Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments of [[User24.147.97.230]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outside View by FuelWagon 

message: 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 [] 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)
thread_title: Editing behaviour of user Robert  McClenon