Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Statement by Bishonen
It's a little misleading to list me as involved, as I've had no other interaction with RPJ than posting a block warning on him back in April for personal attacks and trolling, that I happened to notice on Gamaliel's talkpage, and, when RPJ ignored the warning, blocking him for 48 hours. That's it. I don't edit the same articles, and don't believe I've ever spoken with any of the other editors involved except Jossi (on an unrelated matter). But I posted an Outside view on RPJ's RFC today, being as I was a little shocked to see from the evidence there that he had been going on in the same way ever since my April brush with him. I urge the ArbCom to not tell people they have to first mediate with this intransigent editor, who shows no respect for NPOV nor for other users. A quick arb vote would be extremely appreciated, as productive editors at the JFK assassination pages have obviously had their editing lives made unpleasant for long enough by RPJ's methods. Note that he's a one-issue editorhe edits nothing in article space except the JFK assassination pages. Please just see the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Statement by Brian J
I am also not involved, nor am I a Wikipedia user. I know RPJ outside of Wikipedia, and he asked me offer an opinion.

This is attempted censorship. The people against RPJ do not want the main page for a topic to contain all credibly sourced viewpoints; they want it to contain their view, with other views either excluded or consigned to view-specific pages. Several have already admitted this goal in their statements for this arbitration.

They justify this by claiming that their view is proven correct and represents the unanimous view of all credible sources. This is not true. They are simply inventing credibility tests. For example, one of them rejects multiple pieces of information from the FBI. The grounds given are the length of the source document, the amount of effort spent on contrary documents, and their own opinion that the source was confused.

These people are thinking in a circle. They believe the evidence is so overwhelming that contrary evidence should never be mentioned. They believe that their view is correct because it is official (they say "expert," but they cite Congress) and that only the correct view deserves the legitimacy of being discussed on the main topic page.

As to the charges of "personal attacks" and "trolling": those are easy charges to make when people are angry. The examples linked to here and in the statements do not seem to cross the line between saying that someone is wrong and attacking them. They certainly come no closer than the accusers' statements.

72.235.208.208


 * Do you or RPJ think it is appropriate to accuse those with whom you disagree of being mentally ill or in the employ of the government charged with perpetrating a cover up? Even if you don't think those sorts of comments "cross the line", do you think it is appropriate to continue to make such comments even though people have asked you repeatedly over the course of an entire year to cease making those sorts of offensive remarks? Gamaliel 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to RPJ's Statement
In his statement to the ArbCom, RPJ misrepresents me in his attempt to paint this as solely a content dispute. He writes: "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.'" That is a blatant misstatement of my position. In support of this statement, RPJ uses this diff. However, a review of this diff shows that the language attributed to me is actually a quote from WP:NPOV and the "viewpoint" disputed is where CE-399 aka "the pristine bullet", was found, not whether there was a conspiracy. Please note the diff where I attempt to explain this to what I thought was an anonymous user.

I will once again state that this is not about censorship. For the record, I fully believe that a conspiracy involving Oswald was possible. However, that is not free license to give undue weight to speculation and rumor, and attack other users who attempt to make the articles encyclopedic.

Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

From Requests for clarification
A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have posted on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (news). I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Wikipedia, and the ArbCom finding should not be interpreted as such. It is still a site that needs to be treated with caution and not depended on too heavily, especially in controversial articles. - SimonP 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I would not use the site for any purpose; the question of whether a site is a reliable source depends on the nature of the subject and how it is treated by the site. In the RPJ case, which focused on aggressive advancement of conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, most of the problem with use of the site as a source was caused by use of selected pages from the site to advance contentious points. Fred Bauder 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)