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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Here is one featured forum which nicely illustrates the essential nature of the site. Fred Bauder 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here a few edits showing these attempts [23][24]. [25]Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard boilerplate Fred Bauder 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RPJ

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RPJ 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: