Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Potentially misleading title?
The title says, "Robert I banned for one year from editing articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost" but the text makes no mention of "one year." What was originally meant: one year or indefinite? --TML1988 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Independent Opinion
I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).
I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion. My view is that he has been treated unfairly.
Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.
User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.
Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.
It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.
It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.
Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.
On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.
Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he had some sort of "duty" to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's own opinions and objectives may appear biased. But no more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.
One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.
It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.
I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.
It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some words have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. Most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.
The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.
None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.
The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.
Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They would not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.
His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.
Michael.
-
- Interesting, you have both the same IP address as Robert and you also make the same spelling mistake in regards to CJCurrie's name. Homey 13:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected typos 217.158.117.5 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Even more interesting that this lawyer would use the same two different IP prefixes (81... and 217...) that Robert I and GLF have both used online. Homey22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Means nothing except that they live in the UK Fred Bauder 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Further support for Robert
I support Robert Isherwood's case 100%. It is crazy to suggest that, for instance, all those using British Telecom (BT Internet/Openworld/Yahoo/ etc) and probably therefore all using the same ISP, are all the same person using a single compute. Quite crazy. If you are going to rely onsuch assertions you need to be absolutely certain of your facts. Claiming the mis-spelling of such a common surname as Currie as fundamental evidence is most bizarre. By the way, I don't know any of the people concerned. 217.158.117.5 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
I am not a member of the Arbitration Committee, but I believe I can explain the logic behind the decision to block Robert I from Wikipedia.
At an early stage in the deliberative process, the ArbComm chose to designate Robert I and the related anonymous contributors as a single entity for the purposes of their decisions. Robert I objected to this decision at the time, but was overruled. (For clarity, I should note that I did not suggest this decision, nor did I endorse it at any stage in the discussions.)
Given the legal threats (direct and implied) that have been made against both Wikipedia and various contributors, the ArbComm is within its rights to declare those responsible for making such threats blocked until all such matters are resolved. As the ArbComm has chosen to designate Robert I and the related anonymous contributors as a single entity, it follows that they are within their rights to block Robert I. I make no comment on whether this course of action is appropriate or not.
If Robert I believes the decision to be unfair, he may wish to appeal the ArbComm's decision to treat himself and the anons as a single entity. I will not intervene in such an appeal, one way or the other.
I will not comment on the other accusations, except to say that these matters have been discussed extensively on the relevant article talk pages. CJCurrie 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kangaroo Court
I wish to post my absolute disgust at the treatment afforded Robert Isherwood. It is painfully obvious that the arbitrators have been entirely one-sided and have not taken the time to see what has been going on. The accusations of people using the one ISP are laughable. Of course millions of people use the one ISP! A victory for the forces of The Left? For the forces of disinformation? Possibly. But word is spreading. 195.134.6.202 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert I and the anons
I have been reluctant to address this point in the past (partly because I wasn't sure where the evidence led), but I now suspect that Robert I and the 81/213 anon are not the same person.
Reasons:
(i) Their writing styles are different. Robert I often comes off as aggressive and vitriolic, while the anon usually appears more formal (some might say pretentious) and detached.
(ii) Much of the evidence tying them together is circumstantial or conjectural.
The most compelling piece of evidence of a direct link is that, on one occasion, Robert I forgot to sign into his account while posting from the anon's computer. This confirms that the two individuals know one another, but it does not prove they are the same person. (In fact, an alternate explanation is readily available: Robert I asserted that he was at a friend's house on the day in question, while other posts have indicated that Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost live close to one another.)
Resulting from this, I have some concerns that the decision to treat Robert I and the anon as a single entity may been made in error.
This does not necessarily mean that ArbComm's decision to block Robert I was mistaken, however. He has made implied legal threats against other users, and has acknowledged forwarding information to other users concerning these implied threats. Regardless of whether or not Robert I has any personal legal issues pending with Wikipedia or its contributors, the aforementioned actions may be sufficient grounds to block his account. CJCurrie 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I might also suggest that Robert I's block could be immediately lifted, if a clear statement is given that his contacts are not currently pursuing or engaged in legal action against Wikipedia or any or its contributors. CJCurrie 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
