbitration

The anonymous editor says that I appear to be confused, or to be contradicting myself, because I stated that I had no interest in mediation with an anonymous editor, but that I then filed a formal request for arbitration. There is no contradiction. Mediation and arbitration are not the same process.

I said that I was willing to mediate with Agiantman. He had made some statements to the effect that he was willing to change his behavior. I suggested either of two mediators. He rejected both of them. Presumably he considers them to be also members of the cabal of liberal POV-pushing bullies. Is he willing to suggest an alternate mediator?

I said that I had no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor. I had two reasons why I said that. First, the anonymous editor (or editors) made no statement as to any willingness to change his (or their) behavior until I had filed the RfAr. Second, mediation had already been attempted with the anonymous editor. The anonymous editor points out that he was who suggested Kelly Martin as the mediator. She concluded that there was a strong balance of opinion against the fatboy.cc link. However, Agiantman and the anonymous editor either do not accept that judgment or do not accept it as "consensus" because of a dictionary issue. Mediation has already been tried, and it has failed to resolve the dispute between the alleged cabal (TINC) and the anonymous editor. Trying mediation again would be pointless. All dispute resolution procedures short of arbitration have already been tried with the anonymous editor.

In response to RfAr, the anonymous editor writes: "If he [I] 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 would have been more timely to make such an offer in response to my RfC rather than my RfAr. At this point, what I am looking for is exactly what I state that I want as temporary relief in my RfAr: No anonymous edits to the Ted Kennedy or Rosemary Kennedy articles until the arbitration is completed. Robert McClenon 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Again the summary by Robert McClenon is filled with mistruth. The anon, myself, did comply with Kelly Martin's decision. There is still an open question of if her decision is binding or should have even been given. If Robert McClenon could state exacly where I did not accept the judgement it will clear this up. If he can not, I must conclude that he is either in error, or lying about the facts. As to no anonymous edits, what a strange request. That I and all anons should stop all work and wait for Robert McClenon to reply???

[edit] McClenon Editing, no reply

McC may believe he has answered my straightforward question about his particular edit enumerated above :he has not . Not only has he not but the answer he tried to give was incorrect and disingenuous , as was the edit in question. I am deeply supicious of this user , who still pretends that he was not responsible for actions which he very plainly carried out . In fact he denies the action . The action resulted in a serious loss .

I ask McC , again, to explain this apparent conflict with his two separate statements .

I further post my initial reaction to the edit in the context in which it was written , and users will judge for themselves . I am still awaiting a less disingenuous response . The response given tries also to dissimulate by referring to questions of POV , which are not raised in this question . I am hardening my own position from that of deep suspicion . I may say that I experienced a disingenuous response immediately on encountering this user , and that my experience of him is that he cloaks the behaviour alluded to in his Rfc under a veil of respectable mediation . I have always believed that McC was a policeman brought in by the WP board , or the church . McClenon is apt to say he has made a mistake, and I find even this claim to be disingenuous -as in the case below . I think his presence is possibly illuminating , in that his actions uncover more rather than less WP abuse and that that abuse is closely associated with McClenon . Anyone with a cursory knowledge of me will know that I was forced to conclude , still am, that the WP was being edited not through POV abuse , but through faith-based editing . I believe that this user joined and re-inforced this, and that this particular edit (on Hitler's Pope is just the last of many examples . I also know that such belief system has every reason to act in this way, sad to say .

I am particularly disturbed by the actions of user McClenon . Having left note upon his editing last that he was removing duplicated biographical material, he actually excised sections relating to 1937 and 1938 which were previously excised from the Pope Pius XII article . These excisions are not therefore in line with his description of removal , and warrant attention as being an exercise of strange faith . This editor was instrumental in trying, through ad hominem, to paint myself into a dunce's corner , however it is clear from this action that user McClenon either does not concentrate on what he removes , or acts with incorrect procedure . I should say that this user should be watched , as if his actions here can be so surreptitious and counter to his avowed listed editing report, what confidence can remain as to the use's worthiness ? Unlike his action against me , I will simply leave this post to alert those of good will . The WP is again under attack as the completeness of Cornwell is being sundered piecemeal . I strongly suggest that this article be reverted to my complete summation of the Vanity Fair abbreviation of Cornwell , and then locked . Famekeeper 10:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Why not insert the material back into the Pope Pius XII biographical article? I was removing what was clearly biographical information that belonged in the biography. I was not comparing the two articles. Unlike Famekeeper, I have been known to make mistakes." Robert McClenon 12:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"The answer to the question that Famekeeper has posted on my talk page is that if any sourced biographical material has been deleted from the Pope Pius XII article and presents POV as POV, it should be re-inserted. However, some of it was deleted by Wyss and dtdirl after they tried to disentangle POV from NPOV. I will note that most of the deletions from Pope Pius XII were not made by me". Robert McClenon 21:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User's should note that desperation forces McC and another to claim that Writer:John Cornwell is simply a POV type on the WP level. This is wrong, Cornwell was allowed into the vatican's archives and after study, realised that his hitherto friendly and faithful attitude was completely out of line with the truth . The attempt is to discredit Cornwell as even a source, blacken his historical work , and thus weaken the danger to the Church . This is a major attack on the principles of the WP , and certainly compromises the usefulness , indeed morality , of the WP . A careful annotation as to the relevant article being the view of this historian has not prevented constant attack upon the substance of the article .

If dishonesty rules, there is no point in trying to edit the WP . Famekeeper 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply from McC . I think he should explain this particular irrefutable example of bad faith . If it is purely stupidity ( he claims that pressure leads him to make mistakes) , perhaps he'd get more sense than bring Rfc's .

This was interjected on the Pope BXVI talk page and is pretty strange . Perhaps when the guy finally understands it's their law , not mine, he might get wise . So far , not being prepared to wade through the relevant "tosh" I write , he didnt understand . Apparently there's no question of any trial , so that is not relevant .

I only posted an RfC against Famekeeper after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII be exhumed so that they could stand trial. He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion. Robert McClenon 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I did , some months ago , McC is a bit blind .Go to Pius XII talk and see 'Canon law' section , and if you want the full treatment go to BXVI talk where I put the full treatment . It's law stuff, and you need to have spectacles on or something .

Famekeeper 16:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with this particular RfC. This seems like a matter for the talk pages of the relevant papal articles. Gamaliel 16:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently User:Gamaliel did not read the RFC before he chose to oppose it. User:Robert McClenon is charged with abus[ing the] RfC process to harass others who do not share his POV. As documented on the RFC, User:Famekeeper was one of the 4 victims of User:Robert McClenon's harrassment. Hopefully, User:Famekeeper will join us in certifying this RFC and record his comments on the main page. --Agiantman 23:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Robert was/is the victim of Famekeeper's harrassment. Though their respective POVs shared some common ground, Fk shouted him down with accusations. Str1977 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Robert McClenon to reply to this charge. The statement of Famekeeper is well docmumented, I don't understand why Robert McClenon will not reply. I hope he is not working on a 5th RFC againt a 5th user, it would be consistant with his rolling average if he was. 24.147.97.230 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McClenon /Famekeeper Relevant Example

My answer today to patsw on Hitler's Pope discussion is highly relevant to my accusations over-leaf :

Hitler's Pope is a work of biography. What it adds to our knowledge of Pope Pius XII belongs in that biographical article. What's the encyclopedic value of anything else in the book? This article looks merely like a platform for Cornwell's own POV on Pope Pius XII and by extension a platform for Wikipedia's editors' POV on Pope Pius XII -- in short a discussion board and not an encyclopedia. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

patsw, I don't know how to answer you briefly but I paste this from Robert McClenon as on this page :

I am willing to try to discuss differences of opinion reasonably, without mediation. I will make a few non-negotiable demands that Wikiquette be followed, or I will conclude that we do need mediation or arbitration. First, assume good faith. Do not imply censorship when an NPOV dispute is in progress. Do not accuse anyone of bad faith unless you have irrefutable proof. Second, do not use talk pages as soapboxes. Drop(orig. emhasis) the discussion of canon law, unless it is applicable to a published source. As far as I can tell, the discussion of canon law is really only a discussion of the fact that moral errors were made, and is basically an issue of attributing evil motives rather than error to the dead. Third, cite sources for any claim that is disputed.

In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book.

I hope that this is satisfactory. Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC

I can tell you that I thought it very unsatisfactory indeed . I fear you come in here ,patsw , rather late . I take the quote as disingenuously pernickety self-righteous intentional muddling .

• Non-negotiable should not apply to reason ;

Recognition of censorship was dependent on irrefutablility within the history ;

• Soapboxing , that's a form of ad hominem;

• Drop- cheek , it was/is applicable to sources , censoring thereof ;

• Evil motives- is a statement of POV/ and ad hominem ;

• Source was cited to this interposition, and always ;

• User's decision to confine article to Cornwell was to ignore sources .

Your postion patsw , seems to be coming in along McC lines earlier and here . I myself would indeed put it all under the main Pius XII page , but I have tried and been blocked from doing so by reverts , so , sorry , don't kick at me, anyway . Famekeeper 07:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from [[2]]