Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RPJ

Response to Outside View
I believe the following edit completely misstates the positions of editors and incorrectly sums up Wikipedia.

This seems to be a simple problem; Editors who stand by the Warren Commission, and those who don't.


 * Not true, Joogoodfriend believes that there was a conspiracy and that reliance on the Warren Commission is misplaced. I believe that the Warren Commission have definitely gotten certain findings wrong, and there may well be a conspiracy involving Oswald and others.  I cannot speak for other editors but I can say that we do not "stand by" the Warren Commission.

''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".''


 * Irrelevant. This RfC is about user conduct, not about the content of the articles.

Asking for citations (when all the books written about the subject are POVs anyway) is going nowhere.


 * But it is Wikipedia policy.

RPJ is asking that all points of view are included, i.e., "let the reader decide" - which is fair.


 * Discussed on the RfC page. Asking for all viewpoints to be included is one thing -- POV pushing by providing undue weight to minority viewpoints violates WP:NPOV, and consistently adding edits against consensus is another.

I understand that Wikipedia is about facts,


 * Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (or in this case 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. --andreasegde 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramsquire This page was last modified 20:14, 7 November 2006. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. ''


 * Proposed solution violates Wikipedia policy, and is unrealistic.

Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make, apart from the fact that you are attacking my proposal that people should be nice to each other. --andreasegde 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire, you asked me to contribute to this, and I have. If my opinions are totally wrong, then why did you ask me in the first place? Why are you so angry? --andreasegde 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did request your comment and I thank you for participating in the RfC. I am clarifying some errors listed in your comment, as I am allowed to do. There is no attack anywhere in my response. I am very serious about this and do not want it derailed because of some technicality or you "mischaracterizing" this user's conduct RfC as a content dispute or you making unrealistic proposals like giving RPJ his own page.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it "unrealistic"? --andreasegde 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Giving him his own page would violate WP:OWN, also it would violate WP:POVFORK. Besides he would still need to comply with NPOV and V on "his" page, which he has shown an inability to comprehend.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the reason that I stopped working on these pages; no give, and no take. I wish all of you all the best... --andreasegde 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the point of having policies if users can violate them under some sort of false notion of everyone getting along (while the integrity of the project goes to hell in a handbasket)? The user you seek to defend has been blocked by 5 different admins, and have had his block upheld by an additional two admins, who are totally unfamiliar with these pages.  So honestly, I don't believe I am the problem.  His conduct is.  If it's not, I'll find out over the next few days. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read, "The Lord of the Flies"? If we can find no way to work together, we revert to barbarism, and that negates the whole idea of Wikipedia. We have to embrace democracy, and co-operation. Everybody has the right to free speech (even writers of cited books). If we forget those ideals, we are lost. If you block RPJ permanently, another user will take his place. (BTW, in-line citations are sorely lacking on all the pages... )--andreasegde 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's one of my favorite books, but that is not analogous to this situation. The difference between that situation and this is that those kids were thrust into creating a society with no authority above them.  That is not wikipedia.  Here we have five pillars to guide us.  And from the project page:


 * Wikipedia is not Anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.


 * Wikipedia is not a Democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting.


 * I've never understood your position on RPJ, and I don't think I ever will. He is the one violating the policies as I have meticuously laid out above, and have been supported by all other users on these pages.  But to me it seems like you want to condone his violations and boorish behavior, yet chastise the ones who want to stick to the rules, all in some attempt to have everyone contribute and to have everyone get along.  It's a great hope, but there has to be some attempt from the other side, in good faith.  Some willingness to submit to consensus.  Some willingness to listen from RPJ.  That is why I started this thing.  Maybe some outside voices will help get through to him, or show me why I am wrong.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And to answer your question as to why I'm angry. I'm not, more like annoyed. I debated giving you notice of this because you seemed to have grown tired of the subject and I didn't want to drag you back into it. However, you were one of his defender's and as I said, I didn't want to lose this thing on a technicality. So I asked you to comment hoping you would point out where other editors are wrong and why his conduct is OK. Instead you entirely "poo-poo'd" it as a minor content dispute (despite the history of PA, blocks, and edit wars that go back almost a year) and misstated vital information (as laid out above). This is very serious and it did not seem like you took as serious as the other editors. I did not do this lightly. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your recently added comment, about "another RPJ" arising I ask you: "So are we to do nothing if a user is violating the five pillars because other's may take his place?" Is that the attitude we should adopt in our countries criminal systems? "Why pursue crimes? There'll always be criminals." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right about me being tired of it, but I didn't want to annoy anybody. OK, what about this: On another page I put a line under every header that said that if editors did not put an in-line citation in, their edit would be deleted. No citation = delete. This seems to have radically altered the contribution of edits, resulting in over 200 in-line citations, and much less vandalism. It's called "heading them off at the pass"... It's a basic idea that would improve the pages, and make it clearer. --andreasegde 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I give up. Thanks for participating in this RfC. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit analysis

 * Articles most-edited by User:RPJ:
 * 243 John F. Kennedy assassination
 * 123 Lee Harvey Oswald
 * 118 Kennedy assassination theories
 * 36 Warren Commission
 * 28 Assassination Records Review Board
 * 12 Conspiracy
 * 10 Clay Shaw
 * 10 Single bullet theory
 * 6 John F. Kennedy assassination rifle
 * 6 Jack Ruby
 * 5 John F. Kennedy autopsy
 * 5 Central Intelligence Agency
 * 5 United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
 * 4 J. Edgar Hoover
 * 3 John F. Kennedy

Arbitration
Note, this case has moved to arbitration at Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please don't add any more comments here, but you may wish to add evidence in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)