Case Opened on 21:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Complaining witnesses

• CJCurrie (talk · contribs)
• HOTR (talk · contribs)

Nominal defendants

• Robert_I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• anonymous user(s) (*)

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Please see Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost ("Observations") for the reasons why I believe the anonymous IPs are all the same person, and are working in association with Robert I. Gregory Lauder-Frost has himself written to Wikipedia from three of the "rotating IPs", and it appears likely he is the anon. See Talk:Conservative Monday Club ("Accurate quoting", "Winds of Change Speech" and "Observer Retraction(?)") and Talk:GLF ("Accurate quoting (again)") for the specific transgressions.

User:HOTR and myself have been the target of frequent and sustained abuse by Robert I and the anon at these and other pages (including legal threats), and I do not believe the situation is likely to change without intervention from ArbComm. CJCurrie 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Amended: 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For an indication of what these articles looked like before I discovered them, see this. CJCurrie 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I concur with CJCurrie's statement. I also suspect Robert I may, in fact, be GLF as well - it would be helpful if a developer could examine all the IPs involved, including User:Robert I's to see if there is commonality.Homey 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert I (respondant)

Please note that a request for arbitration on Gregory Lauder-Frost and the Conservative Monday Club had already been made before. User CJ Currie deliberately targetted Gregory Lauder-Frost, the Conservative Monday Club, and anyone associated with them, as well as tracking down every post made by me, in order to demonise the individuals, to smear them, and to make them totally unimportant. Their opinions were paramount throughout the edit war which naturally took place. Comments which gave any credibility were removed.

Mr.Currie deliberately inserted damaging comments to Lauder-Frost in particular which, under Scottish Law, placed Wikipedia in a difficult situation. When told this he suggested that the socialist newspaper and the Marxist journalist he was quoting should be the subject of action, not Wikipedia/himself. he also stated on his Talk Page that he was aware that the information on Talk Pages was going out over the internet, so even when things were removed from the main article, he made certain they remained on the Talk pages. This is possibly the clearest evidence of spreading disinformation and opinion.

They describe Lauder-Frost as being "on the fring of the fring" yet he was the leading officer in the largest multi-issue political pressure group in the United Kingdom. Another classic smear was that he was just an energetic letter-writer when, in fact, he was mostly delegated to do this by the organisations he belonged to. Whereas Lauder-Frost was first and foremost a Conservative Party activist (and a Patron of an Association of which Alec Douglas-Home had been a previous Patron of) they have placed a slanderous quote from a known left-wing nespaper at the top of the political information on on, and then said "he was also" in the Conservative Party. This is classic left-wing demonisation.

I have relied much on interviews with people, and with paperwork which I have had sight of here. They, instead, rely utterly on newspapers and journalistic opinions. They insist upon "proof" as though this were a court and THEY were judges, and my word is meaningless.

Throughout their re-edits, the objective and agenda has been clear. CJCurrie called in 'helpers' to support him and at least one homey has joined in the attacks wholeheartedly both under the guise of "neutrality". Yet they have deliberately changed "non-European" to "non-white", and people referred to in our history books as "pioneers" in Africa have been changed to the classic Pan African Congress status as "settlers". I wonder how the population of North America would like being referred to as "settlers" in 2005? Presumably thats how the indigenous population see them? Moreover, it becomes obvious that CJCurrie and homey are totally obssessed with apartheid, "white minority rule" etc., the standard obsessions of the Left. Any objective individual will be able to see that the re-editing/neutrality is a poor disguise for standard left-wing activity and demonisation.

I refute utterly their attempts to obfuscate what they haven doing. Their claims of sock-puppets are possibly the prime example, and of 'abuse' it simply amounts to straight talking. Only their OPINION counts. They are so arrogant they see themselves as beyond reproach. I do not accept that I have misquoted. As has already been said I quoted what I believed to be facts. It is standard practice to quote a word, a part-sentence, a paragraph, or whatever.

They are not beyond being told the truth about their activities. We in Britain resent to a large degree being lectured on our politics and our history by those who do not live here and who do not understand the British character and scenario. I for one would not dream of passing the same comments using the same ideological nuances and sentence constructions that they have on Canadian politicians. Please note also that I could have easily retaliated against their Wikipedia contributions but I have not done so.

I have never been so disgusted with anything as the manner in which they have been able to entirely rearrange articles to their obvious political satisfaction and complain about others as though their views are utterly supreme.

A well-known socialist journalist (Robin Carmody) here in Britain has made a posting on the CDA forums (under his pseudonym 'Portlander' at http://www.quicktopic.com/15/H/dxVhP9ADUER where he states that the two people attacking me are "over the top".[1]

the last paragraph is instructive of Robert I's method of deliberate misrepresentation and falsification of quotes, a practice that makes his citations on wikipedia chronically unreliable. In fact, "Portlander" refers only to the description of The Guardian as "liberal" (and not our "attacking" of Robert) and does not use the phrase "over the top" - he actually said, in reference to the description of the Guardian as liberal, "Only if you think that Labour are 'hard left', Gregory. That said, I think the two Canadian Wikipedians you mention may be going slightly too far."[2] Somehow, Robert I manages to misquote "slightly too far" as "over the top" and then completely misrepresent the context as being about CJCurrie and my entire argument with Robert I rather than just the description I used for the Guardian. Homey 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph is just splitting hairs and attempting to gloss over what has been going on. Could I give the Western Goals Institute as a good example of wanton vandalism by HOTR after much work was done by me to bring the page into shape. This is what I have been up against. If the Administrators cannot see the clear political agenda by HOTR and CJCurrie then it really is a sad state of affairs.

Robert I 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 213.122.67.71 (respondant)

The issue here is very clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with multiple user claims or whatever. (There has never been a problem with anonymous contributors provided they do their work properly). It is to do with DEMONISATION. CJCurrie and friend HOTR have been flat out deliberately demonising the Conservative Monday Club, Gregory Lauder-Frost, and numerous other pages. They are now attempting to divert adjudicators from the REAL ISSUE HERE - their activities. 213.122.67.71 07:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 81.131... (respondant)

The issue is very clear demonisation. nothing else. Attempts to obfuscate matters by screaming about sock-puppets are meaningless because he real issue is demonisation. It is ridiculous to suggest that one individual will have, and pay for, two entirely different ISPs from his home. What is the point?

Different ISPs for home and work or home and school etc are not unusual. Anyway, the developers can examine the IP patterns and determine whether or not there's a commonality. Homey 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Don't try an duck the issue here or cloud it in pointless arguments about contributors. The issue remains your very active demonisations, following you being drawn into the demonisations by your pal CJCurrie. It has been argued that one or both of you have made umpteen contributions to Wikipedia. My answer is "so what". The issue we are dealing with here is blatant abuse by yourselves of articles to present them in a particular, left-wing, demonised manner. Only someone on the Left would see you as being objective. I see you as fonts of truth-twisting and disinformation. The Soviets would have been proud of you. 213.122.72.154 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment by El_C

I urge the Committee to accept this case. I may add some comments and/or evidence later on. El_C 12:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ground Zero

I have worked extensively with CJCurrie and Homey on numerous articles. While I do not always agre with them, I respect the work that they do and their understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia policies. CJCurrie, in particular, is above reproach in his handling of neutrality. While Homey has, on occasion, had dispute over neutrality with other editors, I do not believe that he has any agenda in this case other than neutrality. The respondents in this case have frequently resorted to ad hominem attacks as above. The fact that the complainants are Canadians must not preclude them from editing an article about a British political figure. Robert I and the anonymous editor's edits appear to me to have the goal of making GLF appear to be an important person, and his views to be a part of the mainstream and popular. The suggestion that two Canadian editors would spend so much time to "demonise" a minor British political figure is ludicrous. That they would spend so much time to keep hagiographical biographies from appearing in Wikipedia is laudable. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's esp. pertinent, but I do seem to recall (perhaps mistakingly) that GZ is himself a Tory. El_C 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. no... I don't think it's pertinent. I aim to be objective here. But for the record, I was a long-time support of the now-defunct Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Ground Zero | t 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response by defender

I note what GroundZero says. All biographies (at least in the Dictionary of National Biography and even the Encyclopaedia Britannica lean towards the positive, not the negative side of the person they are mentioning, minor or not. At the end of the day it cannot be denied that CJCurrie and HOTR have deliberately attacked, for two weeks, numerous connected articles in a defamatory and demonising way. If you examine every connected edit they have made, you will see that they must have spent hours trawling through newspapers etc., with the very clear intention of only flagging up negative comments. If that is not the case, where have they found something positive? Or maybe all these people, including the thousands of members and former members, including MPs, of the Monday Club were simply all bad and/or not "mainstream"? I have asked, to date, six people to look at these and they all concur. Groundzero may well have had a good working relationship on other articles with this couple but every article is different. I am not suggesting that Canadians should not edit things. But caugtion is required when making ABSOLUTE comments on foreign politics if you don't live there, and I am saying that these people had a very clear political agenda, and it continues. Robert I 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept ➥the Epopt 14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Neutral point of view

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

Passed 6-0

Extreme points of view

2) Provided they are reasonably courteous and more or less conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

Passed 6-0

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.

Passed 5-1

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.

Passed 6-0

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.

Passed 6-0

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. The English Wikipedia, while aware of more restrictive jurisdictions, looks to American law for guidance.

Passed 6-0

Sockpuppets

7) In certain instances, especially involving users serviced by large ISPs which connect using dynamic IPs, it is virtually 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.

Passed 6-0

Applicability of remedies to sockpuppets

8) In cases where dynamic 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.

Passed 6-0

Don't bite the newbies

9) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers provides that aggressively reacting to the mistakes of newcomers to Wikipedia is inappropriate.

Passed 6-0

Locus of dispute

1) 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 HOTR.

Passed 6-0

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 which may be improper under British law. The controversy regarding the article is characterized by detailed editing [3] by Robert I which minimizes extremist connotations, showing Gregory Lauder-Frost in a favorable light [4] and reverts [5] [6] and edits by CJCurrie which attempt to incorporate the detailed information added by Robert I [7] and seek compromise language [8], see Talk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#Ending_the_controversy.

Passed 6-0

Gregory Lauder-Frost

3) A few posts have been received which purport to be from Gregory Lauder-Frost himself [9], [10] and [11]. These originate from IPs which are compatible with those used by Robert I

Passed 6-0

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.

Passed 6-0

Use of anonymous ips and sockpuppets by Robert I

6) Based on style of editing and theme as well as use of BT Internet, 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.

Passed 6-0

Robert I a new user

7) Robert I is a relatively new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing. Thus he has misunderstood certain Wikipedia policies and possibly inadvertently entered into a legal dispute.

Passed 6-0

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.

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 or formal withdrawal of all legal disputes with Wikipedia and its users. When all legal disputes have been withdrawn or resolved either by settlement or final judicial resolution including payment in full of any costs and judgment, the ban may be lifted.

Passed 6-0

Robert I to use one account

2) Robert I is required to edit only when logged in and to use only one user account,

Passed 6-0

Robert I banned for one year 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.

Passed 6-0

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.

Passed 6-0

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.