User:Ramsquire Workspace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

diff

another one

[edit] RfC on User Conduct

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.

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]

{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
7. [19]
8. [20]
9. [21] Point by point explanation of the problems with one edit in question.

[edit] Arbitration Evidence

diff by user as an anon

diff

another one

trolling as anon

more trolling

Anon identities:

• User:75.80.215.192 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• User:63.164.145.198 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• User:72.134.255.219 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) Several PA's in the contribution history of this anon.

[22]

[23]

[24] POV

[25]

[26]

blatant PA

• User:129.118.127.191 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Full Blocking Policy: DISRUPTION-- A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.

Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

Obvious cranks and users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary. Such persons should be dealt with kindly and patiently, but should be prevented from wreaking havoc over the period of weeks or months it would take to process an obvious Arbitration request. Remember to note the case on WP:ANI. Be kind.

Unless User:Hike395 has a sockpuppet relationship with RPJ, RPJ is lying when talking about his contributions on the Shoemaker article. [27]. No diffs to the article by RPJ. He did make this comment on the talk page. Even that edit is in relation to JFK assassination further supporting the SPA status of RPJ.

[edit] Edit Warring

[28], [29], [30]