Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 2

message: I realize, of course, that custom calls for an admin to protect an article in the wrong version.  In this case, however, there's a clear distinction in how the two sides have observed Wikipedia policy.  The editors opposed to including the "fatboy" link -- Jmabel, Coneslayer, Texture, and myself -- provided informative edit summaries and/or explanations on the talk page.  The lone anon who wanted the link included simply kept reverting to it, and did not even comment until evidently convinced that sheer stubbornness would not carry the day.  Even then, the anon sidestepped the real issues and engaged in personal attacks (and even removed one of my rebuttals from the talk page, ).  It would be appropriate for an admin to remove the "Ted Kennedy photos, audio, info" link from external links, because otherwise its anonymous proponent will have no reason to engage in any discussion aimed at lifting the protection. JamesMLane 10:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request that an admin edit protected article

message: What is so important about removing this link that you MUST remove it daily?  Exactly what is it that makes this link worse than *Chappaquiddick: A Profile in Cowardice ?  And again you call it my site.  Please stop this mis information immediately.  Exactly what evidence do you have in any form that I have a connection to fatboy.cc?  Please stop your accusations and write only with facts.   Why is it not an attack when you accuse me of promotion of a site that I have no connection to?  You set the premise that I am lying.  Let's get this clear right now.  How am I related to this site you call mine?????   Lets get your facts out right now.   Enough of your accusations, what is your proof that I have the even the slightest connection to this site?  Why would you accuse me without absolute proof?  Why do you constantly make this claim which is a lie???  Do you not know the importance of each word you write?  As to the site, it is relevant.  That is why I post the link.  You began by calling it a hate site and claim to have removed it for that reason.  You have now changed your story and reason.  Let's get the to the truth. (20 July 2005, presumably the same anon user)
* I don't think I ever suggested that the site was yours. (Actually, until now the possibility never crossed my mind. Do you have a connection to the site?) Nor did I accuse you of lying. I never called it a "hate site", I called it an "attack site". There is a strong presumption against such sites. I do not see enough merit in the site to overcome that presumption. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
::I believe the anon is talking about both of us indiscriminately.  You used the phrase "attack site".  For me, that consideration was less important, but I used the phrase "your site".  I meant it in the sense of "your favored site" or "the site you keep trying to link to", but I can see how it could be interpreted as "the site you created".  I wasn't saying that, because it doesn't matter who created the site.  The point I was making was that it's Dmoz, not Wikipedia, that tries to link to every site about each subject.  The site that attacks Kennedy about Chappaquiddick seems to me to have some solid information (albeit told from a particular POV).  It's the sort of thing that could properly be included in a Wikipedia article about the accident if we were to get into that level of detail.  The "fatboy" site gives the reader much less help, if any.  We have to exercise our judgment, and that's mine. JamesMLane 06:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request that an admin edit protected article, redux

message: The anon has suggested that should unilaterally stop editing the article.  I suggest to him or her this approach instead:
#You and I will join in requesting mediation from the Mediation Committee.  (The AMA is a different entity.  One of its activities is to help people who are involved in a mediation, but it does not itself mediate.)
#The Mediation Committee requires that a mediation have only two parties.  The two parties to this one will be you and I.
#The Mediation Committee generally asks the parties about their preferences for a mediator.  Any current member of the Mediation Committee is acceptable to me.  I am perfectly happy for the Mediation Committee to make sure not to designate any mediator you reject, or even to designate a particular mediator selected by you.
#The Mediation Committee normally asks the parties to the mediation to refrain from editing the contested article while the mediation is proceeding.  You and I will both agree in advance to honor this request.  Naturally, that applies to us as users, not just to one user name or IP number.
#The page will be unprotected.
#I think the mediation would go more smoothly if you would create an account, but I won't insist on that as a precondition.
How does that sound? JamesMLane 07:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterproposal

message: Hello JamesMLane , very happpy to see you write in the spirit of cooperation.  I would be willing to participate in mediation if the AMA is not successful.  Perhaps we could just agree to the fatboy.cc link and get this all behind us and work as a team to make this a meaningful, neutral, and informative page?   I am willing to forget and forgive all the past abuse for such an agreement.   I would agree to some disclaimer text to be posted with the link which we could write together.
Thank you.
:You still don't understand the role of the AMA. You say "if the AMA is not successful" but there is absolutely nothing the AMA can do on its own.  It doesn't conduct mediations.  Instead, the idea is that you and I would agree to enter mediation with Mediation Committee.  At that point, because you're new here, you might feel that you don't have a grasp of the procedures yet.  Enter the AMA.  An advocate from the AMA will be much more familiar with the procedures and can advise you on how to participate.  Actually, the AMA can probably help you out even earlier, in explaining mediation to you to help you decide whether it makes sense for you to agree to it in the first place.  (I've never been directly involved with the AMA but that's my understanding of it.  Sam Spade has edited this page, so I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.)
:Your specific suggestion for an amicable resolution is that you get your way about including the link, but that, in addition to cluttering the article with the link, we then clutter it further with a "disclaimer statement".  To my mind that doesn't accomplish anything.  I'll refrain from making the obvious counterproposal that we just agree to omit the link.  Instead, I'll repeat the offer I made above: I'm willing to proceed before the Mediation Committee if you are. JamesMLane 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterproposal Reply

message: I agree that Ted Kennedy photos, audio, & political satire is an attack site, but is there a rule against that? Most controvercial pages have sites critical to the subject matter, but is there some sort of line drawn about going to far. I agree that including this page here is a bit like linking to http://dumbya.com/ at George Bush, but is there a rule against that? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are attack sites not allowed? 

message: Some of these users are categorized based on pre-RfC comments and edits.
Include the link (total 13): 24.147.97.230, 65.241.12.7, 62.245.167.6,  64.95.78.122, 193.136.157.2, 209.161.5.194, 24.147.231.218, 204.186.238.30, 216.13.18.3, 216.239.175.244, 69.17.65.27,209.172.97.76 Keetoowah  (Note comments below about some of these users.)
Omit the link (total 11): Mrtrey99, Jmabel, JamesMLane, Coneslayer,  Tεxτurε, Christopher Parham, FuelWagon, Paul August, Rhobite, jpgordon∇∆∇∆, Robert McClenon  (Interseting comment of Kelly Martin   " Registered users are actually capable of being more anonymous than anonymous users as their IP addresses are hidden"  Please read Kelly's advise below.  Thank you 24.147.97.230 04:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Running tally

message: Is it possible for an article to be permanently protected against anonymous edits?  If so, I think that that would resolve the issue.  Anyone who is willing to sign in and discuss the merits of the link should be allowed to try to change the consensus as long as they are civil and do not get into a revert war.  Completely protecting the article has to be a short-term solution.  Can an article be permanently protected only from anonymous edits?  Robert McClenon 21:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for an admin

message: It's obvious that this RfC is being publicized outside Wikipedia somehow, through emails and/or a listing on a right-wing site.  It also appears that it's being described, incorrectly, as a vote, rather than an RfC.  Just out of curiosity: Is Cookie the same as 24.147.97.230, who's been most assiduously pushing the link?  And how is the recruiting being done -- specifically, has our humble RfC been deemed worthy of mention on Free Republic or some such place? JamesMLane 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for "Cookie"

message: The following comment has been moved from the "runnning tally":
(Interseting comment of Kelly Martin " Registered users are actually capable of being more anonymous than anonymous users as their IP addresses are hidden" Please read Kelly's advise below. Thank you 24.147.97.230 04:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on running tally 

message: I think that the Wikipedia community owes Kelly Martin thanks for the difficult and tedious job of conducting this survey for consensus.
I would also like to thank Keetoowah for having the courage to express a minority view signed with a known handle.  Robert McClenon 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: However, stubbornness can be a violation of the 3RR rule, which is also grounds for blocking an IP address.  I notice that the most persistent anonymous IP address is also in a revert war about inserting an "interesting comment" in the "running tally", and has violated 3RR there.  I suggest that the article be unprotected, with the understanding that if the link is reinserted, it can be reverted any number of times, and that insertion 4 times by the same user is a 3RR violation.
Robert McClenon 18:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubbornness