Case Opened on 12:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

1. JimWae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Tbeatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Mytwocents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Joegoodfriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. RPJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Andreasegde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Ramsquire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Request for comment/RPJ

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 RPJ's violations can be found at this user'sRfC. Please note that due to the length of time this user has abused other editors, there is a growing concern that the step of mediation will not be productive. For full disclosure there is currently a new request at the Mediation Cabal. However, if the Arbcom believes that this is an instance where mediation need not take place, I will remove said request.

Originally we were going to seek mediation for this long standing problem, but were advised by responses to the RfC that we should directly seek the intervention of ArbCom. I will summarize here my statement in the RfC: 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. All of his edits are dedicated to push conspiracy theories, and specifically to push the particularly outlandish theories he favors. 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 repeatedly ignores and shows 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. 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. 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. However, RPJ's behavior has flouted the rules for too long and shows no sign of becoming a productive, collaborative editor. Gamaliel 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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. --Tbeatty 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this user RPJ has caused great problems with all pages having to do with the John F. Kennedy Assassination, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. His contributions are not vandalism and are made in good faith. A main problem is due to what appears to be to a complete loss of perspective on his part when it comes to levels of evidence. Example: one of his edits is typified here: [1]. Basically, in the context of the 12-volume HSCA report in an investigation which took 2 years and which requires an entire Wiki to summarize even vaguely, RPJ wants to insert a couple of paragraphs about a memo from somebody which showed up early in that investigation. This would be problematic even in the HSCA, but RPJ wants it directly in the JFK assassination article (which has severe space problems of this nature, since there have been three large government investigations of it). A similar problem occurred when RPJ wanted to balance the findings and conclusions of the Warren Commission (26 volumes, 10 months) with some verbatim transcripts of a confused telephone call which J. Edgar Hoover made to President Johnson a week after the assassination, trying to keep him up to date, and which contained misinformation from an initial FBI report which the Warren Commission and HSCA Commission later dealt with adequately. [2] There simply is not room here for this kind of stuff, although there may be room for it SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia.

Now, RPJ has been confronted repeatedly about all of this and we've all been over the text of WP:NPOV in the talk pages of Lee Harvey Oswald many times, without effect on RPJ. [3] We have explained to him that the existance of opinions contrary to expert opinion are why we have articles like Kennedy assassination theories and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, and that these do not contradict anything in WP:NPOV because they are essentially neutral summaries of minority views, but given their own majority space. RPJ's answer is essentially that the idea of a lone assassin of JFK is not a majority view, but rather a minority one, since more Americans question it than not.

So now we reach the nubbin of the problem, which is not just one with RPJ (sad to say). A second problem here is that Wikipedia itself has yet to deal adequately with balancing expert opinion with majority opinion, and with deciding between quantity of evidence and quality of evidence. Ordinarily all this is not a problem, since most people accept prevailing expert views. Large swatches of detail about why the Apollo landings were faked are therefore simply not allowed in the moon landings article-- merely one reference to the hoax wiki. As regards the JFK assassination, all three major government panels decided that the president was killed by two shots from Oswald firing Oswald's rifle, and was hit by no other bullets. If the average American believes otherwise, it's because they've seen things like the Oliver Stone film JFK and read conspiracy books designed to sell, not tell the dull truth.

Again, Wikipedia usually ignores this problem and pretends it doesn't exist. For example, recent polls show that about 3 in 4 Americans believes that Saddam Hussein was directly instrumental in the 9/11 attacks. Yet the Wikipedia article on the 9/11 Attacks is not 75% about Hussein's role in 9/11, or about conspiracies to blow up the buildings at the same time the airplanes hit. Again, if half of Americans believe in a young Earth as per bible, that does not mean that half of the Age of the Earth wiki must contain creationist evidence supporting Genesis. But each time when we get an unusually zealous editor espoused of a common but inexpert viewpoint, we get stuck bringing the problem here, and dumping it in ArbCom's lap. The reason is that Wikipedia really doesn't believe in the very concept of objective "truth" and therefore not in experts, or else it wouldn't be constructed as it is, where everyone's opinion counts the same, and where majority views tend to rule by attrition---- even if totally bonkers. So there you are. SBHarris 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And (for the record) the idea that shuttle astronauts are weightless because they are outside the Earth's gravity field. And the idea that Saddam and his Shia muslims had anything to do with 9/11. None of these being ideas that Americans are too clear on (you'll never get 22% to give you anything close to the facts), or could explain to you with anything like 22% of people being accurate. But I'm not responsible for the ignorance of the American population. It has no effect on historical or scientific reality. Or the opinions of experts who have spent time collecting facts and know what they're talking about. I'm proud to be in a minority, when the majority is objectively clueless and ignorant, due to lack of study. Which it sometimes is on technical subjects. Okay? This is one of those. SBHarris 09:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two problems with RPJ are his pushing a POV that there was a conspiracy to assassinate president Kennedy, and his behavior against anyone who disagrees with him. There are hundreds of examples of his trollish behavior on his user history. He also has a habit of editing from anonymous ip's, but they seem to mirror his RPJ persona. But this fact does serve to under-report the total number of edits he has made, since early November, 2005. RPJ is a single issue editor, who returns with the lunar cycle or the seasons to again re-insert debunked text, or to slant statements to a conspiracy view. He does this against previous consensus in which he himself participated. I don't think this is an issue about who killed president Kennedy. There is a school that says Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and for the past four decades dozens of theories have been published. They can't all be true. The conspiracy theory phenomenon and the current public opinion regarding said theory, is mentioned on the opening statements, an article section, and these theories are listed and contrasted on their own wikipage. Nobody is trying to hide anything. This way at achieving NPOV has been explained to RPJ many times, in many ways. But even after five blocks for his behaviour he still accuses other editors of conspiring against him and of trying to censor the truth. A community ban is a drastic step, but I think one that has been a long time coming. Mytwocents 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements above are accurate and there is not too much I can add. I would like to say something about RPJ’s abuse of the talk pages. He dominates the talk pages related to Kennedy’s assassination, constantly opening new discussion threads, but then refusing to engage other editors in legitimate discussion. Here is a recent example: [4]. RPJ opened a thread regarding his suggestion that several controversial photos of L.H. Oswald be included in the article so that readers could see them and conclude that “these photos are either strong evidence showing Oswald owned a rifle or strong evidence he was framed.” I am not fundamentally opposed to these or any other photos being included in the article, so I asked RPJ to address a couple points, including asking him to explain why it is logical to assume that the reader can make up his or her mind as to the authenticity of the photos because they saw small, low-grade digital reproductions on this web site. RPJ refused to respond to this and other questions I raised, instead starting a new thread and attacking my motives by suggesting that I am personally part of a conspiracy to hide this key evidence from the public. Joegoodfriend 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue: Over a 12 month period, has the defending editor (RPJ) engaged in “disruptive” editing practices, and, if so, should the editor be permanently blocked from the project?

Dispute in a nutshell

• The defending editor RPJ is updating the Kennedy assassination articles which he perceives to be 25 years out of date, but has met stiff resistance from the complaining parties who consistently delete up-dated information.

• Most of the updated information comes from mainstream news, books one would find in a library, and much of the information coming from the government itself. Most of the information is fully accessible on the internet.

• The complaining parties assert they properly delete the new material because RPJ violates various editing rules when he inserts the new information. They allege RPJ uses non-neutral language when placing the new information in the article.

• Defending editor RPJ denies this, and believes the complaining editors don't like the new information because new information challenges old beliefs. If the style is incorrect, the other editors should change it to the neutral style--not delete the information.

• The complaining editors also argue , RPJ uses uncivil language when he discusses the information and makes personal attacks on the other editors. RPJ denies this.RPJ 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)RPJ 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important principles governing the dispute

RPJ believes the main principles involved in this matter are that all significant published viewpoints be included in articles, and the corollary principle that an article can become biased by presenting one viewpoint and deleting references to other viewpoints. [5] RPJ 22:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another important principle is that a consensus can be fundamentally flawed by a group of editors, who through persistence, numbers, and organization, exclude other significant viewpoints. [6]

Factual context of the articles in question

President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. His accused assassin, Lee Oswald, denied involvement and claimed he was being framed for the murder. Oswald was then immediately murdered which, in turn, precluded a trial on the charges against him.

In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded Lee Oswald, alone, murdered the president. But, over the intervening 40 years, scientific polls, by reputable public opinion polls, demonstrate only a small minority of people have ever believed that Oswald acted alone. Since 1966, no more than 35% of the people have ever believed the Warren Report, and in 2003, only 22% of people still agreed with the Warren Report‘s conclusions. [7]

One distinguished panel of historians and other professionals noted that it was not just the American public that questioned the Warren Commission findings:

Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic finding. ARRB Final Report Ch. 3 fn 17 (1998) [8]

In 1979, the congressional House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded the president was probably murdered as a result of a conspiracy, of which Oswald participated. An ABC News poll shows that least 70% of the public agree with this finding by tending to believe there was a plot to kill the president. [9]

The ABC News poll also shows that least 68% the public believe there has been an official cover up.[10]

In 1998, Congress enacted the JFK Records Act to collect and declassify the evidence relating to the murder of the President. Under this law, Congress created a federal agency (“Assassination Records Review Board”). The Board consists of noted historians and other professionals that has gathered the classified and other evidence surrounding the murder and wrote a report on the problems created by the secrecy and lack of information given to the public.[11][12] After, the Assassination Records Review Board collected the evidence, it would declassify it and release the documents to the public over the years until 2017. Besides just collecting the secret evidence, two separate times the Assassination Records Review Board called together a group experts in their fields to discuss prior investigative efforts that were thwarted due to lack of access to records. [13]

In the last 12 months, the defending editor, RPJ has met stiff resistance to including the updated information in the articles. The complaining editors continually delete the new information arguing the information supports what one administrator believes are “outlandish theories.” Therefore, updated information on the assassination articles is simply deleted by the complaining editors.

During just the month of October, the complaining editors deleted updated information 18 separate times in just the Kennedy assassination article. However, there is no edit war that goes on arising out of these deletions since there is only one editor trying to update the articles and, at any given time, several complaining editors trying to delete any new information.

Summary of four significant viewpoints relating to the Kennedy murder

• There was a criminal conspiracy to murder the President. This viewpoint is reflected in the final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassination in 1979 after a three year investigation. This viewpoint has majority support among 70% of the American public in 2003. [14]

• There is “an official cover-up” involving the murder of the president. This viewpoint is reflected by Robert Blakey the former counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency [CIA] set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp,

[15] and a growing amount of evidentiary material being released by the HSCA and Assassination Records Review Board.[16] This viewpoint of "an official cover-up" has majority support among 68% of the American public in 2003. [17]

• The Warren Report‘s conclusion that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin. This viewpoint has minority support among 22% of the American public in 2003.[18]

• Lee Oswald did not participate in the plot to murder the President. This viewpoint was consistently voiced by Lee Oswald prior to his murder. This viewpoint has minority support among 7% of the American public in 2003. [19] RPJ 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this convoluted claim of "personal attacks" a pretext for a content dispute:

1. RPJ has a substantial history of valid contributions, both in the articles discussed by the complaining editors, and in other articles not at issue.
2. The defending editor contends that the articles are 25 years out of date, and that reliably sourced information representing all four of those above viewpoints should be fairly presented to the reader.
3. An examination of the evidence will establish that, through a pattern of consistent wrongful deletions, the articles in question remain 25 years out of date. (evidence page)

Practical concerns about arbitration

• How can the project efficiently resolve disputes over alleged wrongful conduct that simply presents a large amount of confusing charges and evidence?
• Must an editor recruit existing editors or new editors to rebut a claim of consensus and to supply testimonials to prevent or gain blocks?
• In a situation where at least some of the complaining parties seem truly discontent with another editor, should an arbitration panel accede to the majority group’s demands even if its position on the merits appears very weak or even a pretext?

Important policy questions

• Is it appropriate, when consensus proves elusive, to use blocking against a logged-in user with a substantial history of valid contributions [20]
• When do allegations of persistent personal attacks become a pretext for blocking those editors with whom other editors have content disputes over updating 25 years of old information. [21]
• How does one determine whether a group of editors, who through persistence, numbers, and organization, generates what appears to be consensus support for a version of an article that is actually fundamentally flawed by excluding significant viewpoints. [22]

Overview of the complaining editors who ask that RPJ be banned

• Complaining administrator/editor Gamaliel: This complaining editor announces himself on his user page as an advocate of a point of view on the Kennedy assassination. He firmly sides with the 22% viewpoint believing there is: 1) no cover up, 2) no conspiracy, and 3) Oswald did it alone. Moreover, Gamaliel announces that the article on Lee Oswald is an important project to him.

”What I'm proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. If you want to witness insanity firsthand, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense.”(emphasis added)[23]

This complaining editor’s bias towards the Warren Commission theory that Oswald was sole participant in the Kennedy murder places him in the the minority viewpoint held by 22% ofthe public. This adherence to this viewpoint is properly considered in connection with his opinion that RPJ is “pushing outlandish theories” into the article.

• Complaining editor Mytwocents: This complaining editor spends most of his time deleting well sourced information and has also participated in puting false information into articles.

Complaining editor Mytwocents is the person that very recently, on November 19, 2006, re-inserted false information back into the article of the late Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, the famous NASA scientist.(See evidence page) RPJ 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Complaining Editor SBHarris: This complaining editor also agrees with viewpoints held by 22% of the population. He believes the other three viewpoints held by most people are similar to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, flat earth viewpoints, and creationist viewpoints.

This is a mischaracterization of my viewpoint, which appears in full, above. If you insist on leaving strawman arguments unanswered due to "threading problems" then I request you remove them entirely. Simply don't quote me at all. Don't summarize me, either. SBHarris 01:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Complaining editor TBeatty: This editor limits his charges to one point. He contends the defending editor has improperly attempted to “raise doubt” about the evidence on the rifle which he claims has already been decided by the editors. Based, on what he believes is a wrongful attempt to introduce such evidence into the article based on that RPJ should be banned from contributing—but only from the JFK related articles.

• Complaining editor Ramsquire: This editor also believes that little or nothing can be said about viewpoints and evidence that have arisen over the last 25 years. He, argues the information supplied by the defending editor is a distinct minority view point and should receive editorial treatment similar to the "Flat Earth Theory." and points out that:

“The article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.” [24].

This complaining editor's opinions, as contained in his supporting testimonial against RPJ, should considered in light of his prejudice against the defending editor which he does not hide: Ramsquire states:

“I admit to attacking you personally, because frankly, I don't like you. I think you're an obnoxious jerk.” [25]

On the evidence page, this complaining editor added additional testimony explaining the above message merely:

“[I]s an attempt to find common ground between RPJ and myself and move forward with editing the article productively.”

Complaining editor Ramsquire has also expressed these thoughts about the defending editor RPJ:

“I am sick of RPJ, and find him to be a dim wit.” “[H]e is an idiot intent on not understanding just how stupid he is,” and that defending editor is a “Really Phony Jackass,” which is another way of saying “RPJ is a jackass” and that “since [RPJ is] a little challenged or lazy or stupid or whatever” RPJ can “go to hell.” [26]

[27]

RPJ 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: The defending editor has been trying to up date the articles with very little success, and was surprised at the hostility he has run into by the effort.

He will demonstrate that this hostility has been directed towards and not by him.The easiest way to determine whether there are personal attacks by the defending editor is to review the talk page of JFK Assassination for about five minutes. The attacking editors say what they want to say as does the defending editor.

The Kennedy assassination is a murder case and the evidence is being slowly released by an act of Congress. The articles themselves are 25 years out of date. RPJ 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)RPJ 19:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Accept. - SimonP 16:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Accept. Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Accept Fred Bauder 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Accept. Charles Matthews 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject be fairly represented in an article on the subject.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary data, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. As applied to this case, where the Warren Commission Report contains extensive accounts of primary evidence, use of the primary evidence to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate. It is the interpretation of the primary evidence by the Warren Commission which is usable as a secondary source.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not conduct original research. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

4) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_and_extremist_websites.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

5) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As applied to this case, the policy may mean that, in the absence of verifiable alternative versions of events that have been published in reliable sources, the dull official versions of events may form the bulk of a Wikipedia article regardless of public opinion regarding a matter.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

6) Editors who disrupt editing of articles by aggressive biased editing may be banned from the affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

7) Anonymous or alternate accounts which mirror the disruptive editing behavior of a banned or blocked editor are subject to the remedies applicable to the banned or blocked editor.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1) RPJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited in an aggressive biased manner, see this edit and this explanation.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1.1) RPJ's interpretation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is more liberal than is appropriate, taking the position that "all significant information is put in the article." This statement was made in response to a protest regarding adding questionable information [28] referring to the Mauser edit. See also this edit and this assertion.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1.2) RPJ has expressed his opinion that other users are using techniques of disinformation, [29]. See also "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article" and [30]. extended characterization of another user, taunting of another user, and more taunting.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1.3) RPJ has advanced original research based on primary sources edit by RPJ citing primary source, primary source, primary source, primary source, unreliable secondary source, primary source, primary source, and primary source. Some of the primary reports of evidence are included in the Warren Commission Report, but do not lose their primary status by such inclusion. In at least one case the information advanced by RPJ is not contained in the cited source, eg, information about the chain of custody is contradicted by the source cited. In another instance a friend of Oswald's is described as "[holding] extreme right wing views" in this edit, an assertion not supported by the source cited, see this comment.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [31] ([32]) and [33] ([34]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Most of RPJ's edits have been disruptive edits to Kennedy Assassination related articles. He has not contributed productively to Wikipedia.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3) RPJ has made a number of disruptive edits using anonymous ips.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2) RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1) Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• RPJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 1 year on 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#RPJ banned from Wikipedia --Srikeit 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mtracy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One year block on 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - Per WP:AE report and evidence. User mirrors RPJ's editing behavior, and is subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Cherylbegood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Raulman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) both blocked for one year at 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) for continuing the edit war started by User:Mtracy9 on Trial of Clay Shaw. --jonny-mt 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mtracy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blocked indefinitely by myself for persistent removal of content without discussion, amounting to edit-warring. Rodhullandemu 23:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]