Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Why is the evidence being closed before Defending editor can respond in full to the charges

The charges were voluminous and have mutated over the arbitration to new ones by the arbitrators based on some new principles. Defending editor needs additional time to put on his defense. RPJ 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg was one of the administrators that provided a block on an unusual application of the three revert rule

Jayjg appears to be one of the administrators helping Gamaliel with the first block. This is a conflict and a new arbitrator should be appointed in his place.RPJ 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requests for specifics of aggressive and biased editing by RPJ

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Problem is, there was no Mauser, so what is a lot of stuff about a Mauser doing in the article? Fred Bauder 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Second comment by RPJ

This is to respond to the above question.

You are assuming the answer to the issue: Was it a Mauser that was found or was it not a Mauser found?

The Mauser is one of the flash points in this murder case. If it was a Mauser found, and not the weapon Oswald allegedly owned, then Oswald’s defense of being framed for the murder of Kennedy takes a very big leap into believability.
While defendant claims he was framed, critics of Oswald point out, if he were framed that would require a sophisticated conspiracy; likely involving some government officials. The House Select Committee on Assassinations commented on this in 1979, for the need for a widespread and sophisticated conspiracy to frame Oswald. On top of that, the sophisticated conspirators would need, in the future, others to cover for them for the “good of the agency” the “department” or whatever.
This makes for a very intense dispute among Americans. It’s not hard for most people to envision a conspiracy of several people similar, in nature to the defendant Oswald, ambushing the President, and then the responsible agencies covering up for some measure of incompetence in connection with preventing the assassination or investigating it. However, it is a separate matter to envision a sophisticated conspiracy where Oswald is framed for the murder carried out by another group that used him as what he claimed was a “Patsy.”


How many Americans support the late Mr. Oswald’s defense that he was framed? The popularity of that belief might be deduced from the ABC public opinion poll that at least 7% of the American public believes such a sophisticated frame up is true because that percentage of the population don’t think Lee Oswald participated in the murder. Before jumping to any conclusions, for all we know this could be the smartest, most knowledgeable 7% of the population in the United States or is distributed otherwise amongst the population.
While such a poll helps decide whether a significant viewpoint exists it can’t decide whether any piece of evidence is relevant to the issue or as sometimes termed “significant’ to the issue in question, i.e., Mauser found versus Mauser not found. You wanted start from the position that no Mauser was found. Another starting point on such questions is whether the information tends to prove one theory or the other theory. For the sake of debate, will you simply look at the evidence ? RPJ 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment by parties:
Defending editor RPJ now finds himself faced with a new charge of "aggressive" and "biased" editing. Here is the alleged "aggressive" and "biased" material inserted below in the block quotes. The existing material is in bold type and the material submitted by RPJ is not. :

The Warren Commission made a finding that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle that it believed was owned by Oswald was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.[1] Before he was shot to death in police custody, Oswald denied owning a rifle and claimed the photograph purportedly of him holding the weapon was a simple fabrication made by pasting his face on a picture of him holding the weapon.

The Warren Commission said there was “speculation” that the rifle found was a Mauser which was not the type of rifle the Commission believed that Lee Oswald owned and kept in the garage of the home where his wife lived.[2] The Warren Commission then said that deputy Weitzman was the source of, what it considered, was "speculation" that the rifle was a Mauser. The Commission therefore made a finding that Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. The Warren Commission said that Weitzman “had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano.” [3]

Officer Boone who, with Sheriff Weitzman, found the weapon testified that he thought at the time it was a Mauser, and according to his testimony before the Commission, Captain Fritz, believed at the time the rifle was a Mauser.

Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?

Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser. [4]

Mr. BALL - Who [else] referred to it as a Mauser that day?

Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. [5]

Captain Fritz later denied having identified the rifle as a Mauser.

Request: Could the arbitrators who find the the language "agressive" and "biased" please identify exactly what words in the text violate one or both of those standards. Please remember that rules can not be followed if they are not understood.
Responding above in the "arbitrators" spot would be helpful. RPJ 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] What is the rule for classifying information as "more liberal than appropriate" and information that is otherwise "questionable?"

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
There is no hard and fast rule, just common sense about what is significant and what is not. Fred Bauder 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Defending editor RPJ requests the test used to determine when an interpretation of information becomes a “liberal” interpretation of the term "significant?'
When does it become “more liberal than appropriate” to deem information to be "significant?"
Why is the sworn testimony of a police officer regarding the the misidentification of the weapon used to murder the president deemed to be “questionable” in significance for the assassination article which already specifically discusses the weapon? RPJ 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Why is Spartacus.schoolnet.com deemed "an unreliable site dedicated to a propagandistic point of view?"

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Take a look at a sampling of articles and evaluate them. Fred Bauder 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is one featured forum which nicely illustrates the essential nature of the site. Fred Bauder 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
One of the editors (Jimwae) characterized Spartacus, which is a UK encyclopedia, as being "crappy" and now three of the arbitrators deem Spartacus as "unreliable" and dedicated to a "propagandistic point of view." The complaining editors want defending editor RPJ banned from Wikipedia for, among other things, citing Spartacus.
On what evidence are these negative opinions of Spartacus based? RPJ 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Additional comment by RPJ:
This reference work Spartacus originates in the UK and is put together in a very simple and easy to read format. It is well linked. The citations given don't appear unusual, and there is neutral text. [6] I am sure someone can find something not to like about it but it looks like a good readable reliable source to me. I have cited this from time to time and this is part of the reason the complaining editors have given for wanting me banned.
This argument against Spartacus being used a reliable source is not well taken. I looked back at the citation to FBI agent Hosty who was involved in the destruction of the letter given to the FBI by Lee Oswald, the accused murderer of Kennedy. Hosty was the FBI agent who was attempting to stay in contact with Oswald prior to Kennedy being murdered.
The letter was destroyed under orders of Hosty's supervisor at the FBI, along with the deletion of Hosty's name and telephone number out of Oswald's address book. This is relevant to widespread suspicion by 68% of the public that there was an official cover up relating to the assassination.
Since then, I have looked at the articles on the Democratic Party, Barry Goldwater, Harry Truman, and a few other historical figures. [7]; [8]; [9];[10];[11]. It does have, what an American might believe, is a foreign viewpoint of modern American history which might seem stark, candid, and non-deferential. But, there is simply nothing that would, in my mind, disqualify it as a mainstream publication. RPJ 02:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Spartacus linkage system to books and other notable people is very good. One good feature is that the reader can get hard copies of pages in books that are cited. I remember the rest of the source at Spartacus to be just as simple and efficient as this one citation. I would need some very strong examples of it being "propagandistic" to offset what I have seen so far. RPJ 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:
I would not think that a forum on Spartacus (Fred Bauder's link above) would reflect at all on their articles. Forums on newspaper sites are usually crap, too. And would we want our articles to be judged by our talk pages and noticeboards? - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

Question to Gamaliel:

On 20 November 2006 you asked this question: [12] “Does RPJ think it is appropriate to accuse those with whom you disagree of being mentally ill . . . ?”

Answer: I would think it is almost never appropriate to do so. Probably a history teacher would find it appropriate to both disagree with certain policies of a tyrant and also accuse him of being mentally ill; for example Hitler and Stalin.

However, I’m sure complaining editor means in the sense of do I think it is appropriate in everyday discussion with other people to accuse one of them of being mentally ill in order to hurt them out of spite; or call in to question their reasoning ability to then attack their credibility in argument.

I can’t think of an appropriate situation to do so at least in context of Wkipedia.

Do you believe that has occurred? If so could you provide the citation? RPJ 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)



Question 1 to complaining editor Tbeatty: You state in your claim that: "My experience with him forced me to do research on the Carcano rifle" "This was six months ago and I thought it was settled since it is overwhelming."

Could you give me the cite to the change you made based on the research I forced you to do? RPJ 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)



Question 1 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:

How do you define "a single purpose account?"


Question 2 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:

What do perceive to be RPJ's "one purpose on Wikipedia?"


Question 3 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:

Do you agree that, all other things being equal, a "single purpose account" editor provides editing services of the same value as a non-single single purpose account editor?" I agree ___ I disagree ____


Question 4 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:

If you disagree, please explain why you disagree?


Question 5 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:

Which of the complaining editors (including yourself) are single purpose account editors?

RPJ 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] All significant published points of view are to be presented

1) All significant published points of view are to be presented. See,[13] [14] RPJ 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Sound principle, but, judging from your edits, I think your interpretation of WP:NPOV is too expansive. Fred Bauder 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
RPJ's mantra is that "All significant points of view should be represented". But RPJ apparently has no understanding of reliable sources, undue weight, and other aspects of NPOV and thinks that NPOV merely means "mention all points of view". He either does not understand or will not engage in discussion regarding the difference between representing all points of view and advocating a single fringe theory with long block quotes, loaded presentations of the evidence, etc. Endorsing this principle of his I fear would prompt him to respond to every objection with "Arbcom endorsed this principle, therefore my edit must go in the article." Gamaliel 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by RPJ. Fred Bauder believes the neutrality principle is sound, but feels the defending editor has an interpretation that is too expansive, apparently meaning the inclusion of "flat earth" theories.
Complaining editor Gamaliel, who has deleted most of the updated information the defending editor has included. Gamalieland the complaining editors defend the deletions by agreeing, in substance, with Gamaliel 's statement that the new information only supports a "single fringe theory."
It is true that the defending editor has tried to update the article with the modern viewpoint that Kennedy was murdered by a criminal conspiracy, but that isn't a reason to delete the updated information. That has been the prevailing theory since the 1970's.RPJ 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel also creates confusion in his comment by other gripes such as "long block quotes" and "loaded presentations" which do not relate to the principle cited above about including all significant viewpoints. Defending editor RPJ does not wish to waste his time on this assassination article adding information that does not comply with this web site's policies. But, for the overwhelming number of deletions of his edits, there is little or no guidance of why the material was deleted by way of any reasoned discussion by the person who deleted it--which is unacceptable.
Here are some examples: Revision as of 16:39, 13 July 2006 Gamaliel [15] and this is the information Gamaliel deleted[16] Revision as of 06:25, 1 November 2005 (edit)(undo)Gamaliel (Talk | contribs)m (Reverted edits by RPJ to last version by Wyss) Newer edit[17] Revision as of 03:51, 7 November 2005 (edit) (undo)Gamaliel (Talk | contribs)m (Reverted edits by 67.1.120.20 to last version by Jyavner)[18] Revision as of 19:39, 18 November 2005Gamaliel Newer edit[19] Revision as of 03:32, 26 November2005

Gamaliel(rvspeculation; [20] [21] [22] [User:64.105.82.58|64.105.82.58] 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)RPJ 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)RPJ 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ's claim that his edits have been deleted without any reasoned discussion, is contradicted by the numerous diffs presented both in his RfC and on the Evidence page of this arbitrationRamsquire (throw me a line) 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Here a few edits showing these attempts [23][24]. [25]Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:
Ramsquire needs to provide specific citations not just claim there are citations located somewhere that support his contention.RPJ 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting views should be presented fairly

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires [fair representation of all significant points of view] that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.See, [26]

RPJ 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Standard boilerplate Fred Bauder 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
The neutrality and fairness principle probably becomes second nature to the veteran contributors. But, because it is a different way of writing, and difficult to apply in a consistent manner, more recent contributors need to think about, and consciously apply the policy of neutrality RPJ 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] It is improper to introduce bias by deleting important information supporting other viewpoints

1) A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. See, [27] RPJ 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
If you speak of instances like the removal of the information in this edit, I don't feel your position is sound. An edit like that introduces confusion, but adds no substantial information. Fred Bauder 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:

I agree this particular deletion puts the Wikipedia neutrality policy to a good test. It involves evidence at the crime scene where the suspected murder weapon was found, and involves conflicting evidence. The neutrality policy of presenting conflicting viewpoints by its very nature tends to create uncertainty.

In the place of the neutrality policy, this website could adopt a policy that when conflicting viewpoints exist, that one be presented with all the sustantial evidence that supports it. Whatever its drawbacks, such a method of deleting conflcting viewpoints would lessen any possible confusion among the readers of what viewpoint is held by the website on such issue.

If, instead, the neutrality policy continues to be followed and all viewpoints presented, then one needs to explore what are the viewpoints on any particular issue. Regarding the Kennedy assassination, there are very well established viewpoints that have persisted for decades. One of these persistent viewpoints is an overwhelming rejection of the Warren Report. RPJ 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Another persistent viewpoint held by many people (68% of the public) [28])is the suspicion that there was an official cover up involving Kennedy’s murder.

• One possible part of a cover up would be whether Oswald's rifle was really found at the crime scene or was it a German Mauser, and then later the official story changed.

• Is there “substantial” supporting information of the Mauser and then a change in the official position?

• Or is the information trivial, redundant or marginal piece of information that should be excluded, since even courts limit the amount of evidence.

The fact situation is this: Defendant Oswald denied the killings and claimed he was a “Patsy.” The Warren Commission Report said an Italian made rifle was found at the scene of the crime. But, there were news stories soon after the murder, that the police did not find an Italian made rifle but, instead, a German made Mauser was found at the scene of the crime.

The Kennedy assassination article devotes a section to the Warren Report’s conclusion that the police found Oswald’s Italian made rifle, at the scene of the crime, but doesn't discuss the "misidentification." that was discussed in the Warren Report said. [29]
Commission finding.--Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon. Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. He had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano. Police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle. Page 645-46 31 [6]
The person who deleted the testimony about the crime scene said:
“A brief, quickly corrected visual misidentification [of a Mauser] is not a significant piece of information. Gamaliel 12:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)”
The problem with the Report’s conclusion and the deletion of the actual testimony by the police officers is this: The testimony before the Warren Commission was substantially different from what the Commission said about the evidence.
First, Deputy Weitzman wasn’t the only law enforcement officer who thought the rifle was a Mauser. Deputy Boone also thought it was a Mauser. Boone also saw the Police Captain Fritz pick up and handle the weapon and say it looks like a Mauser 7.65 as did Lieutenant Day from the crime lab. Fritz later denied saying this.[30]
Second, the District Attorney held a news conference stating that the rifle was a Mauser. See Warren Report page 234, 235. [31]
Moreover, there was no affirmative testimony of someone testifying that “police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived” at the crime scene “and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.”
Finally, there is no showing by the person who deleted the evidence that the "misidentification" was “brief” and “quickly corrected.” The transcripts of Deputy Weitzman disclose Deputy Weiztman told the Dallas Police Department that after noon that the he found was a Mauser 7.65 with a Weaver Scope. and also told the FBI it was a Mauser. [32] So it must have been at a later time he was told he was mistaken.
The story had certainly changed from finding a Mauser at the crime scene, but there is no evidence as to when it changed and why the identification changed. I don’t even think any of these police officers were formally handed the rifle marked as an exhibit and asked to identify it as the rifle they actually saw at the crime scene. If someone has a citation to that it would be helpful. RPJ 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:

[edit] Appropriate use of sources

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] No original research

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Accepted Fred Bauder 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Agree this policy is correctly summarized and there is some confusion over how the policy is applied to the issues under consideration. RPJ 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Thatcher131 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of unreliable sources

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Agree that such information from unreliable sources should be used very cautiously and in a very limited manner as discussed in the policy cited. RPJ 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Verifiability, not truth

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Agree that the above statement substantially reflects the policy of verifiability in question that material should be verifiable. But, disagree with the assumption in the second sentence that any of the "official" versions are "dull." But, do agree that a public opinion should not, alone, form the basis of what is considered the majority viewpoint on scientific, technical or other matters requiring expertise. But, also point out that many times editors have no expertise in the areas they edit and should not assume they are more learned in an area than the average reader. RPJ 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Public Opinion Polls

1) The use of public opinion polls, although sometimes helpful, is insufficient in and of itself to determine majority and minority viewpoints. This is especially the case in areas where some technical and detailed knowledge is required.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] RPJ

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

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
It always seemed to me to be helpful for those providing constructive criticism to identify what language is wrong and exactly why its wrong. In this case identifying the 'aggressive" language that is "biased" could be accomplished by quoting what appears to the arbitrator to be the offending language. RPJ 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] RPJ's liberal interpretation of NPOV

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 [33] referring to the Mauser edit. See also this edit and this assertion.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
If including all significant information is too liberal, which significant information should we exclude? Pretending that all evidence pointed in the same direction is less confusing, but it's also less accurate and less informative. Descriptions of denials and conflicting testimony are neutral enough for the evening news. Brian nts 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposal does not say that including all significant information is too liberal. What Fred Bauder is proposing is that RPJ's interpretation of "significant information" is too liberal. In other words, RPJ's interpretation of "significant information" includes "insignificant information". No one is calling for the exclusion of significant information. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Any content dispute can be solved by reaching consensus. Broadly speaking, consensus has been achieved, in the past. There are dozens of conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination. They can't all be true. WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:AGF, WP:VERIFY, are the rules and guidelines we have been using for about a year now. RPJ's interpretation of what is significant is just one side of the issue. When there is a dispute on content, he needs to convince a majority of editors in how and where to include a statement under the previously mentioned guidelines. Unfortunately, RPJ has consistently chastised and rebuked anyone who disagrees with him. Mytwocents 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPJ's failure to assume good faith

1.2) RPJ has expressed his opinion that other users are using techniques of disinformation, [34]. See also "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article" and [35]. extended characterization of another user, taunting of another user, and more taunting

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Original research advanced by RPJ

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 no loose 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 Oswalds is described as "[holding] extreme right wing views" in this edit, an assertion not supported by the source cited, see this comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by RPJ:
This is the response to the thirteen alleged infractions of the no original research rule. Some of these alleged infractions appear to be put in the wrong finding of fact. These include [36] which is not an insertion of material into an article but rather a comment on a talk page; this next citation criticized for allegedly not standing for the proposition cited rather as evidence of the use of original research [37];the same is true of this claim that the cite is not supported [38].
The remaining ten citations to alleged original research appear to equate the use of primary source evidence, which is proper, with inserting original research, which is improper to use. This assumption that primary sources are flatly prohibited from use inaccurately reflects the policy against original research. Instead an article may use primary sources [39]:but should "(1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." [40]RPJ 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Because there is no prohibition on the use of primary sources the editors complaining of such use need to establish whether the associated text is a descriptive claim, and that the text associated with the evidence does not make an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claims. This can be done by quoting the language in the text which allegedly violates that policy. RPJ 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RPJ 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from an unreliable site dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [41] ([42]) and [43] ([44]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment by party RPJ: This reference work, Spartacus.schoolnet.com, originates in the UK and is put together in a very simple and easy to read format. It is well linked. The citations given don't appear unusual, and there is neutral text. [45] I am sure someone can find something not to like about it but it looks like a good readable reliable source to me. I have cited this from time to time and this is part of the reason the complaining editors have given for wanting me banned.
Please remember that a publication can have a point of view but still be cited. Very few documents are written in what one would call a neutral point of view.
I looked back again at the first citation to FBI agent Hosty who was involved in the destruction of the letter given to the FBI by Lee Oswald, the accused murderer of Kennedy. Hosty was the FBI agent who was attempting to stay in contact with Oswald prior to Kennedy being murdered.
The letter was destroyed under orders of Hosty's supervisor at the FBI, along with the deletion of Hosty's name and telephone number out of Oswald's address book. This is relevant to widespread suspicion by 68% of the public that there was an official cover up relating to the assassination. This was all discussed in the HSCA Report in 1979 and Hosty's later book.
Since then, I have looked at the articles on the Democratic Party, Barry Goldwater, Harry Truman, and a few other historical figures. [46]; [47]; [48];[49];[50]. It does have, what an American might believe, is a foreign viewpoint of modern American history which might seem stark, candid, and non-deferential. But, there is simply nothing that would, in my mind, disqualify it as a mainstream publication. RPJ 02:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Spartacus linkage system to books and other notable people is very good. One good feature is that the reader can get hard copies of pages in books that are cited. I remember the rest of the source at Spartacus to be just as simple and efficient as this one citation. I would need some very strong examples of it being "propagandistic" to offset what I have seen so far. RPJ 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


The second reference was to a site that had an excerpt from The People's Almanac #2, by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace, Bantam Books, 1978, pp. 47-52. THE LAST WORDS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD Compiled by Mae Brussell; the excerpt had all the statements made by Oswald from the time he was arrested until he was shot 48 hours later. It is very straightforward. [51] RPJ 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:

[edit] Improper use of 2003 Public Poll

2) RPJ has continuously and improperly used a 2003 ABCNews poll as a basis for edits which violate WP:NPOV[52] and to taunt other editors [53].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by defending editor RPJ:
This allegation by Complaining editor Ramsquire is not well taken. Here is what took place. Both editors are simply candid. The complaining editor states:
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.[got that, RPJ?] [54]

Defending editor RPJ believes he responded to this in a reasonable way:

Only 22% of the readers agree with you Mr. Harris. [55] The rest of the people (which is the vast majority of people) don't agree with you. Haven't [you]considered the possibility that you are naive in your beliefs, and your beliefs are slowly becoming extinct. Are you going to be the last believer in the Warren Report published 42 years ago? RPJ 12:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)RPJ 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The diff RPJ cites to me was written by SbHarris and the language is being quoted from the WP:NPOV page. The context of the discussion was that RPJ was using the 2003 poll to justify inserting a tiny minority viewpoint (CE-399 came from JFK's body) and the other editors objected. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ramsquire is not correct. 70% of the American public are very skeptical of CE-399 and should be because it is the much criticized "magic bullet" theorized by the Warren Commission. I simply wanted to put in the citations to transcripts of conversations between J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson where Hoover twice told the President the FBI believed the bullet came from Kennedy and not Governor Connally's body. That opinion punctures the Warren Commission's theory. Or one can believe the Warren Commission; but why should Ramsquire insist on deleting historic coversations to protect a favorite theory? RPJ 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Permanent Ban

1) User: RPJ should be banned from editing at Wikipedia. RPJ's accompanying anon IP's listed in the evidence section of this arbitration should be banned from editing the JFK articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I believe at this point, this is the only solution to this problem. As evidenced by this user's defense and his baffling attempt to garner support at the Village Pump, it appears RPJ has no interest in changing his editing technique and style. He continues to attack the editors who have participated in the arbitration process as shown by this diff. He also continues to misstate editors positions to curry favor [56], [57], and continues to feign ignorance when called on his improper tactics [58]. Considering the long history of blocks and trolling behavior by RPJ, and the lack of evidence showing a willingness to change on his part, a permanent block is the only solution. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Analysis of Joegoodfriend's evidence of bad faith by RPJ

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by defending editor RPJ
Joegoodfriend’s evidence does not support his contention of “bad faith”

The complaining editor argues the defending editor exhibits bad faith on talk pages when he “continuously changes the topic from the original issue.” The four citations given by Joegoodfriend rebut the claim of wrongful “topic changing.” The defending editor had urged the key photographic evidence against Oswald be put in the article. Oswald said the evidence was a fake by pasting his picture on some else’s body and could prove it. American experts claim it was real and foreign experts claim it looked fake.

There were four such pictures all published by the government. The defending editor suggested all four photos be put in the article. [59] The complaining editors strongly resisted this suggestion. One of the complaining editor’s then suggested inserting a large portfolio of Oswald pictures but the pictures had nothing to do with the key evidentiary photographs being discussed.

The defending editor RPJ then replied that: “The collection of photos [being suggested]. . . does not appear to contain any of the "back yard" photos.” RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The complaining editor, Joegoodfriend, then jumped in and changed the topic from the photographs and asked:

Let’s clarify one thing. Are you suggesting the possibility that Oswald did not own the Cacarno rifle found in the SBD?” [60]


Then, he argued RPJ's position was “illogical” and the purpose of the article was not to allow the reader "to reach definite conclusions regarding a controversy.” [61]

He then concluded by asking why editor RPJ starts a new thread when the topic hasn’t changed? [62]


The defending editor RPJ then tried to get it back on track by starting over:

"The point under discussion was to put the four "back yard" photos in the article. Looking at the photos may explain much about the Kennedy assassination. The reasons for including them are:"

RPJ 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of Joegoodfriend's evidence of abuse by RPJ

Comment by Arbitrators:


Defending editor did not abuse Joegoodfriend on a talk page

Complaining editor Joegoodfriend’s arbitration statement alleges defending editor RPJ “abuses” the talk pages by alleging Joegoodfriend is “personally part of a conspiracy to hide this key evidence [photographs] from the public.” (Emphasis in Joegoodfriend's arbitration statement)

Defending editor never said that. The fact finder simply needs to go to the RPJ post, in question, and type in “conspiracy” and one finds that RPJ does not even mention the word conspiracy let alone say that Joegoodfriend was “part of a conspiracy.” [63] RPJ 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:
Yet another baffling attempt by RPJ to mislead the Arbcom. Joegoodfriend does not claim to quote RPJ in his statement. Joegoodfriend is simply summarizing his take on RPJ's response. Here is the actual quote from RPJ:
"3) The editor above who wants to keep out the key photographic evidence used against Oswald claims it is a "hyper intensive examination of one issue." But, showing the most publicized, and allegedly fabricated evidence, against Oswald seems almost demanded in the article.
Typical for RPJ he ascribes motives to editors not supported by the facts. Joegoodfriend never requested to keep anything out of the article. He only asked RPJ to clarify some of his positions. RPJ also writes in the post:
"6) The fact that those who claim the photos are real, but don't want the reader to see them all with all their peculiarities, and bizarre history says much about the problems in the photos..
It is apparent from the post that RPJ is attempting to lump Joegoodfriend in with some conspiracy to keep the photos out. RPJ's defense that since he never said the word conspiracy that Joegoodfriend is lying, is impeached by his prior behavior accusing editors of being in a conspiracy, as shown here(where he repeatedly mentions "a group", "leaders of this group" and "group leaders") and the very words he uses above. How can RPJ ever be allowed to edit article on Wikipedia if he continuesly refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and continues to attempt to mislead the ArbCom? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Joegoodfriend's evidence that RPJ is a single purpose account

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by defending editor RPJ
Joegoodfriend’s evidence supports that defending editor RPJ has spent most of his time on related articles

• When this defending editor started contributing to Wikipedia over a year ago (first under an IP addresses) the information in the Kennedy articles appeared 40 years out-of-date.

• The defending editor’s purpose wasn’t, and isn’t, to spend much of his project time on the Kennedy assassination. It is a choice of either accepting that the article will be left outdated and reflecting badly on the project as a whole or to stay with it and try to update it.

• The complaining editors who want the defending editor banned do not want new information included. They delete out as much information as possible, and it is much harder and much more time consuming to gather and place information into the articles than it is for the complaining editors to simply delete the information out.

• Most of the public today, even in the United States, do not accept the findings of the 42 year old Warren Report, and instead accept the 1979 Congressional Report finding the murder was the probable result of a conspiracy.

• The defending editor realizes that it may seem best for the project from a cost-benefit standpoint just to accept what exists and focus resources elsewhere.

• On the other hand, this issue isn’t going away. The public retains a high interest in the subject. Moreover, under a special act of Congress, in 1998, all the relevant documents have been gathered by a special federal agency and placed in the National Archives and are being slowly released to the public and won’t be completed by 2017. This is and will be a constant source of new information and revelations about this event.[64]

RPJ 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by party
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of Ramsquire's allegation of edit warring by RPJ

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
 :Defending editor did not engage in edit warring
  • Defending editor does not wish to engage in edit wars and cannot win an edit war since more than two editors oppose most of his changes, and he would lose every time. Instead, RPJ attempts to persuade opposing editors not to delete properly sourced information on significant viewpoints relevant to the articles in question.
  • The three citations[65][66][67] offered as evidence reveal simple back and forth editing on the article on Clay Shaw who was unsuccessfully prosecuted by the New Orleans District Attorney for involvement in Kennedy’s death. Shaw is known by millions through his portrayal by actor Tommy Lee Jones in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK about the Kennedy assassination.
  • Shaw always contended he had no connection to the Central Intelligence Agency. Much later it became public that for eight years Shaw had supplied information on 33 occasions to the CIA under a domestic contact program. Records from the CIA covering Shaw's relationship with the CIA at the time Kennedy was murdered have not been yet been released by the CIA.
  • The three citations offered by the Ramsquire discuss the medals received by Shaw in World War II where he served in a staff position, and his connection with the CIA. It seemed to the defending editor that the one of the complaining editors was trying to overstate his war record and downplay any connection to the CIA.
  • It seemed that the editor was mistaking a medal for bravery on the battle field for a similar named medal for non-combat related services. This can be a very touchy issue for combat soldiers. I yielded to a citation to an old edition of a Dictionary of American Biography that he received what appears to be a combat medal.
  • The notability of Shaw relating to the information about, and his denial, of connection to the CIA was finally left with mention at the end of the article of his CIA connections.
  • This doesn’t appear to be an “edit war.”

RPJ 06:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of Content dispute over the actual assassination

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by defending party RPJ:

The article on the Kennedy assassination contains almost no information about the assassination itself. The article discusses events before the assassination, it describes events after the assassination but almost no information about the assassination itself. This collection of inserts is from reliable sources. They are excerpts from Warren Commission stenographic transcripts of sworn testimony by the participants and other reliable sources. The testimony is about the events the witnesses saw and what they heard. This information has been deleted. Reasons for deleting such information vary. Some believe "primary" sources of what was seen and heard at historic events shouldn't be used. This is not correct.

"A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs . . . . The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event.

For example this would cover the statements by eyewitness participants including Secret Service agent Clint Hill, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Abraham Zapruder, emergency room physicians Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Peters, Dr. McCellend.

"Primary sources include official reports . . . and eyewitness accounts. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims."[68]

In this case they are included to describe what happened when the assassination took place. Defending editor reviewed and included excerpts from the testimony of the actual assassination.

The article has very little direct evidence about the actual murder itself. There are conclusions from the Warren Report about what happened that very few people today believe. For many years the evidence itself was kept secret.

The Assassination Records Review Board noted in 1998 that "the public doesn't want secrecy about the assassination to be continued," and neither does Congress. It passed the "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" to gather and disclose the evidence. Congress concluded that most of the records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and "only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records." Congress decided that "All Government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure, and all records should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination" [69]

The Board went on to say: "Numerous records of previous investigative bodies such as the Warren Commission, the Church Committee, and the HSCA were secret. Yet members of these commissions reached conclusions based on these investigative records. The American public lost faith when it could not see the very documents whose contents led to these conclusions. The Board, consisting of noted historians, and other professionals said: "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 findings." [70]

The evidence was presented from the viewpoint of the bodyguards,Mrs. Kennedy, Governor Connally and the emergency room doctors of the president as well as Abraham Zapruder who took the famous Zapruder film. The presentation tried to recapture the scene with quotes from the witnesses. This format, that enhances the drama of the event, is subject to debate. But what is being vigorously being deleted is not the form of presentation as much as the information itself, no matter what format presented.

The same deletions are made of testimony and drawings of the emergency room doctors and nurses.

RPJ 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Text deleted by complaining editors:

The shooting took place in front of Abraham Zapruder who was filming the president as he passed below his position and his secret testimony has now been released:

Mr. Zapruder: I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this holding his left chest area.

Examiner: He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. Zapruder: Leaning, leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot you've heard these expressions and then I saw, I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started I can hardly talk about it [the witness crying].

Mr. Zapruder: Then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him."[71]

Governor Connally was also seriously wounded by a bullet and screamed, "No, no, no. They are going to kill us all!" At the end of the shooting, the president's body bounced off the back of the rear seat and slumped lifelessly leftward towards his wife. Mrs. Kennedy cried out to her bodyguard, Clint Hill, "My God, they have shot his head off."[72]

Clint Hill was riding in the car that was immediately behind the presidential limousine. As soon as the shooting began, Hill jumped out and began running to overtake the moving car in front of him with the plan to climb on from the rear bumper and crawl over the trunk to the back seat where the stricken President and frightened First Lady were located.

Just as Hill was grabbing the small handrail by the trunk that was used by the bodyguards to climb onto a small back platform, he heard another gunshot and saw a portion of the President’s head blown away. The driver then sped up causing the car to slip away from Hill, who was in the midst of trying to leap on to it. He somehow succeeded in regaining his footing and jumped on to the back of the quickly accelerating car As he got on, he saw Mrs. Kennedy, apparently in shock, crawling onto the flat trunk of the moving limousine possibly retrieving piece of the presidents skull. Agent Hill crawled to her and guided the frantic Mrs. Kennedy back into her seat and placed his body above the President and Mrs. Kennedy.[73]

As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body, and was looking down at the mortally wounded President. Agent Hill later testified:

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.

Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.[74]

In the emergency room, the President had been placed on his back. His face was not damaged, but some brain tissue was present near the head indicating brain damage. When the doctors arrived they quickly cut into the president's throat and inserted a small tube for breathing (a tracheotomy).

But then, Dr. Jenkins, one of the five treating doctors in the emergency room, lifted Kennedy's upper half of the body, looked at the back of Kennedy's head and announced:

"Boys you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart" directly.[75]

Dr. Peters did look and observed:

"There was obviously quite a bit of brain missing."[76]

Dr. McClellend provided this description:

"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."[77] See drawing by Dr. McClellend who examined the head injury in the emergency room. [78]

"We never had any hope of saving his life", one doctor said.

Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter. [79] RPJ 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
RPJ fails to understand that adding his interpretations of primary sources to articles is original research. The preferred method to add information to the Wikipedia is the use of secondary sources. The WC, despite it's faults, has gone through peer review processes both in its scientific processes and it's final conclusions which make it a reliable source here. RPJ's sources rarely meet that test. In the rare situation that RPJ uses a reliable secondary source, his edit usually contains misapplication of the cite or adds on unverified and often misleading information not contained in the cite he used. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of defending editor's allegation of Mytwocent's particpating in a hoax in Dr. Shoemaker's biography

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by RPJ:


  • The original hoax occurred a year ago by planting information about a fake experiment on "recoiling skulls" in Dr. Shoemaker's biography and simultaneously cross referencing from the Kennedy assassination article to the Shoemaker article is clear from the record.
  • Such "evidence" is critical to salvaging the Warren Report conclusion that Kennedy's fatal head shot came from the rear (where Oswald was located) rather than from the front.
  • Editor Mytwocents, has now conceded, what is clear from the record, that he did re-insert this information. [80] His excuse for re-inserting it is that he put a “citation needed” tag on the information. and would make a “notable addition to the biography” and if it found out not to be a true fact it will be eventually eliminated.
  • This explanation by Mytwocents is not acceptable for these reasons:

• It was rejected a year ago; • It was used as a cross-reference on a very controversial subject (Kennedy assassination) a year ago • It supports a viewpoint that Mytwocent’s supports • Mytwocents has shown no other interest in the Shoemaker biography • Mytwocents did the same thing in the Comair 5191 dispute several months ago, except this time in a much less obvious way. [81] RPJ 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:
Here is the link to the diff[[82] and the whole quote from my comment on the Rfc/RPJ, that has since been deleted.

I replaced the statement regarding Dr. Shoemaker's alleged skull experiments back into the article, with a {{fact}} tag .Here is the diff. Adding text with a 'citation needed' tag is one way to add material. It would make a notable addition to his biography, if he did this experiment and that fact can be cited. But, as with any statement in Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a community policy, it isn't up to any one editor to 'enforce' it. If the statement can't be cited to a published, reliable source, then it won't last. Somebody will delete it. It's just that simple. Mytwocents 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The key, the way I see it, is that I haven't started an edit war or criticised anyone over the content. This serves as a way (inadvertently) to illuminate the issue, it's not about edits really, it's about behavior. Mytwocents 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Complaining editor Gamaliel's evidence of defending editor RPJ's conduct for which Gamaliel believes he should be banned

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by Defending editor RPJ
October 10, 2006--A controversy arose over the inclusion of the filmed confession of Mr. Files who is a professional assassin who is imprisoned for life. Files, now an elderly man, claims he is part of a team that worked for the Mafia and shot Kennedy in the head.
Another editor put in a reference to the filmed confession by Mr. Files in the "Kennedy Assassination Theories" article. The defending editor's comments specifically to the deletion by Gamaliel of the other editor's inclusion of the information was this:
  • "The statement by alleged assassin Files was deleted with a comment "unreliable sources about a living person.Could the person that deleted the statement identify the "living person", the particular offending statement and the "unreliable sources?" RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006(UTC) [83]
  • "Who is the living person to which you refer?" RPJ 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [84]
  • "The statement by alleged assassin Files was deleted with a comment "unreliable sources about a living person." Could the person that deleted the statement identify the "living person" the particular offending statement and the "unreliable sources?" RPJ 21:15, 10 October 2006(UTC) [85]
By the complaining editor Gamaliel lumping together the defending editor'scomments with another editor, who also made comments, it makes it difficult to focus on what RPJ actually said.Later there was a generalized comment by the defending editor about Gamaliel that will also be addressed. RPJ 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


  • October 7, 2006: Complaining editor inserted an expert opinion by a person named Michael O'Dell stating that all prior expert opinions regarding the origins of the rifle shots that were fired at the president were incorrect because the prior expert opinions were based on the "wrong timeline."
However, the article cited is on the internet but doesn’t tell anything about the person giving the expert opinion, except for stating his name which is "Michael O’Dell."
When no credentials were produced, defending editor RPJ inserted that the opinion was being given by someone “with no known credentials.” A complaining editor then deleted the disclaimer that the author had “no known credentials” stating that he was “reverting to a neutral point of view and balanced text.” [86][87]RPJ 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)RPJ 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:
It is astounding that, even now, RPJ will attempt to mislead the arbitrators on this case. He claims that Mr. O'Dell has no credentials, yet he acts as if D.B. Thomas is Albert Einstein. The fact is that if being a scientist alone means that O'Dell has no credentials, then Thomas also has no credentials. Both are scientists who have done research on the acoustic evidence, and made different findings. The fact that RPJ seeks to discredit one over the other is very telling of his troubles grasping NPOV. Finally, RPJ again tries to mislead the ArbCom by not giving the full acknowledgment from Mr. O'Dell. It states: "I am grateful to Herman Chernoff, Richard Garwin, Norman Ramsey and Paul Horowitz for their explanations, advice and assistance; Steve Barber for his help and his ear; Don Thomas for his encouragement and openness. Paul Hoch was very helpful with the manuscript. James Barger, Charles Rader, Mitch Todd and Anthony Marsh took time to offer ideas, information or answer questions. Thanks to John McAdams for giving this work a home on the internet." He is in fact thanking the other scientists who participated and assisted in this study, and also thanking McAdams for publishing the study. The full picture is a lot less sinister than RPJ would have the ArbCom believe. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Complaining editor Gamaliel's evidence that defending editor RPJ is "pushing" a point of view

  • Gamaliel argues RPJ should be banned from the web site because he "pushes" a point of view. His first example is the inclusion of information from a program on PBS about new information that has been disclosed by the JFK Records Act and discussed by Professor Newman. Here are Newman's credentials [88] in short form taken from PBS:
"John Newman is a professor of history and government at the University of Maryland and is the author of JFK and Vietnam (1992) and Oswald and the CIA (1995). He was called to testify on the JFK records releases by Congressional oversight committees and assisted the Assassination Records Review Board in securing U.S. Army and other government records. Newman was a consultant for FRONTLINE's "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"
  • Complaining editor Gamaliel's argument is that Professor Newman's discussion of the new and very well sourced evidence, about someone who was impersonating Lee Oswald shortly before the assassination, should not be presented in the article.
  • Not only was some one impersonating Oswald, but doing so in the context of trying to contact a Soviet assassin. This was 60 days before Kennedy was murdered. Professor Newman goes into the evidence in great detail and how it "electrified" the upper echelons of government after the assassination.[89]
  • But, complaining editor Gamaliel doesn't believe the evidence, and doesn't like Professor Newman's point of view that it is important. Therefore, Gamaliel insists that it be deleted. Some of the evidence includes tape recorded phone conversations between J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson, where the impersonation of Oswald was discussed.
  • Oddly enough, the complaining editor Gamaliel doesn't cite to the language that he deleted, as part of his evidence. He simply claims it is improper to refer to Professor Newman and he doesn't even link to the language defending editor placed in the article from the PBS program that was deleted. RPJ 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Analysis of whether the UK enyclopedia Spartacus is "propagandistic" and should be banned from Wikipedia

This reference work originates in the UK and is put together in a very simple and easy to read format. It is well linked. The citations given don't appear unusual, and there is neutral text. [90] I am sure someone can find something not to like about it but it looks like a good readable reliable source to me. I have cited this from time to time and this is part of the reason the complaining editors have given for wanting me banned. This argument is not well taken.RPJ 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of the “perfect example” of RPJ’s wrongful conduct

One of the complaining editors provided what he believes is a “perfect example” of RPJ’s wrongful editing where he has “refused” to provide a neutral point of view

This is a good example of what has taken place over the last 12 months. Whenever the defending editor updates one of the Kennedy assassination articles, the new text is immediately deleted. Some rule may be also announced in connection with the deletion with allegations that RPJ is in bad faith.

In this situation, the defending editor RPJ included information from an article in the official CIA magazine about Clay Shaw. The author of the article discussed new information that had become public that cast doubt on the denials by the CIA and Clay Shaw that they were connected. The alleged connection between Shaw, the CIA and the Kennedy assassination is what makes Mr. Shaw notable enough for an article.

Shaw and the CIA denied any connection. When new information became public the CIA conceeded new information had been found but downplayed its importance in the magazine article. RPJ included factual information from the magazine in this form:

Over an eight year period, Shaw relayed information on 33 separate occasions to the CIA. His reports about devaluation in Peru, a proposed new highway in Nicaragua, and the desire of Western European countries to trade with the Soviet block were graded by the CIA “of value” and “reliable.” the CIA relationship with Shaw was one of the secrets which the CIA hid from the public for many years while it denied any relationship. This information is contained in a magazine article written by Max Holland and published by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy" Assassination"[91] As of today, the CIA won't release any documents describing the relationship between Shaw and the CIA after the first eight years of Shaw's affiliation. The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination In the article, Max Holland defended the CIA and argued that Communist propaganda was the source of what he believes are false allegations that Shaw was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Complaining editor Ramsquire deleted all the information. He announced a new editing rule that an editor has to agree with every opinion in a source before any data from the source can be used.

In response to the deletion of this updated information RPJ said this:

Whatever the intent was for publishing the article, the article can be cited for the material it contains. The editor who deleted the information in this article on Shaw believes that if the CIA's intent was to "debunk" some theory or another, that the factual information presented in the article is only valid for that purpose. This is inaccurate. What does one believe the CIA is doing, giving one set of facts for one issue and change the facts when another issue comes up that relates to the same facts? The editor needs to explain himself.


RPJ 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
I provide the actual diffs concerning this issue on the Evidence Page under paragraph 1.6. There the user can see the actual edits in question and not RPJ's sanitized version here. Here, he apparently conveniently forgets that the edit in question began, "Shaw had considerable contact with the CIA after the war". The source used contradicts that assertion and whether Shaw's voluntary contacts are considerable is POV without a verifiable source. In addition, he innaccurately cited it as a "CIA press report" when it was an article written by Max Holland. And the final sentence both in the original edit and here is simply RPJ's opinion. The article simply says that the voluntary contacts by Shaw simply stopped after 1956. There is no mention of any documents that the CIA has "refused" to release.
Also RPJ, misleads by saying that I deleted all of the information. If the above was the exact edit made, I would have only deleted the information located after the footnote, since they depart from any source and are original research. A version of the above sentence stayed in the article for a few days[92], but was eventually deleted when Andreasegde kept adding original thoughts and POV [93] language to the information, calling Shaw a "two bit informant" on the talk page and the like. It was then decided to limit the quote to what is currently in the article. I thought even RPJ agreed that was best, as he has not brought the issue up again.
All this was explained to RPJ on the talk page by myself and several other editors. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: