Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert I
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do not believe Robert I will be contributing to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_I&diff=32485410&oldid=32469677
CJCurrie 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Update: He has now returned to Wikipedia. CJCurrie 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Although this comment by Robert I (6 Jan 05) is worth pointing out. (The second of the two comments in that diff, referring to "The Scottish law of Convicium" etc.) This, like the comment pointed out by CJCurrie above, carries an implication (in the final sentence) that legal action of some kind is being pursued. Rd232 talk 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CJCurrie's response to Robert I's comments
Several responses, actually:
Robert I's comments vis-a-vis the Moncur article have been addressed here. CJCurrie 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
As regards the City Limits article, I have repeatedly asked Robert I to provide the contest of his quote. He has not done so. Given his track record, I am reluctant to accept at face value that the "true Conservative speaks" line was not facetious or sarcastic. CJCurrie 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning GLF's trial, I can say the following:
(i) I am not the one who initially brought up the matter. One of the anonymous contributors initially referenced the conviction on the main article page. I later provided more information, which was subsequently deleted.
(ii) After being informed that the Scottish Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) may, under certain circumstances, prohibit outside parties from referencing spent offences, I voluntarily removed all of the specific references to GLF's trial which I had written on the GLF article talk page. This was an act of courtesy: Robert I has not convinced me that I was legally bound to remove the information, and I strongly suspect that he is misrepresenting Scottish law (in both its particulars and its extent) for intimidation purposes. Nonetheless, if GLF is provided legal protection in Britain for his spent offence, I am not inclined the push the point. Robert I has never acknowledged this courtesy.
(iii) I have already indicated on the GLF article talk page that I have no objection to all article references to GLF's trial being removed, if such is the group consensus. Meanwhile, Robert I continues with implied legal threats ([1]). CJCurrie 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the more general point:
What Robert I describes as a "demonisation" campaign is actually something quite different.
Some time ago, I discovered that a small number of contributors (probably no more than three, perhaps no more than two) were using Wikipedia as a soap box to write a series of articles glorifying figures and organizations associated with the British and South African far-right. These articles were extremely NPOV in nature, and contained a number of dubious and unverifiable claims.
Several examples have already been provided above, but to recap some of the more egregious instances:
Following the long and deadly struggle with Marxist terrorists in Rhodesia, and what Ward called "the betrayal of western Nations to their own kin", Rhodesia fell. As a member of the government hierarchy Ward was forced out of his homeland. He and his family were placed upon a Death List and fled to South Africa, where he advised the government there on sanctions-busting. ([2] The author of this section later tried to delete the article after my changes.)
However, Lauder-Frost's domestic affairs were a cause of almost constant anxiety to him. In April 1985 his wife had taken a lover and left for the USA. Lauder-Frost was awarded full custody of his daughter, then one year old. However she was subsequently abducted twice and on both occasions taken abroad. Although ultimately successful in her return to Britain, the complicated costs involved over such a long period were crippling him. Many knew this. Following a large Left-wing demonstration outside his office, his politically motivated employers, a government department, decided to try and get rid of him. ([3] Bear in mind that Gregory Lauder-Frost himself may have been the author of this passage)
The Western Goals Institute, was a reformation at the beginning of 1989 of Western Goals (UK) (formed in 1985) and the leading anti-communist and Western patriotic pressure group in the United Kingdom conservative political spectrum (although not affiliated to the Conservative Party).
[...]
Regularly in the news it constantly campaigned and had links to many traditional, free-thinking, non and anti-communist political organisations in the former Eastern Bloc and also in Western Europe. Firmly opposed to the Liberal-Left consensus in Western politics, the Western Goals Institute argued that it was this concensus which had permitted communism to advance so far into Europe and into other countries throughout the world. Its view was firmly that the West were constantly appeasing communism and all its fellow-travellers, and actually working with them in organisations both abroad and here, such as the British Labour Party, which many former communists had infiltrated.
It saw its task in Britain to expose the Far Left, and to get its message of 'the enemy within' to a wider audience. It was successful in getting Christian Aid fined by the Charity Commission in England & Wales for their assistance to African terrorists, and frequently called into question donations to Left-Wing organisations made by Soviet front organisations. ([4])
When I discovered these (and other) edits, I realized that Wikipedia was being misused as a propaganda tool. I added critical reviews about these (and other) people and organizations to the relevant articles, and removed some of the more rhetorical passages.
What Robert I has described as "stalking" and "demonisation" has actually been an effort to stop his misuse of Wikipedia and add balance to the relevant articles. As an administrator, I believe I had a responsibility to change the tone of the articles in question, and to discover what other pages might were similarly misused.
I am willing to accept constructive criticism if any of my additions have been unfair, but I do not accept that the numerous ill-tempered and hostile attacks I have received from Robert I and others have been in any way justified. CJCurrie 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert I's response
User:Robert I sent the following to the Help Desk mailing list. I told him I would place it here:
I contend that my article contributions to the Wikipedia have been above reproach.
Never before have I come across such fantastic bias and the upholding of evidential political complaints by three individuals who were prepared to go to any lengths to get me banned.
As for legal actions I myself have not threatened anyone, and if Wikipedia or your users have been threatened it has NOTHING to do with me. But naturally if I see an injustice somehwere you would naturally expect me to pass that on, would you not? Possibly you wouldn't. But that does not mean involvement in an action.
It is beyond all belief that you think that Wikipedia are above the law, that you feel you cannot be threatened with legal actions, and that such a threat places the people making the threats automatically in the wrong, and Wikipedia's users automatically in the right. That perception is Stalinist.
Any suggestion that I personally have some sort of control over other individual's proposals regarding legal action is fatuous.
The real issues against me were that two individuals, supported by a third, all from Canada, did not like my postings for political reasons. They ganged together to get me banned using other reasons. Its a sad day for the Wikipedia Foundation.
I would appreciate, as I am now blocked, that the above response be posted where my so-called impartial arbitrators can read it.
In the meantime I shall consult my cousin's lawyers in Florida to examine and assess my own position in this matter. (Do I have your permission to do that or does that also transgress one of your billion by-laws?) This is an outrageous action against a decent individual and a victory for vendetta and personal bias.
User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (not endorsing the above, merely transcribing)
