Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

A Full Picture of the Diff in RPJ's Response

In his response RPJ claims the following:

Complaining editor Ramsquire: This editor also believes that little or nothing can be said about viewpoints and evidence that have arisen over the last 25 years. He, argues:

“The article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.” [8]. His opinions as contained in his supporting testimonial against RPJ should be not only for bias in the minority viewpoint but prejudice against the defending editor. Ramsquire doesn’t hide his dislike of RPJ. Ramsquire states:

“I admit to attacking you personally, because frankly, I don't like you. I think you're an obnoxious jerk.” [2]

however, a the full section of the diff states:

"Now I admit to attacking you personally, because frankly, I don't like you. I think you're an obnoxious jerk. And I'm sure you feel the same way about me. That's fine, but our personal feelings toward each other is beside the point. The point is you claiming that I have violated Wiki policy by deleting viewpoints I disagree with. Show me where I have done this.[emphasis added].

Clearly, as shown above, when the full section is read it shows that the diff is an attempt to find some common ground between RPJ and myself and to move forward with editing the article productively. The backdrops of this diff was my frustation with being accused numerouse times by RPJ of bad faith editing. I do not deny a personal attack against RPJ, it was in response to his continuous trolling and false accusations.

RPJ Anon contributions

Here are some of RPJ's anon contributions and identities

Anon identities:

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

[3]

[4]

[5] POV

[6]

[7]

blatant PA

• User:129.118.127.191 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:66.135.233.230 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:66.91.203.81 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:68.251.151.223 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence of Edit Warring

These diffs show instances of RPJ's edit warring.

[8], [9], [10]

Evidence in Support of Joegoodfriend's Statement

RPJ's position

Joegoodfriend's first response

RPJ's lack of good faith response

Joegoodfriend's request for clarification of RPJ's position

RPJ's response. Note how he continuously changes the topic from the original issue, by constantly opening up new threads on the same topic. It is my opinion that is done in a bad faith attempt to mischaracterize editors motives.

RPJ is a single purpose account

Here is RPJ's edit count using Kate's Tool. It is clear from seeing his contributions and anon history that RPJ has only one purpose on Wikipedia.

The Clay Shaw/CIA Dispute Shows A Full Picture of RPJ

The Clay Shaw dispute is a perfect example of the lack of good faith shown by RPJ and his refusal to follow NPOV in his edits. The discussion on the talk page can be found here. [11].It all started with this by RPJ. RPJ states as fact that Shaw had considerable contact with the CIA after the War. To support this statement he points to what he claims is "a press report by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination"". The problem as I point out in my revert of this text is that the cite is actually an article by Max Holland, and in fact serves to debunk the Paese Sera article, which claimed that Shaw had CIA contacts.

In a remarkable show of bad faith, RPJ then responded on the talk page of the article with this, misstating my position, and ignoring the basis of my revert. When I try to tell RPJ this [12], he reasserts the false claim that his information is from the CIA. After another attempt at an explanation, RPJ refuses to attempt to reach consensus. I then broke down the basis of my objection here and point out clearly why RPJ's original edit is misleading. RPJ then responds as he usually does with a personal attack, and a blatant mistatement of my position. [13] Note that I never called for the deletion of any material. I only asked RPJ to present his information accurately and not to mislead readers with his POV slant. Yet, that didn't stop him from making his false accusation.

Fed up with these tactics by RPJ, and seeing discussion would get no further, I then initiated an RfC on the subject, hoping that other voices would help guide the way. At the conclusion of the RfC, it became apparent that my viewpoint was the majority one. However, RPJ, in a not suprising by now show of bad faith refused to concede that their was an RfC [14], claimed that noone agreed with me and that I was the one changing the subject. [15]. This is typical RPJ. RPJ has no understanding of consensus, and the community approach of Wikipedia.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Misuse of Polls to Push POV

RPJ repeats as a mantra that his pro-conspiracy viewpoint is the "majority viewpoint" and that editors who he alleges oppose him conform to a "minority viewpoint." However, this is not the case. As pointed out to RPJ, at the Village Pump [16] using public polls (in this case a three year old ABCNews Poll) to support his opinion, can be misleading to determine the majority viewpoint. The simple fact is, the mainstream view by experts in this area is that Oswald assassinated Kennedy, and was no patsy. Some experts believe there was also a conspiracy, but no one conspiracy scenario has gained a sizeable enough following to be anything more than tiny minority viewpoint. So although conspiracy in general is a significant minority viewpoint and must be represented in the articles (and they are), no specific conspiracy theory has reached that status by the experts in this area. The three year old poll on this subject that RPJ uses is the average American who have not done any research in the area, lacks a great deal of knowledge about the methods used by the Warren Commission, HSCA, forensics, and medical autopsies. This same average American may have had their views on the subject shaped by the movie "JFK", which has been thoroughly debunked by the JFK assassination community, in both conspiracy and anti-conspiracy circles, as abject fiction. Furthermore, RPJ uses this 3 year old poll as an excuse to bring in all manner of tiny minority viewpoints, which have no serious backing by experts in this area (e.g. FBI finding that CE 399 came from Kennedy not Connally, the Big Chin, and the Newman double). All this would be fine if RPJ had shown any concept of understanding these distinctions, like Joegoodfriend for example has, and shown a willingness to contribute to the project. He has not, and nothing from this Arbitration has shown that he ever will. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal To RPJ's Claim of Personal Attacks

In his statement RPJ, claims that he has not made personal attacks but has been the recipient of them. RPJ's claim that he has not made personal attacks is false as shown by the collection of diffs during this arbitration and by the preceding RfC. His claim is also impeached by his block log. Four out of his five blocks have been for trolling and personal attacks mainly against Gamaliel.

On the other hand, I have never denied a personal attack directed to RPJ. See here and above. I will lay out the leadup to my personal attack. User:Woohookitty had locked the JFK assassination page because of edit warring. I took this time to make out 10 improvements to the article once the page is unblocked. [17]. Mytwocents agreed with most of my list and made some recommendations to help implement the apparent consensus. RPJ responded with this. This response really bothered me because all Mytwocents offered to do was put a template stating the article was going to be overhauled. RPJ's insult was just unnecessary. So I defended Mytwocents with this edit. I guess my defense of Mytwocents enraged RPJ, because his next edits after that were all in an attempt to bait Gamaliel and myself. See [18], [19], [20] (this one was so over the top that he received a warning from Gamaliel. Here's his response), [21], and [22]. Unfortunately, that last one took me over the edge and I waded into the gutter and responded with this [23]. After attempting a cooling off period, I went to Mytwocents and asked him to make some changes, since I had previously violated WP:Civility and did not want to get blocked. In my request to Mytwocents, I gave some frank assessments of RPJ, with the supporting reasons for my beliefs. Please note, that after the two edits in question, I went right back to editing in a peaceable way even attempting again to reach out to one of RPJ's anon identities in an ill fated attempt to reach consensus. I have not personally attacked RPJ or anyone else at Wikipedia ever again, even though I have been baited by both Andreasegde (as shown here) and RPJ [24] since that time. The same cannot be said of RPJ. Whereas, I have freely admitted my mistakes, learned from them, and have not repeated them, RPJ continues to deny any mistakes, and shift the blame elsewhere. Finally, please note that none of the other editors invovled in this dispute have ever personally attacked RPJ. It says alot of Mytwocents, Gamaliel, and JimWae especially since they are the brunt of RPJ's most withering attacks. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Defending editor has made substantial contributions to the project

The defending editor RPJ relies in part on the strong policy against blocking a logged in user that makes substantial contributions. It is controversial to block a valuable editor no matter what the reason given for the block. Defending editor RPJ has contributed over 3,500 words of information to the project that remain in the articles after very close scrutiny by other editors. While these contributions are concentrated in the Kennedy article, they also extend into other areas, and include over a dozen separate articles.

These contributions are largely in areas of high readership interest based on the ongoing new literature, media coverage and ongoing new information. Such interest is constantly being renewed by the constant release of newly declassified information being release by a special act of Congress. The project should not neglect updating this important area. The evidence is being accumulated to establish the above contributions and will be inserted here. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Evidence of four significant viewpoints relating to the Kennedy murder

• There was a criminal conspiracy to murder the President. This viewpoint is reflected in the final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 after a three year investigation. This viewpoint has majority support among 70% of the American public in 2003. [43]

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

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

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp. [44]

and a growing amount of evidentiary material being released by the HSCA [45]and Assassination Records Review Board. This viewpoint of "an official cover-up" has majority support among 68% of the American public in 2003. [46]

• The conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin. This viewpoint has minority support among 22% of the American public in 2003. [47]

• Lee Harvey Oswald did not participate in the plot to murder the President. This viewpoint was consistently voiced by Lee Oswald prior to his murder. This viewpoint has minority support among 7% of the American public in 2003. [48]

RPJ 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Specific examples of contributions to Wikipedia by defending editor RPJ

• Defending editor RPJ has made contributions in the area of the legal definition of conspiracy under U.S. federal, and state law. [49]

• Finding and disclosing that a false history of research had been placed in the biography of the famous NASA scientist Dr. Eugene Shoemaker. [50]

• A year later,again found a false history of research on human skulls had been placed again back in the biography of the late Dr. Shoemaker. [51]This re-insertion of the information was done exactly one year [52] [53]after it was deleted by an editor of his biography when I had noted on the talk page of the Shoemaker biography that the information was unsourced and appeared suspect.

• Added information that was discovered by Congress years after the Warren Report was issued that the accused assassin, Lee Oswald, had the name and telephone number of an FBI agent in his address book, and had left a letter for the agent two days before the President was murdered. The FBI destroyed the letter and withheld the address book information. [54]

• In the Warren Report article included a well known article from the New York Times about the CIA conducting a covert propaganda campaign to squelch criticism of the Warren Report (which clears the CIA of involvement in the Kennedy assassination). The CIA urges its agents to use their "propaganda assets" to attack those who didn't agree with the Warren Report. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report" New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A3 [55]

• Included excerpts from the now famous Katzenbach Memorandum. Written, three days after the Kennedy murder by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, which said the purpose of the federal investigation was to satisfy the public “that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." [ [56](content dispute)

• Included the excerpt from the Central Intelligence Agency's mission statement regarding a controversial activity of the CIA acting as a "secret hand" to perform "covert actions" assigned by the Director of the CIA or the President. [57]

• Included an important study by the Rand Corporation on the effect of dollar limits on recoveries of damages and fees in California medical malpractice lawsuits. Such laws are under consideration in other areas of the country. [ [58]

RPJ 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Included excerpts from the 1998 Assassination Records Review Board Report criticizing the Kennedy autopsy on a number of grounds including the destruction original documents, the imprecise and inexplicably absent measurement of wounds, the failure to show original autopsy photographs by the Warren Commission, the failure to create an accounting of the photographs and a chain of custody for the autopsy materials, medical testimony in 1979 suggesting a change in the location of where the the fatal shot hit the head. [59]

RPJ 10:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Extracted actual testimony from the transcripts of witnesses from previously secret Warren Commission hearings. This is sworn testimony of witnesses to the actual assassination itself. These will be reconstructed, as as whole, in the workshop. Since most of it was put in and then deleted at several different times for different reasons by the complaining editors. Defending editor RPJ deems much of information to be the subject of a content dispute since the complaining editors insist the fatal head shot came from the rear of the head, and not the front right temple which blew out the back of his head. [60]

RPJ 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The pattern of improper deletions of new information by complaining editors

The complaining editors engaged in a pattern of improper deletions over the last 12 months. These large number of deletions have kept the Kennedy assassination articles not only outdated but retaining errors in the text that reinforce the central theme that the Warren Report is substantially correct, and other evidence, opinions and findings are "nonsense."

Complaining editor Gamaliel's deletions: Revision as of 23:27, 20 June 2006 Gamaliel (npov, rm excess detail presented with a clear agenda) [61];Revision as of 18:04, 12 June 2006 Gamaliel (not true) [62]; Revision as of 02:48, 9 June 2006 m (Reverted edits by 204.14.241.188 (talk) to last version by Gamaliel) [63]; Revision as of 15:57, 10 June 2006 Gamaliel (pov plus restored abc news investigation removed without comment); Revision as of 06:53, 15 November 2006 Gamaliel; [64]; Revision as of 18:58, 9 November 2006 Gamaliel) m (Reverted edits by RPJ (talk) to last version by WODUP); Revision as of 18:04, 12 June 2006 (Gamaliel (the autopsy - not true) [65]; Revision as of 17:21, 1 November 2006 Gamaliel (rm cherry picked skeptic quote from intro - this doesn't belong here, places undue weight on one person's opinion, and the quote is from a probably unreliable source) [66]; ; Revision as of 19:16, 31 October 2006 Gamaliel (rv pov pushing) [67]; Revision as of 00:15, 30 October 2006 Gamaliel (rv conspiracy pov pushing) [68]; Revision as of 01:21, 12 October 2006 Gamaliel (External links - restoring one, removing one) [69]; ; Revision as of 04:07, 4 August 2006) Gamaliel (Recordings and recreations of the assassination - dictabelt) [70]; Revision as of 22:49, 20 July 2006 Gamaliel (the funeral section is not the proper place to push conspiracy theories. let's make this a description of the actual funeral and not of forensic evidence) [71]; Revision as of 13:55, 15 July 2006 \Gamaliel (rv to Mboverload) [72]; Revision as of 15:04, 14 July 2006 Gamaliel (The Carcano rifle - restored the changes undone by Dubc0724 while reverting the unrelated external links section) [73]; Revision as of 14:10, 14 July 2006 Gamaliel (rv - "the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification") [74]; ; Revision as of 16:39, 13 July 2006 Gamaliel (External links - rm single page Newman conspiracy theory) [75]; Revision as of 06:25, 1 November 2005Gamaliel m (Reverted edits by RPJ to last version by Wyss) [76] [77]; Revision as of 03:32, 26 November 2005 Gamaliel (rv speculation) [78]; Revision as of 06:25, 23 December 2005 Gamaliel(External links - pruning some links which seem too far off topic) [79]; Revision as of 02:16, 2 January 2006 Gamaliel (The rifle and Oswald’s marksmanship - rm innuendo and speculation [80]; Revision as of 21:43, 2 January 2006 Gamaliel m (Reverted edits by RPJ (talk) to last version by Gamaliel) [81] [82]; Revision as of 00:26, 5 January 2006 Gamaliel m (External links - a one page news article on a single documentary doesn't seem important enough to be linked here, esp. at the top) [83]  ; Revision as of 19:29, 9 January 2006 Gamaliel m (Reverted edits by RPJ (talk) to last version by 83.253.17.157) [84]; Revision as of 02:59, 22 January 2006 Gamaliel m (Reverted edits by RPJ (talk) to last version by Palm dogg) [85]; Revision as of 19:36, 27 January 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs) (rv - this is all a red herring, that's lovelady in those pics, he even later produced the shirt he was wearing in the pics) [86]; Revision as of 07:38, 11 January 2006 Gamaliel (rv to JimWae to remove the mauser nonsense and restore the picture caption, which is useful and informative) [87]; Revision as of 21:38, 30 January 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs)(rv to Mytwocents) [88];Revision as of 01:38, 26 February 2006 Gamaliel m (Reverted edits by RPJ (talk) to last version by Grenavitar) [89];

Complaining editor Mytwocent's deletions:

In this revision, the complaining editor Mytwocents deleted about 50% of the entire article on the Warren Commission. Revision as of 05:09, 9 March 2006) Mytwocents (rv to cleaned up version) [90] RPJ 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Complaining editor Ramsquire's deletions:

Revision as of 23:56, 18 August 2006 Ramsquire (relevance and undue weight edit) [91];Revision as of 21:27, 12 October 2006) Ramsquire (rv link. No showing of notability of Michael Griffith. Griffith has published articles mainly in pro-conspiracy journals and also published four books on Mormonism.) [92];Revision as of 22:08, 5 July 2006 Ramsquire (cleanup... took out sections which seemed to be arguing a point instead of relaying facts.) [93]; Revision as of 21:27, 12 October 2006) Ramsquire (rv link. No showing of notability of Michael Griffith. Griffith has published articles mainly in pro-conspiracy journals and also published four books on Mormonism.) [94];

Example of updated information included by RPJ that is repeatedly deleted

Any information about this program PBS Frontline:Oswald, the CIA,and Mexico City on PBS's FRONTLINE is repeatedly deleted. Even simple links to PBS program are deleted. [95]

This show contains new information relating to the assassination. Congress required the declassification of nearly all JFK assassination documents by way of federal law in 1992. [96] There is a phased release continuing until 2017. In 2003, FRONTLIINE presented a program covering some of the newly uncovered documents. Making the presentation was Dr. John Newman who is a professor of history and government at the University of Maryland. He 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? "

Here is a sample of the information the show provides:

At 10:00 am on Saturday, November 23, President Johnson asked FBI Director Hoover if there was anything new concerning Oswald's visit in Mexico City (it's unclear when Johnson first had learned of the Mexico City visit). It was at this point - just hours fn22 after the assassination-- that Hoover told Johnson about the Kostikov link and that it was not Oswald's voice on the tape; he had been impersonated. fn23

Over at the Justice Department, with Attorney General Robert Kennedy in mourning that weekend, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach handled the case. He met with Hoover on Sunday, shortly after Jack Ruby had killed Oswald. Katzenbach then prepared a memo for Johnson's top aide, Bill Moyers, stating that the public had to be "satisfied" that Oswald had acted alone and that the "evidence" would have convicted him at a trial.

Katzenbach warned that speculation about Oswald's motive had to be "cut off" and that the thought that the assassination was a communist conspiracy or a "right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the communists" had to be rebutted.fn24 After the Sunday meeting Hoover observed, "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." Fn25 PBS Frontline:Oswald, the CIA,and Mexico City

The defending editor has tried to put in some of this information in the JFK assassination articles, but it has met with deletions. As pointed out above, even the link was deleted. RPJ 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Complaining editor Mytwocents also falls into disputes in totally separate articles

Article: Comair 5191

• Complaints by Mytwocents of an "intimidating environment." [97]

• Puts information in article with a request others find verification. "Put it in the wikiarticle, with a citation back to CNN, so everyone else can see I didn't just make it up, for the fun of it. This my process. This is how I contribute to wiki. Find new facts, add them to wikiarticles." [98].

• "Censorship has had it's season, on this page" by editors "to show their distain for other editors work." [99]
• "Doctrinaire, deletionfest." [100]

• Finally, looks forward to "[A]n RFC about this article, which I think is a long time coming." [101]

RPJ 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Article: Bonnie & Clyde

• This dispute arose out of Mytwocents allegedly deleting 60% of an article claiming it made “Bonnie”, an old american criminal,"look like a hero."

• “Your PA's are preserved here, on the article talk page. . .. “No one should be intimidated from editing the Bonnie & Clyde page.” [102]

• "You impugn my motivation for seeking peer review. Your behavior towards me, . . . has been deplorable. I have never once rose to your bait and responded in kind." [103]

• "Please stop threatening to Wikistalk me. Please stop using intimidating language towards me. Please stop personaly attacking me Please remember to assume good faith and not go off on a rant because of one edit I made to the B&C page. I always strive for NPOV in my edits." [104]

RPJ 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Article: National Security Archive

Complaining editor Mytwocents says of another editor in another totally separate article: "[Y]ou assume bad faith, the issue is not proof, it's NPOV. We determine that by consensus. We can also be bold and make edits without fear. Accusing me of vandalism is just plain wrong. Any editor, can make an NPOV at any time. That's what I did." [105] RPJ 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Complaining editor Mytwocents inserted false information Dr. Eugene Shoemaker's Biography

The context of this repeated hoax is this:

Over a year ago, on November 15, 2005, [106]someone inserted false information about the late Dr, Shoemaker in his biography about him conducting ballistics tests in the mid 1960's on human skulls filled with simulated brain tissue by shooting rifle bullets at the skulls. The purpose of this macabre test was supposed to prove that a skull "recoils" towards the person shooting when a human skull is hit by the bullet.

These supposed experiments by Dr. Shoemaker were supposed to support the "lone gunman" theory and explain why when the lone gunman was shooting from behind the president, the president's head and body went violently backwards (towards Oswald) upon being fatally wounded to the head. This violent backward movement of the fatal head shot created a national uproar when the famous Zapruder film leaked to the public and the public, in large numbers, started doubting the Warren Report.

At the same time as the false information was placed in Dr. Shoemaker’s biography, someone posted Dr. Shoemaker's name as the expert who proved the "skull-recoil" theory on Wikipedia's Kennedy Assassination site. [107] Then the Kennedy site was linked [108]to Dr. Shoemaker’s biography so the reader could see that the information was purportedly true because Dr. Shoemaker purportedly experimented and proved human skull recoils towards the shooter when the bullet hits the skull. When this was bought to the attention of editors familiar with Dr. Shoemaker, [109] the false information was taken out on November 19, 2005. [110]

Complaining editor Mytwocents then re-inserted the false information a year later into the Shoemaker biography [111] again with no citation. (See workshop) RPJ 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Complaining editor SBHarris' believes most Americans are "objectively clueless and ignorant, due to lack of study"

SBHarriss provided a lengthy opening statement against defending editor RPJ in support of penalizing RPJ. His more recent comments provide clear evidence of his lack of good judgment, and that his opinions be weighed cautiously. This complaining editor states this when discussing the fact that he is part of a small minority (22% of the public) that still believes in the Warren Report as opposed to 70% who don't believe it: "I'm proud to be in a minority, when the majority is objectively clueless and ignorant, due to lack of study. [112]

Examples of RPJ's conduct (in progress)

November 2006

• In response to Mytwocents' questioning of RPJ's insertion of the Newman theory in Central Intelligence Agency, RPJ quotes rules but does not address the substance of MTC's concerns. [113]
• Inserts a header above Sbharris' comment reading "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article". When called on that by Joegoodfriend, he replies "If he didn't like the header he should have made his own." [114] When I told him to "Restrict your comments to article content and stop giving us your opinions about other editors", he plead ignorance and asked "To what do you refer, when you say the offensive offensive header?" [115]
• In a talk page section he titled "Now editors don't want facts included because of their own fears on what they mean", RPJ accuses other editors of being "overwrought" and being "worried because two well known facts might be put in the article" and suggests "Perhaps this reveals the editor's deepest most fears about what happened". [116]
• He follows up with comments about "The editor who fears that the inclusion of facts" and says to another editor "you are out of step with the modern world", "You want to keep out the evidence that makes your position to look improbable" [117] and "Haven't 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?" [118]

October 2006

• In an edit summary, RPJ claims "This was taken out by someone because it discloses too much. Also not in the section is how the CIA concealed information from the Commission. Why keep protecting the CIA?" [119]
• A POV edit attacking a conspiracy critic, RPJ inserts into the article that the critic "has no known credentials". [120]
• Per WP:BLP, I removed from Kennedy assassination theories a claim that one James Files confessed to killing JFK as Files is still alive and the source was insufficent. RPJ and Andreasegde objected to this proper removal instead of simply coming up with a reliable citation for this supposed confession. Andreasedge accused me of being racist against Belgians (the unreliable website was from Belgium) in talk page comments, which I removed and he repeatedly restored. RPJ called the removal of these personal attacks "erattic", "compulsive", "strange", "cryptic", and "baffling" and evidence that "an arbitration" was needed on "Gamaliel's conduct". [121] All this could have been avoided had they simply looked for a reliable source for the information instead of attacking a person enforcing WP:BLP.
• Posted a talk page rant titled ""Editors" must learn that it is improper to delete properly cited information because the editor doesn't like it". Claims "there is a continual group of editors at this site whose only self perceived job is to delete any information that is deemed to reflect badly on the government agencies involved.", says "these editors should stop deleting information that they don't want others to know about", and adds "Ramsquire apparantly thinks "NPOV means information that he agrees with and other information with which disagrees he thinks is "POV."" [122]
• Ramsquire objected to the above comments, asking RPJ to "Please stop with the personal attacks". [123]. RPJ responds, claiming "there is no personal attack on you or anyone else, only a critical review of the editing skills being exhibited" and adds more attacks, stating "I don't believe that the other editors have to stand by silently while a small group of editors (including Ramsquire) roam through articles deleting properly sourced information from the articles because of their personal belief systems....Some editors contribute very little except ripping out what they personally don't like. Then, they claim to have hurt feelings when the problem is addressed by other editors...there is a small group of editors at this site whose only self perceived job is to delete any information that is deemed to reflect badly on the government agencies involved." [124]
• Edit summary: "There is no need to delete properly sourced information just because one doesn't like waht the informations say. This is book burning." [125]
• After another comment by Ramsquire, RPJ replies in a section s/he titled "The editor above must learn that his editing is subject [to?] criticism", calling him and others "thin-skinned" and comparing him to the overly sensitive "Princess and the Pea" [126]
• With the edit summary "Ramsquire can't seem to keep his story straight", RPJ attacks Ramsquire on Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination in a section titled "Ramsquire is wrong again", accusing him of wanting to delete information unflattering to the FBI. [127]
• After JimWae posted a critique of a recent edit to Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald and forgot to sign, RPJ attacked him in a long post with the edit summary "The editor needs to grow up", saying "The secret author is even afraid to use his web site name." and labeling his reasonable criticism as "This vicious attack with its bitter tone". [128]
• Following these last two posts, RPJ is blocked for the fifth time, this time for a week by User:Shell Kinney, who writes "You've been asked an incredible number of times to stop attacking other editors and focus your comments on article content." http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:RPJ&diff=82079610&oldid=81342297
• RPJ protests that "I don't understand the reason block put on me." [129] His unblock request is denied by User:Mangojuice, who writes "a look through your contributions reveals a very clear pattern of problematic behavior...The behavior you currently display creates tension and discord wherever you get involved: that's disruptive to the project, and it has to stop." [130]
• RPJ inserts his Mauser theory again [131]. I ask him "Please don't start another edit war over this again. Why not just add a paragraph to Kennedy assassination theories?" He ignores my suggestion and merely repeats his mantra "Put in all significant information." [132] I note that "A brief, quickly corrected visual misidentification is not a significant piece of information" and he pretends not to understand my statement, saying "I have no idea what your cryptic statement means to convey.The rule of this web site is all significant information is put in the article." [133]
• When I suggest that "Discussing the misidentifications in a brief, neutral way would be fine for the rifle page", RPJ claims that moving detailed information about the rifle to the rifle's article would be a "point of view fork" and "it is a tactical device to move information an editor personally doesn't agree with to a separate page" [134]
• RPJ accuses Shell Kinney of administrative favoritism and claims that "blocking seems to be used as a tactical debating approach". [135] [136] He later claims that I am his/her "buddy" and I'm on his "buddy list", whatever that means. [137]
• RPJ accuses Sbharris of using "standard disinformation techniques". [138]
• Edit summary: "For editors to believe they are capable of being gatekeepers of the truth is wrong." [139]
• "Some editors want to argue an unpopular viewpoint is wrong and therefore should be put "in in the closet" so to speak in a sub article." [140]
• Inserts a quote from one person's opinion into the introduction of John F. Kennedy assassination. [141]

August 2006

• To me: "This one editor just doesn't understand the web site policy. He is either being paid to ignore the rules or his ego will not allow him to follow the rules." [142]
• After I removed the above personal attack, he posted on my user talk page "Are you sure you should keep trying to contribute. It seems to place you under a great deal of stress." [143] then mocked me on the article talk page. [144]
• After this followup rant, RPJ is blocked for the fourth time, this time by User:Woohookitty for 72 hours.
• Removes information about a note written by Oswald claiming it had "nothing to do" with Oswald's attempt to kill General Walker, ignoring the fact that Oswald's wife testified to that very fact. [145]

July 2006

• Posted a long attack on myself and my contributions on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald titled "One of the editors (Gamaliel) is way out of line". "One of the editors of the Kennedy assassination articles naming himself "Gamaliel" has become confused as to his role in this web page. Most of his work in Wikipedia is in comic books. But, for some reason he has embraced the Warren Report with the same passionate belief that most of us reserve for religious text....Since Wikipedia allows the editors to remain anonymous, we don't know if Gamaliel is connected with any of the agencies that have come under suspicion, or merely has a "true believer' type of personality." [146]
• In response my request at WP:PAIN in regards to this attack [147], User:King of Hearts asks RPJ to cease his disruption. RPJ pleads ignorance again. [148]
• "The true believers need to go to a web site dedicated to the belief in the Warren Report so that they can read only information that agrees with the Warren Report....The Warren Report believers, such as editor Harris who wants to delete this information, frantically try keep out information that creates skepticism about the Warren Report. Its become a religion to some of them." [149]
• To myself and Sbharris: "Gentlemen, please, we understand your religious allegence to the Warren Report of 1964. We understand your program is to delete any information in the historical record that refutes it, but don't start sinking to that point. You make this web site look foolish." [150]
• "Please understand, your special reasons for book burning don’t matter." [151]
• Removes an entire section from the Lee Harvey Oswald article because it is "unreferenced". [152] While adding references is important and necessary, he did not assist in any effort to add references to this section and s/he targeted only this section, one s/he had previously objected to because s/he does not believe Oswald attempted to kill Walker.
• To Sbharris: "the editor has decided that he now wants to start keeping the evidence secret from the reader" [153]
• Accuses me of attempting to "invent historical facts". [154]
• Inserts the Newman conspiracy theory again. [155] [156]
• After I moved RPJ's article Clinton J. Hill to the more commonly used Clint Hill, he pasted the article in over the redirect with the edit summary "Restored article. A vandal erased it and redirected to a blank page." [157]
• Inserted material pushing the Mauser conspiracy theory again. [158]
• Inserted material pushing the idea that "The FBI did not agree with the Warren Commission theory of a "single bullet"" based on a single out of context quote from an unreliable website. [159]
• Started an edit war over the order of external links in John F. Kennedy assassination which was just an excuse to put a link to the Newman conspiracy theory at the top of the list. [160] Mocked my objections to his proposal that the links be rotated frequently by saying "Could Gamaliel explain himself and origin of his new rule of life?" [161] Then he put the pro-conspiracy Spartacus at the top and the anti-conspiracy links at the bottom. [162]
• Removed mention of an ABC anti-conspiracy documentary because there was "no citation" despite the fact that the name of the program and the year it aired are in the text. Wrote "Still no citation Why isn't the transcript on the internet like the other news shows especially PBS. It can't be verified right now." [163] Then claimed that, despite the fact that the DVD is for sale at amazon, "ABC had a news show but then retracted the material from the public domain" because they took down a link to a press release about the show. [164]
• "The Walker article has been swept clean of information that one editor believes is to sinister to print...the same ediot [idiot? editor?] includes information that has been simply made up as if this article is "ficional history."...the editor takes the narrative position that not only did oswald then in fact do it, but does so with made up facts." [165]
• Posts a talk page rant calling me a "misguided editor". [166] I ignored his rants but removed his POV edits, and he posted another rant on the talk page: "The editor that calls himself Gamaliel should take a little vacation from the Kennedy pages. He is losing sight of the purpose of this web page which is to provide information to the reader, not hide information." [167]
• After edits to the Assassination Records Review Board article condensing and NPOVing it, he reverted me. Edit summary: "rv an editor who doesn't understand the web site rules deleted a large amount of material from the report done by the ARRB because it disturbs his belief system. Please read the rules." [168] Reverted again with the misleading edit summary "This has been re-arrainged slightly". [169]
• Removes an external link from that article because he thought the link text was "misleading". [170]
• Posts a patronizing talk page message titled "Editor Sbharris - please focus" which ends "if you don't understand it please let me know." [171]
• After Joegoodfriend posts a talk page message asking RPJ to cease edit warring and attempts to explain the problems with his edits, RPJ attacks him in a message titled "Joegoodfriend: refrain from editing until you are ready". He says "don't critique other edits until you have something useful to say. Subjective opinions without reasons are a waste of time. No one even knows who you are." [172]
• To Sbharris: "Well. What so you have to say about the backgroud of your big "find?" You are the same editor that misread the death certificate and deleted a significant amount of material. Have been more careful this time?" [173]
• "Gamaliel is enraged because of the information that has been gathered by another federal agency 34 years later after his sacred Warren Report was written. He demands it go out--because he doesn't like it...For those who don'tknow him, Gamaliel is an "expert" on short comic book stubs and TV stubs" [174]
• Started an edit war on Clay Shaw regarding Shaw's WWII citations. He asked for a citation [175] and criticized Shaw in the edit summary. He objected to the citation I inserted in the article and claimed "Someone may be hyping him." [176] I provided a citation to the Dictionary of American Biography using the ref tags, then RPJ removed it with the edit summary "A citation to the pottom of the page to mayn sources is unprofessional. Point to the one that contains the reliable information." [177] When I restored the proper citation, RPJ then removed the names of the specific medals, writing "Took out the overdone medals in introduction that was too much puffing on the subject" [178]
• Starts an edit war at Clay Shaw pushing the Shaw-CIA connection, sparking a post at RfC. It is pointed out to him that the citation he is using actually debunks his claims [179] and a neutral editor brought there by the RfC notes "the way RPJ is portraying this tends to imply a far more sinister relationship than what we actually know to have existed." [180]

June 2006

May 2006

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

January 2006

• Inserts material pushing the "big chin" and Mauser theories. [181]
• Accuses other editors of wanting to "put out incorrect information because of a belief system that transcends the evidence." [182]
• Implies administrative abuse on my part and posts a rant called "Gamaliel needs to take a vacation from being a System Operator for Wikipedia" to three different talk pages. [183] [184] [185]
• Inserted material that Oswald was a US "double agent" based upon the testimony that was discounted by the HSCA and did not note that. [186] I posted this to the talk page and RPJ responded with a rant that included the statement "it is time for Gamaliel to stop being a contributer to this article." [187]
• On the talk page I produced a citation from the Dictionary of American History. RPJ inserted a rant into the article itself attacking this source [188] then later personally attacked me in the article in the paragraph starting "One Warren Commission supporter..." [189]
• Talk page rant: "It is time for some contibutors to review why they participate" [190]
• Twice RPJ (probably accidentally) inserted a paragraph of nonsense vandalism into the Lee Harvey Oswald article. I brought this to his attention and asked him to be more careful with his reverting. He accused me of using the vandalism as a "gimmick" to revert his contributions. [191]
• Attacked myself and another editor on my talk page: "It is unfortunate that both Jimwae and Gamaliel spend their time on Wikipedia going to articles that they have strong personal belief on and reverting any contribution that does not conform to their personal beliefs...The last couple of months of back and forth efforts by both of them will establish a clear pattern of how Jimwae and Gamaliel spend little time on the project, and then spend that little time on counter-productive activity." [192]
• Attacks Jimwae on an article talk page: "Jimwae appears to be gettng frustrated but perhaps his position is not well taken." [193]
• "Gamaliel doesn't believe the readers need to know about it. Only people with highly disciplined minds can be exposed to this information, and not get any "wrong" ideas." [194]
• Calls other editors "censors". [195]

December 2005

• Accuses me of "suppression of information". [196]
• "Contributer "Gamaliel" doesn't want anyone to be aware of this effort by the Warren Commission to suppress evidence contrary to what the Commission wanted to hear." [197]

November 2005

• RPJ demands that the picture of Oswald with his rifle should be removed from the article because of his "big chin" theory. [198] [199] [200] [201] and removes it himself several times but is reverted. [202] [203] Oddly, RPJ recently attacked other editors when the photo was removed from the article. [204]
• Inserted speculation into Lee Harvey Oswald pushing the theory that David Ferrie molested a teenage Oswald and recruited him into the CIA, despite the lack of evidence that Ferrie worked for the CIA or that he even ever met Oswald. [205] When I removed this material, RPJ accuses me of "censorship" and wanting to "submerge relevant facts". [206]
• Talk page rant titled "Time for Some contributors to do some homework" [207]
• Lengthy POV edit claiming the Warren Commission was rigged. [208]

October 2005

• RPJ's first edit to Wikipedia, which, among other changes, inserts the "big chin" theory into the introduction of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Conspiracy theories pushed by RPJ (in progress)

The Newman body double

RPJ has been pushing the theory of one John Newman, who posits based on his interpretation of CIA material, that "someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin". RPJ has repeatedly inserted this theory as fact in several articles. Newman explains his theory on this page, one page of many in an extensive suplimentary website for the PBS Frontline program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?", including a section titled "Conspiracy: Cases for and Against". The website has much material not presented in the program and clearly marked as the opinion of particular individuals such as Newman, but RPJ has repeatedly presented the material as if it was reported as fact on the Frontline program and has presented no evidence that the Newman theory is accepted by any credentialed authority except Newman.

The Mauser

The "Big Chin"

David Ferrie