Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:26, 22 August 2005

Request for Comments

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon--Agiantman 21:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the note about the Kennedy Page. I prefer to leave the RFC notices there for now. It was ok to have the RFCs that attack agiantman posted there, it was ok to have an RFC about me posted there. It was not until I posted 2 RFCs about the pro Kennedy editors that it was not ok to post them there. No one came to my aid, or to the aid of agiantman. Now it is known that Robert McClenon was working on 4 RFCs against users at the same time. A bit extreme. Thank you

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

24.147.97.230 00:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

yes the personal attacks don't belong on the talk page

But they don't belong in the archives either. They shouldn't have happened, but they did, and they do happen quite often on other pages as well. These silly attacks are not of the extreme vulgarity or slanderous sort that we need to censor from pages. Much more is allowed in the talk pages, even if it is disaproved of. We don't need the unnecessary censorship. Many in the community have not had a chance to read this yet. Don't worry, eventually when the discussions die down, these will end up in the archives.--Silverback 01:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

censorship does not achieve what you think it does. Don't censor the talk pages. Now is a particularly bad time to do it with several RfCs referring to those pages as evidence, you are just making more work for the community. Hopefully you are not attempting a coverup.--Silverback 01:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is strange that you think this important enough to have violated the 3RR rule, when you don't consider it worth arguing over. How are you helping by violating the rules yourself? You really should self revert your censorship.--Silverback 01:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are edit warring on a talk page, that is the last place for deletionism, you should have stopped when people objected. You evidently feel like your good intentions justify breaking the rules, such as 3RR, and you violated common wikipedia ettiquette by deleting other peoples comments on the talk page. Why do you think "good intentions" excuses all this? You should put the page back.--Silverback 02:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You deleted quite a bit of material that was not personal attacks that you should have left in there even by your criteria. Perhaps, in the future you should just strike through the personal attacks if you feel that strongly about it.--Silverback 05:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Kennedy

Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Specifically, for shoveling manure into the appropriate pile. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm trying to remain impartial and act as a helper from the outside. I'm not trying to gain points or anything here, I just need to occupy myself with something and this seemed a worthy cause. I think everyone here intends the best, but politicians in general have a way of manipulating us into following them blindly. I think if we can convince everyone to respect each other and think about edits from a factual standpoint instead of an emotional one, we can still get this article to a NPOV. - Sleepnomore 02:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about gaining points. You've convinced me that you are not admin material.--Silverback 02:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• It's exactly the impartiality I am thanking you for. You boldly came in and cleaned up a mess, which will help in getting a fresh start or at least some fresh viewpoints. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your deletions are a well-intended effort to get people to focus on what they should focus on, namely improving the article. I invite you to consider, however, what the evidence of the last several hours shows. The method you tried isn't conducive to the goal. The practical effect is that there's another distraction from any substantive discussion. Being against personal attacks is certainly proper. I'm obviously the target of quite a few of those attacks, though, and my personal preference is that all these nasty comments about me stay posted -- as long as they also carry the user name of the author. That's the best way to hold these people accountable. JamesMLane 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, they are vandalism, she long ago wore out the assumption of good faith, the wanton disregard for the 3RR rule, the deletion of material that is not personal attacks under the guise of deleting personal attacks, etc.--Silverback 07:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sleepnomore, would you please explain to me why you deleted this section? I expressed an opinion that differed from yours, but I don't think I violated any Misplaced Pages policy. JamesMLane 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I was a bit suprised when you accused me of that, I was joking because JamesMLane jokingly said that Gamaliel would be forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh. This what Limbaugh would say about Gamaliel, and its ridicolous, thats why it amusing. Please don't erase "personal attacks" unless they are actual attacks(just read a bit more to be sure, I'll throw in some :)s to make it more obvious. This is why you should only delete things on your talk page. General talk page comments, as I have learned, should be left alone unless it said something like "F*** BUSH" five times. Voice of All(MTG) 06:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh, I also notice that my edits were caught up between arhiving and other deleted stuff reverted back in my JameMLane, sorry about that, I was just trying to make one post(then corrected it like 8 million times).Voice of All(MTG) 06:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Other editors have mentioned the three-revert rule to you. I don't know if anyone has spelled it out for you. Just in case you're unaware of it, you should read Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. The summary statement of it from that page is: "Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." Obviously, you've violated the rule on Talk:Ted Kennedy. Furthermore, when I presented my reasons for preferring the other version, you just kept right on reverting, without responding to my arguments at all. The only difference was that you also reverted my comments. This is very bad form. Please, just let it lie. JamesMLane 08:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reported the 3RR violation, the continued use of the deceptive personal attack excuse, as repeated on User talk:JamesMLane showed complete lack of good faith and an intent to vandalize. Let her defend her behavior there, and see if that excuse washes after she has been informed that non-personal attack text was also being deleted.--Silverback 09:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)