Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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/w/index.php?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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] Evidence presented by CJCurrie
[edit] First assertion
Robert I and an anonymous contributor (who appear to be working in conjunction) have made several biased edits to pages involving the British far-right. When challenged, they have resorted to personal attacks and legal threats.
My general assessment of the situation may be found here.
The following links indicate what these pages looked like before I discovered them: Gregory Lauder-Frost, Harvey Ward, Western Goals Institute (please read the entire article text, not just the changes). For comparisons with the current articles, see [2], [3], [4]. Efforts to change these pages were met with resistance ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]).
For instances of uncivil responses, see the following: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],[17], [18] (legal threat), [19] (removal of information), [20], [21], [22] (implied legal threat), [23] (implied legal threat), [24] (implied legal threat), [25], [26], [27]. (Also click here and here to see why I believe the legal threats to be without merit.)
The biased edits have continued into recent days: [28]. CJCurrie 23:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC) CJCurrie 00:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: After some reprise, the biased edits have continued again: [29].
Further addendum: another recent biased edit may be found here, where Robert I removes a reference to David Irving as a holocaust denier. CJCurrie 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC) And see also this. CJCurrie 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
He's done it again: [30]. CJCurrie 23:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second assertion
Robert I and the anon have also misrepresented a number of published articles.
Robert I made this edit, which was shown to be false here.
One another occasion, the anon misrepresented an article in the Guardian by suggesting it portrayed the Monday Club in a positive light. [31] The full context is provided here [32]. See also here.
Robert I claimed that The Observer published a retraction of an article about the Conservative Monday Club ([33]). This claim was later repeated by an anon (perhaps not the same, but apparently working in conjunction with the other) ([34]). The first anon also misrepresented the article ([35]). There was a right-of-reply in the paper, but not a retraction ([36]), and The Observer did not subsequently apologize for its original article.
The anon also appears to have misrepresented Harold McMillan's "Winds of Change" speech here. See the following: [37], [38]. CJCurrie 23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC) (Updated: CJCurrie 00:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Evidence presented by Homeontherange
[edit] First assertion
If Robert I is also 213.122... and/or 81.131... then he has been using sock puppets to back himself up on Talk pages and circumvent the 3RR on
, and . To determine this it is necessary to have a developer investigate the IPs User:Robert I has been using. If the Robert I account has logged in from both 213.12 and 81.131 IPs then that is very strong prima facie evidence that we are dealing with one individual here (likely Gregory Lauder-Frost himself as we have two instances in which an 81.131 anon IP has signed himself as such). Homey 00:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Addendum According to an email I received from Robert I several weeks ago, his IP address begins with 81.131 suggesting he may also be our anon 81.131 contributor and possibly Lauder-Frost as well. Arbitrators should check Robert I's login record to see if he has ever logged in from a 213.122 IP and also to see if there are occassions where a documented anon IP contributor logged in in mid session as Robert I or if Robert I ever logged out in mid session and continued to post as a documented anon IP contributor (81.131 and/or 213.122).Homey 14:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Second Addendum Robert I has slipped up and there is now evidence that he is also our anon 213.122 contributor as well as our anon 81.131 contributor.[39].Homey15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum three Gregory Lauder-Frost has edited the encyclopedia using both 81.131 and 213.122 accounts. Lauder-Frost is a geneologist and has written several published articles on his family history. At least one of the 81.131 accounts has contributed articles on Lauder-Frost's family to wikipedia[40] [41]. Various anonymous 213.122 accounts have done likewise [42] [43] [44].
One post to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost made by an anon 81.131 account was initialled by Gregory Lauder-Frost [45]
A complaint made on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page was signed by Gregory Lauder-Frost and made from an 81.131 account [46] Another post to the Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost page was signed by Lauder-Frost using a 213.122 account [47].
An anon 81.131 account has edited posts to the same talk page made by an anon 213.122 account suggesting they are the same user [48]
Robert I has also used a 213.122 account [[49].
I also received an email several weeks ago from Robert I (in which he attacked me and maligned CJCurrie) - that email originated from an 81.131 IP.
It is my belief that Gregory Lauder-Frost is User:Robert I as well as both the anonymous 81.131 and 213.122 user. He has been flooding wikipedia with vanity pages on himself, his ancestors and his political groups and friends and been effectively using anon IPs as sock puppets in order to agree with himself on talk pages and circumvent the 3RR on various articles. Homey 19:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Robert I's response to ISP nonsence
- You can believe what you like. Wikipedia does not lay down the law as to what computers may be used and who can use them. In fact, when I first registered with Wikipedia I stated that I had previously only edited under an anonymous ISP number. Moreover, to suggest that two entirely different ISP numbers are the one computer is farcical as it would mean that the individual concerned would be forking out to two ISPs.
But that is not the issue here. The BIG issue has always been your fantastic attempts at demonisation (the Western Goals Institute must rank as possibly the most classic example) and the very major attempts to discredit absolutely everyone on the Right of British conservative politics. Every argument and every excuse (almost all based upon known left-wing organs) has been used by you and CJCurry and if the arbitrators cannot see this then there is no hope for balance on Wikipedia.
Attempting to obfuscate matters by banging on about this and that computer or ISP and accusing people of being all one person (who must be extremely agile) should be ignored. the real issue here is your left-wing and politically correct agenda. Robert I 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by Robert I
[edit] First assertion
I originally called for arbitration on the Gregory Lauder-Frost and Conservative Monday Club articles, following concerted and relentless demonising attacks upon them by Users CJCurry and homeontherange. They have in turn attempted to obfuscate my complaints by raising a complaint about multiple users all being one or a few people (presumably they are telling people which computers they may use and which they may not. Amazing.). But the real issue here is demonisation, and this is what should be carefully addressed.
Anyone who has ever studied how Marxists operate will recognise what has been going on here. Comments made by me, and others, have been pooled together as one person, and they are stated to be "abusive" and "uncivil". I have examined these and they are simply fair comment. It could be argued that if you don't wish such comments to be made then one should not be pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous, and engage in edit wars designed specifically to demonise individuals and groups, relying primarily on newspapers such as The Guardian, a renowned left-wing rag, home to numerous Marxist journalists (some of whom my accusers saw fit to cite, presumably as "neutral"), a newspaper described by Lord Beaverbrook as "Communist" (see Off The Record by W.P.Crozier, edited by A.J.P.Taylor, London, 1973, p.259).
That said, User CJCurry states that the insertion into the Gregory Lauder-Frost article of "he was once a leading member of the Conservative Monday Club, an organization that was described by Andrew Moncur in The Guardian (23 August 1989) as "the Tory Monday Club", is unacceptable and that it does some kind of "credit" to the Club (or, for that matter, to Lauder-Frost). In fact it is simply stating an well-known accepted description of the Club, nothing more, nothing less. What Curry's comment actually shows is how biased HE is because he does not wish the Club, or Lauder-Frost to be seen as Tory, but as "extremist".
CJCurry constantly deleted the City Limits magazine editor's descriptive heading above one of Lauder-Frost's major letters of "True Conservative Speaks" because (1) Mr.Curry does not wish to see Lauder-Frost as a Tory and (2) he cannot find a copy of the magazine in Canada (hardly a suprise!) You may well ask yourself why Mr.Curry is just so important that every minute article has to be proved to HIM. After all, a source has been quoted.
Mr.Curry had apoplexy about a quote from Levitas's far-left book, where the Monday Club was described as "an organisation which proselytized the more ancient and venerable conservative traditions of paternalism and imperialism" [p.60]. He and his friend homeontherange went ballistic because the entire paragraph was not quoted, which he seemed to think was essential, and they then abused me by saying that I was some sort of intellectual moron. Journalists and writers regularly lift quotes, long and short, sometimes even a single word, from works. These quotes are naturally tailored to their purpose. One does not quote ad infinitum Cicero's speech but something from it ("The Enemies Within" is a famous minute quote from a very long speech). Here is quoted what I saw as an accurate comment about the Club. The person making the comment had added "and racist" at the end of his sentence but this was untrue and unfair so I dropped it from my quote, the rest of which was correct. I see nothing whatever wrong in that. The Monday Club is opposed to large-scale immigration into Britain. It makes no comment on the various races of the world. It has had several non-European member, as well as numerous Jews.
This leads me to another issue where the attacks have been general, with masses of re-edits by the complainants. It is common here (UK) at least in unbiased academic circles not to describe entire races merely by the colour of their skin. We were taught in school about the earth's many races, cultures etc. Skin colour was a minor comment. Homeontherange and CJCurry attacked various entries referring to "European government", "non-Europeans", etc., and changed them to "white minority government" and "non-white". This is simply blatant left-wing terminology, virtually unheard of a few decades ago. For instance, Sir David Lindsay Keir, our great constitutional historian, refers in numerous tracts to "masses of non-European subjects" and, in India, to "government of non-Europeans" (The Constitutional History of Modern Britain 1484-1951, London, 1955, p.449). In the United States in is common on official documents to refer to Europeans as "Caucasian" but here we tend not to use that form generally.
They mention the MacMillan Winds of Change speech, because of their obvious obsession with Apartheid, and insist that was what his speech was about, but it was not. It was about decolonisation. I think we should know what it was about here, don't you?
If you were to go to the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost, and look at the history page, you will surely be absolutely staggered by the fantastic number of edits and re-edits made by CJCurrie and Homeontherange. This couple have followed me, and others, around to what CJCurry refers to as "far-right" articles (showing, of course, his neutrality in such comment) and attacked all the articles. If he and homeonetherange do not have a political agenda, then I am a banana.
Gregory Lauder-Frost was a well-known, and much-liked figure on the Conservative Right (He would say he was a traditional Tory). Even some of the left-wing journalists got on with him. He was a major activist in the Conservative Party, the Conservative Monday Club, and to a lesser extent, the Western Goals Institute. He knew and/or was friends with a number of extremely well-known political figures, such as Alec Douglas-Home and Norris McWhirter (he was an invited guest to both their memorial services), and Enoch Powell. Just look at some of the famous political names tied up with all the groups he has been involved in. Are these people all fascists and "far-right"? I think not. But they are if you are a left-winger.
It may be worth you reading Simon Heffer's article in the London Daily Telegraph on 4/1/06 here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/04/do0402.xml You will se that the Conservative Party has now moved so far to the left that its new leader describes the Labour Party Chancellor as "an extremist". Lauder-Frost, the Monday Club, et al, are simply the "orthodox" conservatives to whom Mr.Heffer refers in his article.
I appreciate that to CJCurry and Homeontherange feel Lauder-Frost is nobody, but then we here know virtually nothing of Canadian political entities. Homeontherange deliberately described GLF as someone "on the fringe of the fringe". Yet the Monday Club was the largest (non-single-issue) Tory pressure group in Great Britain. It once boasted of over 40 MPs as members with six of them in the government. You decide if that is the "fringe". GLF's activities in and publicity for the Monarchist League brought it back from dormancy to a vibrant organisation which again has thousands of members. He is a prolific writer of articles for journals etc. I would say he fits Burke's famous description of the great cavalier Sir Roger le Strange, when they said "he wrote many pamphlets and papers, and his observations made a considerable impression" (Extinct & Dormant Baronetcies by Messrs., John and John Bernard Burke, London, 1844).
It is true that Lauder-Frost and most of those he was associated with were right-wing, old-fashioned Tories. Imperialists, very anti-communist, and old-guard patriots. That does not make them "far-right" or "hard-right" etc. These are journalist's buzz-words and unfitting for any encyclopaedia. None of these people or organisations have done anything (regardless of journalists' fantasies) other than support old-fashioned Tory nationalism. This is not a crime and people should not be demonised in Wikipedia for standing up against communism and what Gibbon described as a "totally decadent society" (Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire).
Gregory Lauder-Frost was involved in a damaging legal case in 1992 which carried over into 1993. It had nothing whatsoever to do with his political activities. The details are irrelevant to his, and our lives today. 1992 is now a long time ago and he is entitled to the protection from demonisers which our country provides. It is only natural that people who seek to raise this issue for no other reason other than demonisation be made aware that their slander may be actionable. CJCurry and homeonetherange seem to think they are beyond reproach and they can act as they please and hide behind the umpteen numerous protection headings afforded by Wikipedia.
Terrorists who murder people for political gain are terrorists, pure and simple. CJCurry;s attempts at multiple edits calling them "guerillas" or engaged in "liberation" struggles is a disgrace, as is him calling Europeans in Africa "settlers", standard Marxist Pan-African Congress language. I wonder how he would feel constantly being referred to in Canada as a "settler"? Homeontherange's description of ANC terrorist leader and South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani as extremely popular is hardly "neutral". This man was the leader of murderers.
I could go on and on, but I hope that I have made my points. I, and the other contributors referred to, have spent a lot of time researching and adding information in order to produce good biographical articles describing these people, and articles on other organisations also. These have all been attacked by Users CJCurry and the person he called in to assist him, homeontherange or homey. You may well ask yourself what was their purpose in attacking all these articles if it was not political and designed to show everyone in a negative light. Why would CJCurry call for microfilm of a newspaper and spend hours looking through it in an attempt to rake up journalistic filth? Certainly neutrality doesn't enter into it. Whatever their previous contributions to Wikipedia, they have revealed their true colours here. Robert I 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second assertion
It is easier to answer the second, first. User Homeontherange or homey was asked by User CJCurry to enter into the demonising agenda which he commenced. The arguments about sock-puppets, multiple identites are all spurious because no-one has been doing anything other than challenging this little duo in their activities. Homeontherange has followed me, and others, around to various pages and engaged in edit wars to portray individuals and organisations in entirely negative ways and also to demonise them. When challenged as to their asctivities one is accused of being "abusive". I hope that the adjudicators can see what has been happening here. Robert I 13:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion Page
I note that several vital comments of mine have been moved to the discussion page. I hope the arbitrators will consider those. Robert I 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The comments in question should have been posted on the discussion page to begin with. This page is for evidence, not debate. CJCurrie 20:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, M.P.
What has happened to the article on this fellow? The London Daily Telegraph thought him an important enough personage to give him a full half-page obituary. Robert I 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It was, in parts, a word for word copy of the Daily Telegarph obituary thus infringing their copyright. Homey 17:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
I have already disputed this. All the information int he obituary was already in the public domain and well-known. Robert I 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The information was in the public domain, the article you plagiarised was not. This has already been discussed here [50]. In any case the article has been recreated in a non-plagiarized form, see Geoffrey Stewart-Smith. Homey 14:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
You are just one of the most incredibly and pompously rude individuals I have ever come across. Robert I 18:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)