Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by party 2

message: I urge ArbCom to deal with this matter.  This editor's conduct has not been proper in any way, shape, or form.  This IP address initially started editing here by inserting a promotional link for the fatboy.cc anti-Kennedy website and now is intent on inserting large chunks of material derived from that website.  S/he has unleashed an army of sockpuppets to start a revert war to insert two large, POV sections of dubious encyclopedic value.  A large consensus of editors of numerous political persuasions opposes the insertion of the material in its current form.  Instead of seeking a compromise or an alternative way to insert some of the same facts in the article (as many of those editors have repeatedly stated they were open to) this editor insists that everyone who disagrees with the insertion of those two sections is a pro-Kennedy partisan, a vandal, a POV warrior, etc., etc.  This editor is essentially a one issue POV war and this sort of anti-wiki behavior should be stopped now. Gamaliel 04:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I did not write the RFC, though I did sign it, as did four other editors to date, and I agree with what Robert McClenon wrote.  Also, if I am drafted into this proceeding, so should the rest of the ten or so editors who have participated in forming the consensus against 24.147's POV edits in that article. Gamaliel 16:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interested third parties

message: My involvment in this article was to post a reply to an article RFC some time ago regarding whether or not the article should include the "fatboy.cc" link. My comment at the time was something to the effect that the website seemed one step above juvenile bathroom humor, its only claim to fame is several pictures of Kennedy's naked stomach and a picture with a roadmap superimposed over his nose. This site is equivalent to finding a comment about someone scribbled on a bathroom wall with anatomically correct sketches included. I consider the site to be an embarrassment to be listed on wikipedia. And to use policy-language: it is unencyclopedic and non-notable. a number of editors agreed  and the consensus seemed to be drop it. several anon IP editors voted to keep the link, but user jpgordon pointed out that most of these anon votes are from IP addresses that made only 1 edit, which would indicate ballot stuffing by one of the editors engaged in the dispute or the strangest voting dynamic I've seen on wikipedia.  Despite consensus to drop it, 24.147.97.230 continues to push to have the fatboy.cc website listed. The ballot stuffing incident and the insistence to include a grout-writing URL despite consensus to drop it (at least among the registered users) is enough of a red-flag that good faith can no longer be assumed and that processes for dispute resolution that require good-faith (RFC's and mediation) will not work. FuelWagon 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment from third party (Robert McClenon RFA v 24.147.97.230): FuelWagon

message: #Party 1 Robert McClenon 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation of Parties' Awareness

message: I urge Arbcom to involve themselves in this case. Though it may seem like a simple content dispute, the intransigence of the "fatboy anon", which has led to Ted Kennedy being protected for much of the last several months, is a classic case of a user with no grasp whatsoever of Wikipedia principles of cooperation, NPOV, and simple honesty. The RFC on the anon makes it clear that he is willing to call in non-Wikipedians (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that they are not outright sockpuppets) to stack the deck to make it appear that he has the support that in reality is almost completely missing; he simply refuses to accept that consensus is overwhelmingly against him, and instead insists on inserting exactly the same text that he has been trying to insert for months. Please help. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by jpgordon

message: As the first party to this RfAr, I see an issue of whether Wikipedia can develop quality NPOV articles on controversial politicians and similar public figures.  There is a consensus (in Wikipedia terms, which does not mean unanimity) on whether particular text should be included in full (that it should not) or abridged (that it should).  The user in question then repeatedly refers to the removal of sections that are considered non-encyclopedic as vandalism.  He then requests page protection against "vandalism", which has resulted in the article being page-protected at least three times, each time for more than a week.  Robert McClenon 15:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion on statement

message: * Abstain, for the time being. →Raul654 02:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
* Accept. James F. (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/2/1)