Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

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


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

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


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

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

[edit] Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant point of views regarding a subject.

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

[edit] Extreme points of view

2) Provided they are reasonably courteous and more or less conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines users who hold extreme views from either the left and the right are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The problem anticipated is aggressive and sustained point of view editing.
Comment by parties:
  1. Just look at the edits User CJCurrie has made on the Western Goals Institute on 18th January and tell me he has no political agenda etc.
  2. I stand by the edits in question. CJCurrie 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Aggressive point of view editing

3) Users who edit aggressively in a point of view way may be banned from those articles which are affected and in extreme cases from the entire site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Sustained edit warring usually is involved. Fred Bauder 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#What_is_a_European? is not Wikipedians giving someone the benefit of the doubt. It is more like a bunch of crows after an owl. Fred Bauder 19:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. CJCurrie has already conceeded that he has been involved in an edit war. He then brought in User homeontherange to assist him. I contend that my contributions have been factual (disputed by them) and 'holding the line'. I cannot speak for other contributors. Robert I 15:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The "concession" Robert I refers to is actually his misreading of something I wrote. I've clarified the matter here. CJCurrie 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. At Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#What_is_a_European?, Robert I questions the authority of the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "European", and asserts his own "common sense" definition, providing no alternative references: "I am not sure that the Oxford Dictionary would describe itself as something expert in this field of description...." Ground Zero | t 19:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC).
That is a gross distortion of my position. The Oxford Dictionary cites two definitions and I concur with the second, not the first which, I believe, is meaningless. Robert I 13:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not intend to distort your position, and I do not think that I have. Your comment above demonstrates that you do not accept the authority of the Oxford Dictionary to define words because you are choosing which parts of the definition you will accept, and which you won't. And then you call the other parts "meaningless." Ground Zero | t 14:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiography

4) Point of view difficulties can arise when a user is engaged in editing articles which relate to themselves or activities which they are or were intensely involved, see Wikipedia:Autobiography.

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

[edit] Libel

5) Publishing of false information in a Wikipedia article is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and presents liability concerns both for the editor making the false statement and the project. Reasonable effort by users is expected to avoid or mitigate publishing of false information.

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

[edit] Libel laws and expectations

6) While fair criticism of public figures, especially those involved in political activity is strongly protected in the United States, other jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, may have more restrictive or burdensome laws. Wikipedia, while aware of more restrictive jurisdictions, looks to American law for guidance.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. However we are in no position to protect a user against an action by a British subject against another British subject.
Comment by parties:
  1. Although I am not convinced that Wikipedia is legally required to remove this information, I will forego any effort to return it unless and until precise legal clarification of the matter is given. I will also note that I was not the first person to mention the conviction. CJCurrie 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (minor adjustment: CJCurrie 01:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Comment by others:

[edit] Sockpuppets

7) In certain instances, especially involving users serviced by large isps which connect using variable ips it is not possible to definitively establish which accounts are being used by a single person or small group engaged in an activity. In such cases a judgement can be made based on similarity of editing style and theme.

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

[edit] Applicability of remedies to sockpuppets

8) In cases where variable ips and sockpuppets have been used arbitration remedies may be applied to all anonymous ips and accounts which are determined to be sockpuppets of the user.

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

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

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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

[edit] Checkuser of Robert I

1) Checkuser of Robert I shows edits from variable ips, all under the username Robert I; however see [1], Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I#Statement_by_213.122.67.71_.28respondant.29 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I#Statement_by_81.131..._.28respondant.29.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The allegation of numerous sockpuppets do not resolve to Robert I Fred Bauder 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. However there is some editing by anonymous ips Fred Bauder 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. But are these "sockpuppets" offensive? If not, what is the real issue here? There is only one computer/ISP at my home. Several friends and relations use it (especially the younger ones) when they are visiting. I am unable to see what the issue is here regarding ISPs. It is obscuring the real issues. Robert I 12:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Locus of dispute

2) The locus of this dispute is Gregory Lauder-Frost and related articles concerning his activities and family, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Homeontherange.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Why is homeonetherange right and I am wrong? Who is this individual? Robert I 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Issues

2) Depending on point of view Gregory Lauder-Frost can be described as a "traditional conservative" or a "right-wing extremist". Other issues include mention of a minor criminal conviction mention which may be improper under British law. The controversy regarding the article is characterized by detailed editing [2] by Robert 1 which minimizes extremist connotations, showing Gregory Lauder-Frost in a favorable light [3] and reverts [4] [5] and edits by CJCurrie which attempt to incorporate the detailed information added by Robert I [6] and seek compromise language [7], see Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#Ending_the_controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Robert I often make fine contributions to these articles which is to be expected if he is Gregory Lauder-Frost or a close associate. Fred Bauder 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. If reports of the interviews you have conducted were published in a reliable source they would be just as good as anything published in the British left-wing press. As above, we go by American law, which permits mention of such incidents. I don't think the current article particularly emphasizes it. If there is a problem with the article, the main failure is to set forth the positive aspects of GFL's life and ideals in an attractive way. (Just my personal opinion) Fred Bauder 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. I have researched GLF and all the other connexions extensively. But I have been told by my detractors that personal interviews I have had with others are not acceptable, yet interviews conducted by left-wing journalists are. Some discrepancy here. It is against British law to raise GLF's court cases unless it can be shown to be relevant to public interest (i.e: if he'd assaulted a schoolchild and was trying to get a job in a school). Robert I 15:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia prohibits the use of original research as source material, unless this research has also been cited in a reliable, published forum. (In fairness, it should be acknowledged that this rule is not always strictly enforced in circumstances where a sufficient degree of trust exists between different editors. Such is obviously not the case here.) CJCurrie 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

3) A few posts have been received which purport to be from Gregory Lauder-Frost himself [8], [9] and [10]. These originate from ips which are compatible with those used by Robert I

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. [11] is a legal threat purportedly from Gregory Lauder-Frost Fred Bauder 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. With some internet service providers every time you log in you are assigned a new ip from the range that is assigned to your provider. As you use British Telephone's service you come in on a large number of ip from two ranges that are assigned to them. As the post purportedly from Gregory Lauder-Frost came from the same range the question is raised as to whether you are the same person or another person using the same service. Fred Bauder 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. Is there a legal requirement that individuals must use a separate computer/separate ISP when making a post? Robert I 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC). Also, both GLF and I live in parts of the UK which have very low populations. It seems unlikely to me that our region would have multiple ISPs from British Telecom which vary so much. Robert I 15:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Legal threats

4) A post has been received from an anonymous ip compatible with those used by Robert I purportedly from Gregory Lauder-Frost which threatens legal action [12]. A post from Robert I tells of communication with Gregory Lauder-Frost regarding the alleged offense, "I have emailed him with a full copy of it" [13], citing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. It is not an offense at all. However, it is our practice to ban users who are involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or other Wikipedia users until the matter is resolved. This prevents further damage. That does not relieve us or our users from their responsibility to avoid libel and write fair articles. Fred Bauder 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. Surely it is not an offence to contact someone being seriously demonised to notify them? And surely if the victim feels it is so grossly offensive and a deliberate attempt to broadcast that offensive and damaging information worldwide on the internet he should feel entitled to say that he proposes to take action? Robert I 15:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Denial of malicious intent

5) It may be that malicious intent would be required for a successful legal action under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, see [14] where CJCurrie makes that claim and denies malicious intent. See also [15] discussing possible Scottish legal implications.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. It is to be expected that users with a strong point of view will focus on subjects which they see as the "enemy". This can represent determined opposition based on principle or immature efforts to paint a subject as black as possible, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#SNAKE.21_SNAKE.21. In both instances Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be violated. We cannot here determine questions of fact as they might be determined in an English or Scottish court. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't doubt some here see you as the "enemy". A status I share due to my opposition to Communist totalitarianism. However, the problem is not that; it is editing in an area you are personally involved in. That makes it hard for you to avoid the sort of point of view editing which is disruptive. Citations need to be attributed, not stated as facts. That way the source can be considered. Fred Bauder 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. Deliberate citing of known Marxist and left-wing journalist's personal opinions as absolute fact, where they are absolutely detrimental and cause distress may be construed as malicious. [unsigned]. (My apologies for not signing this when posted earlier today). I had cited quite fully the requirements of the Scottish Law of convicium which covers malicious intent. Could I also say that I had not seen anyone on Wikipedia as "the enemy", nor have I attacked anyone elses articles. However me and my articles and contributions have been cast in that light. Robert I 16:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:

[edit] Complaints by Robert I regarding point of view editing

6) Robert I has complained regarding the use of leftist point of view language, for example the use of "guerrillas" rather then "terrorists" to describe fighters against white minority rule in Southern Africa [16] [17]. See Talk:Harvey_Ward#Marxist_terminology and Talk:Harvey_Ward#Marxist_terrorists. His position was supported by Isabella84 (talk • contribs).

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. It is not possible to include alternative wording for every concept. One person's liberation movement is another's terrorist organization. "Guerrilla" is relatively neutral, while "terrorist" is strongly negative. Fred Bauder 16:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. One person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter". Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of both perspectives. Fred Bauder 18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Bit of culture shock going on here. Robert I is only a Tory, if you think a Tory is monster, OK, but be polite. And to Robert, leftist views are just leftist views, not "loony". Fred Bauder 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. The struggle against Communism may be mainstream, but the struggle for fascism and white minority rule is not. Fred Bauder 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. When I was at school the word terrorist was defined as someone who uses violence and murder to achieve political ends. It seems to me that on Wikipedia there is a strain of thought that says this is not so bad and where we think so we will give such people a different designation. Robert I 16:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC).
I completely agree with Fred Bauder about communism/fascim. But none of these people/organisations which have been attacked so viciously have been promoting fascism or fascist governments. Indeed, all were dedicated to Western democratic government and said so in all their literature. Whatever may be said about the governments in Southern Africa, they were the only governments which had always been in those places since the Europeans arrived and established them there. They were not 'fascist' because 6 million people regularly voted for them. Robert I 09:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Just look at CJCurrie's edits on the Western Goals Institute 18 January. Absolute and clear bias and insistance of the use of loony descriptions such as "hard-right". He is a demoniser, pure and simple. Robert I 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As I recall, it was the BBC that used that description in regards to the Monday Club. Are they "loony" "demonisers" as well? IMHO, your description of CJCurrie as loony and a demoniser is a violation of our rules against personal attacks. Homey 14:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Well, actually, yes, the BBC are well-known demonisers. Let us not forget their attempts against Neil Hamilton and Gerald Howarth. Here they made a serious blunder thinking it would be left to lie. Also, why not read Gordievsky's comment on the BBC? Surely he has a better perception of these things than you? Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • White minority rule is the standard, description used for nations such as Rhodesia prior to 1979 and South Africa (although when South Africa is being described on its own "apartheid rule" or "apartheid state" is also used) and no reasonable person would claim that white minority rule is not a fair and accurate description of the situation in Rhodesia and South Africa in which the white minority population controlled all the levers of political power to the complete or near-complete exclusion of the non-white majority. The term white minority rule is the term we've used throughout wikipedia (see the white minority rule article) and is and was the term used in the media regardless of political stripe from at least the 1960s on. Robert I's preferred term of "European rule" is a POV euphemism. Homey14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

People like YOU decided this WILL BECOME the standard description. It is a political expression and totally non-neutral. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. I stand by the comments that I made on Western Goals Institute. They were not POV, and were not in violation of Wikipedia policy or practice. If anything, I think I accommodated some of Robert I's complaints by using the phrase "hard-right" instead of than "far-right". CJCurrie 19:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
Comment by GroundZero:
  1. "Far- right" and "hard right" seem to be very apt descriptors of this organisation. Take a look at whom the WGI invites to its dinners -- it is a laundry list of far-right figures: Roberto D'Aubuisson of El Salvador, Andries Treurnicht, leader of the staunchly pro-apartheid Conservative Party (South Africa), Alessandra Mussolini (yes, that Mussolini) and Jean-Marie Le Pen. The WGI hosted a Francisco Franco memorial dinner, presumably in honour of the fascist former dictator of Spain. I concur that Robert I's continual use of "demoniser" to describe editors with whom he disagrees violates Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, of which I have remined him on a few occasions. Roert I does not seem to have any more regard for Wikipedia's policies than he does for the BBC, the Guardian, the Times, etc. Ground Zero | t 14:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. "Robert I is only a Tory" -- with respect to Fred Bauder, I think that this is not a useful characterisation of him. At Traditional Britain Group, Robert I changed the description of TBG dinner guest, David Irving, from "Holocaust denier" to "controversial historian". The Irving article says that he sued someone who called him a "Holocaust denier" and lost. Removing this description of him (here) appears to me to be another attempt by Robert I to portray TBG incorrectly as being mainstream. There are extremists in the Tory Party as there are in Labour. I do not think that it is accurate to protray anti-immigration Tories who associate with Holocaust deniers as being mainstream, or "only a Tory". Ground Zero | t 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
Specific Responses by Robert I to GroundZero's rambling comment:

(1) The terms right and left come from the old French parliament where conservatives sat on the right and the revolutionaries sat on the left. There was nothing "far" or "hard" involved. "Hard-right" in Europe and Britain is an extreme left-wing description given to those who are complete Nazis etc., OR those whom the left wish to consign to oblivion without discussing the issues. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(2)You openly give us YOUR opinions, as though they were absolute, here while condemning those of mine.

(3) When you deliberately smear individuals and entire groups of respectable people wiht thin veils of fascism and Nazism by appellations such as "hard-right" and "far-right" you are demonising them in the eyes of the reader. A proper encyclopaedia reader should not be given YOUR opinion nor those of left-wing newspaper journalists as gospel, rather they should be able to read the story and decide FOR THEMSELVES.

(4) I have read Irving's trial transcript (took some time!) In fact the judge conceded that he was possibly one of the finiest historians of the period (WWII). Also he was NOT convicted of anything. he simply did not win his libel case. That is an entirely different matter. "Contorversial historia" therefore is fasr more accurate and neutral, rather than your obsessively and blatantly political "holocaust-denier". Moreover, ANYONE who believes in a Traditional Britain may attend their annual dinners. We don't censor people in this country from attending such events. Nor do we have crimes of guilty by association. Again you assert YOUR opinion.

(5) Maybe you'd like to give us a list of the "extremists" in the Conservative Party. I suggest you will be hard-pressed. Moreover, traditional Tories are not OBLIGED to be members of that now neo-liberal orgainstaion, and its more than likely they have departed. You are quite alone in thinking that opposition to immigration in Britain cannot be Tory and is the preserve of tiny minorities. Quite wrong. You should stick to politics across the pond instead of pontificating on subjects you have no accurate knowledge of and then trying to smear others with it. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


General Response by Robert I

All the above comments are this little trio's personal political opinions - only. "White-minority rule", "hard-right" etc are simply POLITICAL statements which were originally coined by The Left in their various campaigns. I don't recall anyone referring to the government of the USA in 1960 as "white-only government". As fro Franco, the fact of the matter is that, if they researched Conservative Party political history sufficiently, the overwhelming majority of that party supported Franco and hailed him for saving Spain from communism. Franco himself would deny he was "fascist". David Irving has committed NO CRIME in Great Britain. His history books have sold by the millions. This little trio are politically demonising him. Like them, he is entitled to his personal opinions. They do not detract from the excellence of his books (as the judge in the Libel trial said). "Controversial historian" is surely far more neutral than "holocaust denier", which is blatantly biased opinion. Le Pen is a mainstream politician: he has stood twice in the French Presidential Elections, the last time coming a very good second. His party have had Members in the European Parliament for almost 20 years. They control numerous Municial authorities throughout France. The Traditional Britain Group is just that, a gathering of those who believe in a traditional Britain. That is all. It did not take on the mantle of the WGI. The Conservative Party of South Africa was opposed to the communist dominated ANC and in favour of European control. Being vigorously anti-communist the WGI supported those objectives. The ARENA party in El Salvador was fighting communist terrorists, as proved by mountains of documentation from the CIA. The WGI supported that fight.

So how are these activities weird or madly "hard-right"? I suggest it is because Users CJCurrie, homeonetherange, and GroundZero, are left-wing activists and they wish to portray nationalism and the great battle against communism as not mainstream. They are fortunate that living in Canada they were so far away from all these activities and the Soviet bloc, that it was an academic matter for them. But they have NO RIGHT to impose their opinions on the (what some might say were laudable) activities of others, and spend hours upon end trying to justify those opinions by citing fellow-travellers and Marxists in the British media.

Here are some (there are obviously masses more) typical changes made:

The demonisations of GLF, Western Goals etc., were overwhelmingly because of WGI’s links with the French Front National, but Roger Griffin [The Nature of Fascism London, 1991, p.171] stated that Le Pen's party was "basically non-fascist". Every time the highlighted comment has been inserted to attempt balance it has been removed.

CJCurry and homeonetherange reverted edits several times to say that "about early 1991 Lauder-Frost was chosen as secretary of the Monday Club shortly after this, at the same time as a number of senior members tendered their resignations.” But this is a lie because he was elected Club Secretary in early 1989 and had been a Club officer before that. This was reverted to the false assertion numerous times in a clear attempt to depict GLF in a "takeover" which was nothing of the sort.

Every time the following response is added to GLF’s article: (The Guardian, 29 January 1991). This and other media reports were refuted by Lauder-Frost in letters to the Daily Telegraph (29 Jan), The Guardian and the London Evening Standard published on 31st & 30th January" it has been removed.

When The Guardian, 6 December 1991, interview (deliberately inserted in article) cited GLF’s comments about "aliens" in the community GLF was simply echoing Enoch Powell's famous speech where he described immigration as an "alien wedge in our cities and connurbations" and maintaining the Monday Club’s position. Every time this sentence has been added to GLF’s article, in an attempt at balance and to show that this was not a weirdo statement that GLF had just dreamt up, it is removed.

All above attempts at balance removed by User homeontherange 21 December.

Monday Club

17 Jan, CJCurry removed the following two lines which had been in the article for some time, following remarks about the Monday Club’s attacks on BBC bias: This was a view still shared by much of the Conservative Party during the 1980s (see Alasdair Milne, and also Oleg Gordievsky's comment in August 2005). Mr.Curry states that it is not now relevant. But it is relevant because it demonstrates that it was not simply a silly Monday Club hang-up but something widely felt in conservative circles and still felt relevant today by those who should know about these things. This is an attempt to distance the Monday Club from mainstream thought.

19 Jan, homeontherange changed Commowealth Immigration Act 1968 to Race Relations Act claiming "this looks like Robert I is trying a whitewash". You may well ask, a withewas of what? In fact, Race Relations Act was the common everyday term given to the act, the correct name of which I believe I have given. This is a clear demonstration of demonisation by people obsessed with race.

18 Jan CJCurry changed the following statement: In March 1973, Sir Alec Douglas-Home rejected a proposal by John Biggs-Davison MP, for the Club, that Britain should deduct aid funds from Zambia and Tanzania sufficient to compensate residents of Rhodesia who been victims of incursions by terrorists from those countries.

But this is what Biggs-Davison said when he addressed the House of Commons.

CJ Curry has changed it to something he did not say, changing the entire meaning of the statement and the object of the speech: "In March 1973, Sir Alec Douglas-Home rejected a proposal by John Biggs-Davison MP, for the Club, that Britain should deduct aid funds from Zambia and Tanzania sufficient to compensate residents of Rhodesia who been affected by the armed insurrection in that country from those countries.

I hope that the arbitrators can see what is going on here. Robert I 10:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

" They do not detract from the excellence of his books (as the judge in the Libel trial said" Robert I, you are cherry-picking. Must I remind you that the judge also ruled, quite decisively and explicitly, that Irving is a "Holocaust denier", the very phrase you assert is only used by leftists trying to "demonise" Irving? If you look elsewhere in the judge's ruling you will also find that while he may think Irving's books are well written he also does not think very much of him as an historian. Is the judge a left-wing demoniser or are you just parsing his words to make his views seem the opposite of what they are? As I've said before, this habit you have of parsing and distorting other people's writings to make them seem to support views they oppose is problematic, particularly as you use this technique time and again. It makes your contributions to wikipedia unreliable. Homey 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

I have already commented on Irving, see above. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"GroundZero, are left-wing activists"

Actually, GroundZero *is* a Tory. Homey 13:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Completely impossibly by British standards. Do you actually understand what Toryism is all about? Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • To clarify: I am a Red Tory, equivalent to a "wet" in Thatcherite terminology. I was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada through the 1980s and early 1980s. But of course, Robert I's modus operandi is to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as being left-wing as if Wikipedia exists to present only the right-wing view of the world.
  • The point about David Irving being a Holocaust denier has been upheld by a British court, so it is not POV. Calling the ANC "communist dominated" as Robert I has done here and in articles that he has edited is clearly POV. The Communist Party of South Africa was a member of the ANC, but did not dominate it. Notice how the ANC has been in power in SA for a number of years now, but SA is not a communist country?
  • "I don't recall anyone referring to the government of the USA in 1960 as 'white-only government'" Because the government of the USA did not exclude black people by law as the apartheid-era SA did. Ground Zero | t 14:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

No such a thing as a red Tory. One is either a Tory, or not. 'Wets' were simply Manchester-style liberals who infiltrated the Conservative Party after WWII. You comments betray your political leanings. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be succinct in responding to Robert I's points:

(i) State governments in the 1960s US south are often (and accurately) described as "segregationist".

(ii) Roger Griffin's comment about the FN may be relevant to the article, but not in the way Robert I has used it. Media reports of "fascist links" were not limited to the FN, but also covered the Conservative Party of South Africa, The Republicans (Germany), the MSI (who were openly fascist for most of their history), and perhaps others. The Griffin quote does not refute the assertion.

There is not a scrap of evidence to prove that the FN nor the Republican Party were/are fascist. In the case of the latter and the MSI Western Goals had no links with these organisations. Inviting someone to speak (declined) does not instantly make your organisation "fascist". Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • My point is simply that the Griffin statement does not refute the original assertion. The other points can be debated elsewhere. CJCurrie 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(iii) The year in which GLF became secretary of the Monday Club was mis-reported at one stage, but has since been corrected. This was a good-faith error, not a "lie". It's also a minor matter, and not (I suspect) the sort of thing that would necessitate ArbComm intervention.

You changed it back several times even though you knowledge of matters was zero (apart from your beloved Guardian Group of newspaper Reds). I think it is a good example of your bias and attempts to demonise. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(iv) GLF may believe that he "refuted" the Observer, but this is a POV judgement and not a matter of fact. It is more accurate to say that he was granted a right-of-reply.

No. You are WRONG. You have deliberately cited a newspaper reporter's personal opinions as fact. Solicitors acting for the Monday Club demanded a right-of-reply and a REFUTATION of that article was PUBLISHED. So the article WAS refuted. Again you show deliberate bias here. You may think it is subtle but its not. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Now I'm wondering if there may have been a simple misunderstanding in our respective usages of the term.
  • The term "refute" is normally used to indicate that the speaker has proven the falsity or error of a statement. GLF may believe that he did this, but this is a POV judgement rather than a matter of fact.
  • If you meant the term to mean a simple rebuttal (without requiring a burden of proof), then the statement may have been technically correct. It would still be inappropriate, though, for reasons of clarity -- "rejected the accusation" provides the same information, without ambiguity. CJCurrie 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So lets get this clear. A journalist who has not consulted the Club at all and who writes a damaging story, providing no actual proof whatsoever, is fine. If the Club's officers have a reply published, refuting the content of the journalist's article, with full knowledge of what is going on in their organisation, their reply is meaningless. Oh good. At least thats clear. Robert I 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that many people would have the patience to even read this far, but on the assumption that someone is still paying attention: Robert I has completely misunderstood my point. The current wording of the article indicates that a) the Observer accused Western Goals of initiating a takeover of the Monday Club (earlier versions presented this claim as factual, but this has since been corrected), and b) GLF denied this in a right-of-reply. There is no evidence that GLF's letter "refutes" the original article in the sense of successfully rebutting the accusations. Whether or not it accomplishes this end is a value judgement, and this is inherently POV. The letter may be interpreted as "refuting" the original post in the limited sense of presenting an argument against it (without requiring a burden of successful rebuttal), but, even if so, the ambiguity of the word makes it inappropriate for this context. Am I understood? CJCurrie 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(v) Biggs-Davison may have used the word "terrorists" in his speech, but Robert I has presented the term as a point of fact rather than as quoted text. This is inappropriate. CJCurrie 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Again, you're thin on the ground here. Inappropriate because you don't approve of it. Thats all. YOUR interpretation of BRITISH Members of Parliament and what they think and said is inaccurate. Robert I 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If you are able to provide a quote from Biggs-Davison vis-a-vis terrorism, that would be appropriate for the article. Writing "he opposed terrorists in Rhodesia" is not. CJCurrie 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Hansard. Robert I 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain what this is a response to. If Biggs-Davison used the word "terrorists" in Hansard, then a quote would be sufficient to have the reference included (provided the presentation is NPOV). CJCurrie 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't begin to address Robert I's barrage. It is indicative of his approach to the Wikipedia article about which there have been complaints. He persistently dismisses other editors on the basis of them being either foreign or left-wing or both. I have provided evidence of how he has asserted my ignorance of things British and has been wrong. At Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost and Talk:Western Goals Institute, he has insisted that my reference to the Daily Telegraph as being right-wing shows my ignorance of things British. I have responded by providing British references that concur with my statement. he responded with another blistering attack telling my that I was just asserting my opinion that is contrary to the facts. He has provided no reference for his view that the Telegraph is no longer right-wing. I have shown how he has insisted on reading the Oxford Dictionary selectively -- rejecting parts of the definition that do not suit his world view -- to support his use of the word "European" in Wikipedia. His renewed accusation that I am a left-winger is without basis. In conclusion, Robert I does not assume good faith, shows total disrespect for other Wikipedians, and rejects any source that does not support his view, including major British media outlets and (parts of) the Oxford Dictionary. Ground Zero | t 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of anonymous ips and sockpuppets by Robert I

7) Based on style of editing and theme as well as use of British Telephone it can be determined that Robert I (talk • contribs), Isabella84 (talk • contribs) and the anonymous posts in the 213.122... and/or 81.131 range including those purportedly signed Gregory Lauder-Frost are from one user or a closely related set of users sharing an identical point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. A set of users will be treated the same as a single user. Fred Bauder 16:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. If it is unfair, it is an unavoidable unfairness. Due to the use of variable ips we can't see exactly who is editing. Since you all act approximately the same we need to treat you as one user.
Comment by parties:
  1. That is unfair. The English language and phraseology is general, not particular to one person. In particular people with a private education here sound and speak almost identically. Look in most quality newspapers. It more or less the same. Listen to BBC News announcers. they all sound exactly the same. Robert I 16:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

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

[edit] Robert I banned pending resolution of legal issues

1) Based on his posting signed Gregory Lauder-Frost and his admitted posting to Gregory Lauder-Frost of his concern regarding our article Gregory Lauder-Frost Robert I is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of all legal disputes with Wikipedia and its users. When all legal disputes have been resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution the ban may be lifted.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I have not made a ban now because there remains some doubt regarding the identity of the person behind Robert I and Gregory Lauder-Frost. Fred Bauder 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm sorry, but I am the one proposing the remedy. It is a rather extreme remedy and the other arbitrators may not go along. That is why I did not ban you immediately. I would not dwell on your left-wing detractors. I would impose the same remedy on them in similar circumstances. (However, I ordinarily recuse myself in cases where they are involved as I have a long history of disputing with them). It just doesn't work to be trying to write an article on yourself and fighting over it. Fred Bauder 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. Who wrote (1) above? I find it amazingly offensive and totally unfair. A victory for my left-wing detractors. Thank you Mr.Bauder for a more even-handed approach. I am personally not involved in any legal disputes and I have commented upon reasoning on thsi subject, above. Robert I 16:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Robert I to use one account

2) Robert I is required to use one user account.

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

[edit] Robert I banned from editing articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost

3) Robert I is banned from editing articles which relate to Gregory Lauder-Frost and his political activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Genealogy contributions would be most welcome Fred Bauder 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. This remedy is not based on you being wrong. It is based on aggressive point of view editing of articles which relate to GLF. I can not fairly characterize your opponents as demonizers, although I will concede they may have gotten carried away a bit. Their editing is more or less in good faith as far as I can tell. Fred Bauder 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. My genealogical knowledge is very limited. Now could it be explained to me why I am to be banned from editing articles "related" (fairly broad sweep is it not?) to Gregory Lauder-Frost and the little group of demonisers are not. Or has it already been decided that they are right in their activities and my efforts are all wrong? Robert I 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Any errors of judgement I may have made in the course of this dispute were made in good faith. There were several occasions wherein I changed the wording of an article to correspond with legitimate concerns raised an opposing party, and/or to ensure fairness in presentation. I'm not certain that the same can be said of Robert I. CJCurrie 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Robert I placed on probation

4) Robert I is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I#Documentation_of_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. CJCurrie (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) will need to take great care not to abuse the nominal power this gives him. Any ban must be for good cause, after you engage in tendentious editing of the article in question. The complaint was not about witches but about tendentious editing which, I submit, fairly characterizes your behavior. Fred Bauder 19:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. "Tendentious editing" means sustained aggressive point of view editing Fred Bauder 22:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. As User CJCurrie is an 'administrator' that proposal seems amazingly unfair, as I would argue that I am a victim in this witchhunt. Robert I 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Can we have a definition of "tendentious editing"? Homey 20:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I assume the "tendentious editing" comment was directed against Robert I rather than myself. In any event, I'm willing to go further than exercising caution: given my involvement in this matter, I pledge that I will not ban Robert I at any time for reasons relating to the disputed articles. If I believe he is violating the terms of a decision rendered here, I will ask another administrator to intervene. CJCurrie 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC):

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

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

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Robert I violate any ban he may be blocked for a short time, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I#Documentation_of_bans.

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

[edit] Analysis of evidence

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

[edit] Template

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

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Robert_I_Workshop_8669.html"