The original request:
Anonymous Editor 188.8.131.52 and other addresses
- Party 1 (requesting arbitration): Robert McClenon
- Party 2 (against whom arbitration is requested): 184.108.40.206 and other addresses.
Statement by party 1
Either a single anonymous editor, using multiple IP addresses but primarily 220.127.116.11 , or multiple anonymous editors, have been engaged in an extended edit war on the Ted Kennedy page, and now also the Rosemary Kennedy page.
A complete list of addresses in use is found at Wikipedia: Requests for comment/18.104.22.168.
There are two issues, content issues and conduct issues. I am not asking the ArbCom to resolve the content issues. However, the conduct issues make it impossible to resolve the content issues. The page has been under page protection twice in the past two months to stop the edit wars and revert wars.
The content issues are whether particular sections that are negative to Ted Kennedy and to Joseph Kennedy Sr. should be included. The majority of signed-in editors think that these sections are non-encyclopedic and should not be included. The anonymous editors have insisted on continuing to add (revert) the same sections. They have accused the other editors of failing to negotiate in good faith.
The first content issue was the inclusion of an external link to an attack web site from the Ted Kennedy page. Multiple anonymous IP addresses added the link, no more than three addresses in a 24-hour period, which appears to be gaming the system. The page was then protected by an admin. After some search for a mediator, Kelly Martin agreed to try to mediate. This resulted in her conclusion that there was a consensus against inclusion of the link.
The anonymous editors have now tried to add the link to the web site for Rosemary Kennedy, who was only a victim and should not be the subject of having her family ridiculed. Claims that there was a consensus against the inclusion of the link are being rejected.
There were two more revert wars over the inclusion of material of little encyclopedic value. Editors who think that these paragraphs should not be included have been willing to have quickpolls on their relevance. However, the anonymous editors have altered the polls, and have accused their opponents (incorrectly) of POV pushing and disregard for consensus.
Since discussion is not working, and requests for other methods of discussion are not working, I request arbitration as a last resort.
ArbCom actions requested by party 1
When the ArbCom accepts this case, I request that the principles cited include a statement that disputes should be resolved by consensus, but that consensus does not mean unanimous consent. (These anonymous editors are arguing, based on competing dictionary definitions, that consensus does mean unanimity, and so are demanding a liberum veto.) I also request that a statement be made that, in an encyclopedia, which is a compendium of knowledge, editorial judgment is required as to what is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Statement by party 2
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)" 22.214.171.124 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Interested third parties
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)
- 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)
comment from third party (Robert McClenon RFA v 126.96.36.199): FuelWagon
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, 188.8.131.52 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)
RE: ballot stuffing. In any wikipedia poll, I could find a website or mailing list or blog that supports my position and spam them saying "hey people, wikipedia is trying to suppress your point of view. Your vote is needed now!" or some equally partisan bit of propaganda, give them a URL to a wikipedia talk page with the poll in question, and then sit back and watch the votes tally up. I could do that, but I wouldn't. To me, polls are among editors who are actually doing the work, making the contributions, and investing the time to make the article better. i.e. polls are a way for editors to resolve disputes amongst themselves. The idea of getting outside, non-contributers to vote in a poll simply to force the result a certain way is not what I would call a good-faith attempt to resolve a dispute between editors who are actually working and contributing to an article. FuelWagon 14:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Previous Dispute Resolution
There have been three previous article Requests for Comments to try to resolve these content and conduct issues.
There was one previous attempt at mediation (via a non-MedCom procedure), by Kelly Martin. She concluded that there was a consensus against adding the "fatboy.cc" link to the Ted Kennedy site. However, the advocates of adding the link dispute the claim of consensus.
Since a previous RFM has not resulted in a truce, I have no reason to believe that mediation will have any effect again.
A Request for Comments was posted about the conduct of the anonymous editors. Their response was to post a Request for Comments about my conduct. This does not seem to provide any evidence that they are willing to try to change their conduct.
Again, please understand the user Robert McClenon has posted the above mentioned RFC...as he has done to 3 other users in 30 days, his first 30 days at Wikipedia184.108.40.206 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- This arbitration request is premature. The last step of dispute resolution should be a request for arbitration. User:Robert_McClenon has, to date, refused to engage in mediation with User:220.127.116.11,. An attempt at mediation should always be made before it reaches this stage.--Agiantman 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Response to claim of premature arbitration request:
- Mediation, as noted above and below, has been attempted. I see no reason to delay arbitration simply to permit another round of mediation, which I expect will not result in a compromise, to delay arbitration.
- The above statement that the RfAr is premature is being filed by someone who is not a first, second, or third party to this proceeding at this time. I have stated that I am willing to go to mediation with Agiantman, but not with 18.104.22.168. Robert McClenon 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Response to claim of premature arbitration request:
Confirmation of Parties' Awareness
- Party 1 Robert McClenon 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Party 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:22.214.171.124&diff=21539886&oldid=21536212
Statement by involved third party
I was invited to mediate a dispute on this article related to the inclusion of a specific external link. However, I concluded that the dispute was not mediatable as there was no middle ground that the parties would consider acceptable. The parties were (understandably) unwilling to submit to third-party arbitration of the acceptability of the link. At that point, I listed the issue on RFC and a reasonably civil discussion ensued, in which a number of editors (all save one posting from anonymous addresses) argued in support of the link, and a number of established Wikipedians argued against inclusion of the link. At the point where it appeared to me that the discussion had terminated, I offered my opinion as to the apparent consensus of the Wikipedia community regarding the issue. At the time the lead anon advocating for this link (the only one with any significant edit history) appeared to accept that conclusion. I have not, however, continued to monitor the article after the point at which the dispute seemed to be resolved, nor have I monitored the editing of any of the parties on other related or unrelated articles.
It is my impression that the flock of anons are not sockpuppets of the lead anon, but instead distinct likeminded individuals acting at his direction or urging: this appears to be a "grassroots" effort to influence Wikipedia consensus rather than a single individual trying to appear to be more than one person. Kelly Martin 18:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by jpgordon
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)
Expansion on statement
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)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/2/1)
- Abstain, for the time being. →Raul654 02:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse Fred Bauder 14:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse (served as mediator in dispute) Kelly Martin 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)