Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RPJ

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

User:RPJ continues to violate WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:CIVIL and WP:V. USer edits only on conspiracy related articles, and edits in a style that is consistently pursuing a conspiracy POV. When asked by other editorsto provide sources for his information, he changes the subject to begin debates on the accuracy of the Warren Commission or claims that editors want to delete information because they are working with the government to suppress "the truth". User has been blocked at least five times for trolling. However, nothing seems to desist this user from acting in bad faith. In addition, editor frequently uses deceptive edit summaries to add POV language while decrying this tactic from other editors.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Please note, that the diffs I am providing are from user's last block on October 17, 2006.

  1. [1] POV edit distorting facts.
  2. [2] Response to Gamaliel, after Gamaliel attempted to avoid having another edit war on this issue due to the previous edit.
  3. [3] misstating WP:NPOV to justify his edits which add undue weight to minority viewpoints.
  4. [4] Another bad faith edit by user attempting to portray me as a bigot, when the only issue I brought up was Mr. Griffith's notability.
  5. [5] Another edit by user attempting to push conspiracy POV, with a complete disregard of facts and violating. Edit is also original research, although user attempts to hide this by providing citations. The citations provided do not support his assertions, and in some cases contradict it. In total, this edit violates all of the policies listed above.
  6. [6] User's response when called on his POV edit. Insinuates improper motive to user in violation of WP:CIVIL.
  7. [7] Another attempt to violate WP:NPOV by giving certain testimony undue weight.
  8. [8] Third attempt to introduce POV, original research into article. Also, user again implies improper motive to other editors who believe these edits violate Wikipedia policy.
  9. [9] Another improper edit violation WP:NPOV by attempting to give undue weight to a minority viewpoint.
  10. [10] Wiki-lawyering to place his POV edit into this article, when a spin off article has already been created.
  11. [11] mis-citing policy and again implying improper motives to other editors.
  12. [12] another POV edit in that user is giving undue weight to one person's opinion.
  13. [13] another POV edit, with factual distortions.
  14. [14] another intentional misstatement of supposed Wiki policies.
  15. [15] Use of offensive header towards SBHarris who simply rebuts his assertions in previous edit.
  16. [16] flagrant misstatement of WP:NPOV and again implying improper motives to editors in violation of WP:CIVIL
  17. [17] User once again engaging in original research, violating NPOV, WP:V. Provided citations does not support his characterization of de Mohrenschildt.
  18. [18]
  19. [19] Yet another edit by user violating the above provisions despite knowledge of this RfC.
  20. [20] evidence of the fact that user will not desist from his trolling edits, although he has been warned by non-involved admins that these type of posts are improper here, and here. Please note that editor has deleted the evidence of this block and this discussion from his talk page without explanation via edit summary.

Selected examples of RPJ's past behavior[edit]

  1. Accuses editors who disagree with the insertion of certain material of "censorship". [21]
  2. Speculates on the motives of editors who disagree with the insertion of certain material, accusing them of being "disturbed" by his/her conclusions and viewpoint.
  3. Inserts long, rambling, unencylopedic POV essay-type material into introductions and other parts of articles attacking particular sources [22] and even other editors [23] (the "red herring" comment is a reference to the edit summary of another editor: [24])
  4. When notified [25] that he was (possibly inadvertantly) vandalizing the Lee Harvey Oswald article [26], he complained [27] that it was a "gimmick" by editors who disagreed with his contributions.
  5. repeatedly deletes factual material to insert conspiracy POV[28]
  6. repeatedly asserts opinion as fact [29]
  7. Consistantly re-inserts paragraphs of text and block quotes that have been condensed by other editors for space reasons or NPOV. [30] Refers to other editors as "vandals" or "readers" [31] 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Personal attacks, including [32] [33], [34]
  9. Accused an editor of administrative misconduct on the talk pages of four articles despite the fact that the editor had performed no administrative actions in regards to the JFK articles. [35] [36] [37] [38]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:RS
  3. WP:V
  4. WP:CIVIL
  5. WP:AGF
  6. WP:OR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41] Point by point explanation of the problems with one edit in question.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gamaliel 02:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Joegoodfriend 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) I have read in detail the entries and talk pages relevant to this discussion for many months and followed the arguments and changes closely. Yes, RPJ has violated policies as described in the dispute. I have felt that the most egregious example started here [42]. Over the course of a month, RPJ started nine consecutive threads on this talk page that were openly insulting to the editor Gamaliel. These redundant tirades feature such chestnuts as “"Gamaliel" has become confused as to his role in this web page. Most of his work in Wikipedia is in comic books.”[43] Following these nine personal attack threads, I added a thread stating in detail why I disagreed with RPJ. [44]. RPJ responded immediately with a new thread[45] not addressing the points I had raised and instead attacking my credibility. Furthermore, Gamaliel has edited these pages in a way which has been exemplary. Gamaliel edits have been timely, accurate, prudent and have added value to the pages. This has kept them from becoming what RPJ wants them to be: a stream-of-consciousness scattering of speculation regarding the evidence, bolstered by facts and quotes taken out of context so as to lend credence to every conspiracy theory ever postulated. Joegoodfriend 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mytwocents 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ has consistently chastised anyone who deletes any of his contributions to the JFK related pages. I have seen this behavior, rv'd or modified his edits and been a target of his diatribes for a year now. It seems that RPJ's sole passion on wikipedia is to add JFK assassination conspiracy info to articles. He takes sabbaticals, and has been blocked several times, but he returns to, yet again, add the same or similar questionable text, with the accompanying personal attacks on anyone who dares to contradict his edits. Mytwocents 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shell babelfish 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) In addition to the editing problems, RPJ now has five seperate blocks due to his persistant personal attacks and harassment of users involved in editing the above referenced pages. In disputing his last block, he made wild accusations, up to and including my collusion with Gamliel based on a statement made by Gamliel in 2004, before I was even an editor. He seriously needs to reconsider his behavior before it leads to a community ban.[reply]
  4. Tbeatty 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ seems to have a single purpose and that is to disrupt Kennedy Assassination articles. My experience with him forced me to do research on the Carcano rifle (research that was already done extensively for the article). This was six months ago and I thought it was settled since it is overwhelming. However, just last week, RPJ had once again started to dispute the Carcano/Mauser rifle and trying to change the wording of the article to make it seem doubtful. RPJ should simply be banned from editing any articles related to the Kennedy Assassination. Assassination ony has two "ass"es in it. Tbeatty 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maverick 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC) This edit to my talk page [46] shows that RPJ not only beats around the bush when it comes to confronting his behavior, he obviously has a disregard for the rules (as shown here [47].)[reply]
  7. —freak(talk) 20:43, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)
  8. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC). The example diffs above, and the user's general belligerence on User talk:RPJ and the JFK assassination-related talkpages, show a lack of respect for NPOV and for other editors. The constant accusations against those who disagree with him of shady motives and bad faith are of particular concern. Since all the blocks unfortunately seem merely to confirm him in these behaviors, he's IMO ready for an indefinite ban, whether issued by the community or the arbitration committee.[reply]
  9. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC). This user is quite disruptive.[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel[edit]

RPJ has long been an obstacle to productive and cooperative editing on articles related to the JFK assassination. RPJ is a single issue editor who has made no edits to Wikipedia regarding any other issue, and when he strays outside the JFK group of articles to articles such as FBI, CIA, or J. Edgar Hoover, his edits are soundly rejected by the editors there. [48] All of his edits are dedicated to push conspiracy theories, and specifically to push the particularly outlandish theories he favors: there was an Oswald double in Mexico charged with planting a false trail, teenage Oswald was molested by and then recruited into the CIA by David Ferrie (who was incidentally not in the CIA), a Mauser and not the Carcano rifle used to kill JFK was found in the Depository and later switched with a Carcano, the photos of Oswald holding the murder weapon are fakes because Oswald's chin is supposedly too big. He ignores the universal consensus against inserting this material and repeately inserts it again and again. When he stops, he simply waits a few weeks or months and inserts the same material again, ignoring the previous discussion and consensus.

RPJ and his cheerleader Andreasedge would have you believe that this issue is about "representing all points of view" and RPJ likes to repeat over and over again that it is "the basic rule of this website". But RPJ treats it like it is the only rule, repeatedly ignoring and showing contempt for NPOV, verifiability, undue weight, reliable sources, etc., etc. He has repeatedly presented his theories as fact, placed them in the introduction to articles, and presented them in a way which completely ignores contradictory evidence or any non-conspiracy viewpoint.

If this were not bad enough, RPJ also treats other editors with contempt, continually mocking and attacking them. He has repeatedly accused other editors of being government employees engaged in a cover-up or having some crippling psychological malady that requires them to reject his powerful truths. Any attempt to get him to curb this behavior is greeted with more contempt and more attacks. He has singled me out for special treatment, repeatedly attacking me, vandalizing my user page, and calling for me to be stripped of my adminship despite the fact that I have taken no administrative actions regarding RPJ or the JFK articles. If I were an uninvolved party and witnessed this type of behavior elsewhere, I would have quickly intervened to prevent this type of abuse and this wouldn’t be an issue now. All other admins who have looked into this issue – see the many blocks from numerous admins RPJ has received – have all concluded that the behavior of RPJ is the problem and have either blocked him or refused his many unblock requests. Unfortunately, none of them have been willing to follow up an monitor RPJ's long term behavior, and I’m not sure I can blame them for not wanting to wade into the gutter here. Those of us who are regular editors of the JFK articles have certainly not be willing to deal with this either, and we have put off dispute resolution for a long time, hoping to avoid the lengthy hassle. However, RPJ's behavior has flouted the rules for too long and shows no sign of becoming a productive, collaborative editor. Gamaliel 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Regarding RPJ's comment that we "could only find 25 [edits] that were objectionable to the complaining group", note that these are just examples and we could easily provide dozens more similar examples. For me personally, the main reason I did not persue dispute resolution earlier is that I did not relish digging through his many of edits documenting and reexperiencing his offensive behavior. RPJ also claims that we "levy many vague charges and offer little in the way of explanation of what really bothers them." This is clearly absurd. Our complaints are specific, detailed, and illustrated with examples. RPJ constantly employs the tactic of feigning ignorance when confronted with his negative behavior and no one is fooled by this as he has been provided specific examples of what he is doing wrong again and again. Gamaliel 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

    1. RPJ should be banned from editing Kennedy Assassination articles. Tbeatty 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Joegoodfriend 18:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    4. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    6. I'm afraid I agree. And not because we disagree with his conclusions, though we do. It's the way he gets there, and his unwillingness to face evidence. He's completely wasted enough people's time on this issue. SBHarris 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Summary: A small group of users led by an administrator named Gamaliel, adhere to a minority view on a controversial subject but through persistent deletions of well sourced material, disparagement of other viewpoints, and complaints about the alleged "bad" conduct of others want to restrict the web site to the group's "consensus" viewpoint of the controversial topic.

Now blocking has become an additional tool. This dispute will likely go to arbitration if not resolved. The issue should likely be whether Gamaliel should remain an administrator and the other person making the charges should become an administrator as he has been attempting to do.

The pertinent rule is:

    • ” [A]t times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually . . . not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. [[49]]

What follows is a more detailed reponse. Since 18 individual charges have been raised more detail will be given below:

This claim involves an important fact situation that arises in the small number of articles (out of Wikipedia’s many articles) that are highly controversial. The main claim me is I don’t follow the “consensus..” This is not an appropriate argument when well sourced material is consistently removed because a small group of editors doesn’t agee with the viewpoint. The policy on consensus is very clear on that. We can't have a consensus to delete significant viewpoints relating to a subject just because a small group of editors reaches a "consensus to do so.

The group in question simply has decided to keep other viewpoints besides the group's viewpoints out of the article. That is not right. According to public opinion polls there are at least three schools of thought on the controversy of who killed Kennedy. See, the ABC news poll [50]

This poll, as other polls, show most of the public believes there was a conspiracy, and some of those people believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy and some people don't believe Oswald was part of the conspiracy. Very few people believe the third, theory,that Oswald was the lone gun man. This last theory is embraced by Gamaliel and his group, which is fine. And, this minority viewpoint has a right to be included in the article since Wikipedia allows all significant viewpoints to be included.

Despite this minority viewpoint held by Gamaliel and his group, all not satisfied with the Kennedy related articles providing all three viewpoints (1-Conspiracy; 2-conspiracy without Oswald; and 3-Oswald as lone gun man). Instead, Gamaliel and his group delete much material as “conspiracy nonsense.” This Gamaliel led group has now claimed there is a “consensus” that the lone gunman theory is correct and it should be give the greatest weight in the article and evidence supporting other viewpoints deleted, downgraded in importance, or subjected to point of view forks.

  • Prior activity
    • Prior to this Gamaliel has pleaded with other administrators to block me for personal attacks on talk pages, and now have grouped these “infractions under the phrase “trolling.” which is apparently saying something to get Gamaliel and his group upset. The block referred to ended up sticking for a week because the administrator reviewed it said that even though my language was civil, and there were no overt personal attacks, my editing caused “tension” wherever I go. Where I go is on the JFK Assassination related articles which I have some knowledge. It is the same place where Gamaliel goes, and my attempts to edit apparently irritate him no end.
    • Another block was for adding a missing bracket which someone said violated a three revert rule. another block was for reproducing for an administrator the large number deletions of information by Gamaliel with the disparaging comment “conspiracy nonsense.”
    • it appears those that impose blocks are ignoring the basic rule that it is improper to block “logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block.”


    • One of the present complaints listed against me was for pointing out that material shouldn’t be deleted with an odd explanation by Gamaliel that he was:
      • "restoring one, removing one"
      • That's it. This is a "reason" given for a deletion by "Gamaliel."

The policy of this web site is that “Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.”

“Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.” (emphasis in original)

Wikipedia cautions editors:

  • "Do not revert good faith edits"
  • "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute." [[51]]



  • Conclusion

If someone reviews this and believes that a point by point discussion of the 18 claims should be discussed to give a full picture I will do so. The two other editors that support Gamaliel and Ramsquire are in the group.

RPJ 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


November 11, 2006. All of a sudden nine more claims have appeared. . Now I will have to address these claims.
Since, I probably provided about 1,000 edits over the last 12 months, I'm amazed that the group could only find 25 that were objectionable to the complaining group. Whoever reads the citations supplied by the group will likely wonder what is the concern of the group?

It is usually a clear tip-off that someone, such as this group who is complaining, has a weak case when they levy many vague charges and offer little in the way of explanation of what really bothers them. RPJ 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This seems to be a simple problem; Editors who stand by the Warren Commission, and those who don't. It's a case of "Yes it is", and "No it isn't". The truth is that nobody knows what happened, because nobody actually saw Oswald actually fire the rifle. This is a fact, despite one or two people saying that "It looked like him". Asking for citations (when all the books written about the subject are POVs anyway) is going nowhere. RPJ is asking that all points of view are included, e.g., "let the reader decide" - which is fair. I understand that Wikipedia is about facts, but don't forget that Bush and Blair both believed that "Weapons of mass-destruction" were in Iraq before it was invaded. Give RPJ his own page, and stop fighting. Be nice.

Endorsed by:[edit]

andreasegde 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not endorsed by:[edit]

User:sbharris. Not just Warren. All three of the relevent government investigations (Warren, Clark, HSCA) came to the conclusion that nobody shot JFK but Lee Harvey Oswald. The fact that nobody who previously knew Oswald actually watched him commit the deed, is irrelevent to our problem. HAD anybody seen him do it, this would be easily explained by the conspiracy theory of an Oswald body double, which has been seriously been put forward in several books, and notably advanced by RPJ himself to explain Oswald sightings in Mexico City, which the FBI thought for a time were not Oswald. So this gets us exactly nowhere. A person who does not WANT to believe an event in the past happened, sometimes cannot be made to believe it happened no matter what evidence is presented for it. For the record, however, Oswald's own older brother who knew him all his life and as well as anybody, believed then, and now, that he's guilty (the Lee he knew would have been livid with rage at being charged with a crime he didn't commit, not calm). As for the physical evidence that Oswald was a double murderer, it doesn't get much better for 1963. Many people have been convicted on far less. A confession is not the gold standard, because people confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. And eyewitnesses are mistaken all the time. In fact, 4 witnesses need to be mistaken to clear Oswald of the Tippit murder (plus a lot of firearm evidence). But if he did that, he surely must have also killed JFK also. SBHarris 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Give RPJ his own page ? What do you mean? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of this view on the talk page. Ramsquire (throw me a line)

17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

User:Tbeatty has stated above that RPJ should be banned from editing articles related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Such a remedy would be functionally equivalent to a total ban, as RPJ does not appear to edit any other topics. I'm not saying a total ban is needed, nor that it should be avoided, just that the effects of a topic ban would be identical. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RPJ#Edit analysis. —freak(talk) 20:11, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Bishonen[edit]

As one of the people who've blocked RPJ for trolling and personal attacks, specifically against Gamaliel, I was interested to learn in RPJ's response above that Gamaliel has supposedly been "pleading" with admins to block RPJ, and that RPJ's "trolling" merely amounts to "saying something to get Gamaliel and his group upset." His group? To the best of my memory, I have never spoken to Gamaliel or he to me, and nobody else has spoken to me on his behalf, either. It's my opinion that RPJ should be prevented from disrupting the JFK assassination articles, and from abusing Gamaliel and others, as soon as possible. In fact, checking out the list of diffs above, I have some trouble understanding how a one-issue POV warrior this rude and disruptive, and with that block log, is still editing here and making the editing lives of productive users this miserable. With the amount of evidence of personal attacks alone, there's IMO no need to let this RFC sit. The abuse should be taken straight to either a proposal for a community ban on WP:ANI, or to arbitration. BTW, an interim page ban from all JFK-assassination-related pages can be requested from the arbitration committee as soon as the case is accepted, which I have little doubt it would be.

User:Andreasegde recommends in his view above that RPJ be "given" (?) his own page about the Kennedy assassination to edit without interference by other editors. In other words, Andreas advocates the deliberate creation of a POV fork, in defiance of basic Wikipedia policy and practice. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking and compare discussion on talk. Being nice doesn't trump NPOV. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary
  1. Shell babelfish 20:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ seems to feel that anyone blocking or warning him is in collusion with those he disputes with and has never acknowledged his problematic behavior.[reply]
  2. Endorse, I too have blocked RPJ for trolling on my talk page. I have certainly not been collaborating with User:Gamaliel. If RPJ wants a POV fork, he needs to create one off-site. —freak(talk) 20:42, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mytwocents 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Endorse, Support partial or full ban for trolling JFK pages.[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RPJ&oldid=1142569615"