User:Gamaliel/RPJ

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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.

I dispute RPJ's conduct because I believe it to be against the standards of Wiki. He continues to enter into revert wars, berate users like Mytwocents with whom he disagrees, and insists on inserting unverifiable, incomplete and inaccurate information into the article concerning JFK assassination. Ramsquire 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

First edit: First edit 2005-11-01 00:57:36

According to Kate's Tools, as of 1/28/06 RPJ had 384 total edits to only 25 pages. 224 edits were to articles. None of these edits appear to be on any topic except the JFK assassination or conspiracy.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

  1. Accuses editors who disagree with the insertion of certain material of "censorship". [1]
  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 [2] and even other editors [3] (the "red herring" comment is a reference to the edit summary of another editor: [4])
  4. When notified [5] that he was (possibly inadvertantly) vandalizing the Lee Harvey Oswald article [6], he complained [7] that it was a "gimmick" by editors who disagreed with his contributions.
  5. repeatedly deletes factual material to insert conspiracy POV[8]
  6. repeatedly asserts opinion as fact [9]
  7. Consistantly re-inserts paragraphs of text and block quotes that have been condensed by other editors for space reasons or NPOV. [10] Refers to other editors as "vandals" or "readers" [11] 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Personal attacks, including [12] [13], [14]
  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. [15] [16] [17] [18]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:NPOV
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  4. Wikipedia:Civility

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Gamaliel informing RPJ to cease the personal attacks, and requesting RPJ engage in civil and rational discussions. [19]
  2. User informing him to not vandalize other talk pages.[20]
  3. Another reminder by an anonymous user regarding Wiki:Civility [21]
  4. Ramsquire's latest failed attempt at resolution and concensus. [22] This attempt was responded to in an uncivil manner and more personal attacks. [23]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ramsquire 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mytwocents 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. JimWae 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Ramsquire 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Fat Carl 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

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.