The article Human Rights in NSW has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Opinion piece.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb - ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}- timed 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Human Rights in NSW, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Rights in NSW. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb - ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}- timed 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of Ms Judge.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Ms Virginia Judge.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Virginia Judge, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. LibStar ( talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring (breaking the three-reverts rule) and for inserting poorly sourced negative claims about a living person, in violation of our WP:BLP policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't understand your 3RR policy despite now having read it and I certainly don't understand your reasons for deleting the photographs or the information. All the information was in the public domain and none of it was defamatory (you obviously have no idea of the legal meaning of defamation). Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. The following are indisputable facts:

1.that a portrait of Judge was hung in the NSW Parliament. 2.that the portrait caused controversy; 3.that Judge divorced her Husband; 4.that Danny Lim, ex-Strathfield Councillor has walked around Burwood for the last 2 years displaying satirical comments about

  her on his Sandwich Board.  I know because I have seen him and talked to him about Judge and in any case it has been reported 
  in the media;

5.that he attempted unsuccessfully to pass an "unusual" notion in Strathfield Council; 6.that corruption allegations have been made against her which she denied and which were knocked back by the NSW corruption

 watchdog I.C.A.C.

7.she did NOT complete her real estate license which I know because her former employer, the late Mr. Buschman told me.

Contrary to your view the sources were not poorly sourced as they were derived from main-streamed Australian media sources which anyone can access on the net and which were published in hard-cover. These included the Sydney Morning Herald (run by Murdoch), the Western Suburbs Courier, the newsletter of the I.C.A.C; Newcastle Herald and Cumberland Newspaper. While the commentary from Mark Sharma may be considered biased, it nonetheless is public content and openly available to everyone. The Portrait photo was taken from the web-site of its painter with further examples of third party web sites who had utilized that source. All information provided was verifiable with most of it from reputable sources.

I request that you provide a detailed critique of why you believe the sources are "poorly sourced" and the basis of your belief that the content was defamatory.

you also used blog sites which are considered unreliable sources to back your negative claims. it's clear you have something against Virginia Judge and are using WP to WP:ATTACK her during an election campaign. LibStar

( talk) 01:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I put it to you LibStar that you are biased towards Virginia Judge and that YOU do not wish this information to be available in WP during the election campaign. The fact that you claim I am biased against Judge indicates a per-conceived judgment on your part. The evidence of your bias is the removal of photographs of Ms Judge including a contemporary photo and a photo of her portrait previously hung in the NSW Parliament as well as the removable of verifiable objective truths. Perhaps you could explain your reason for removing the two photographs. Is there something YOU don't like about them? The photograph of her portrait is taken from the web site of the very person who painted it. People made comment about the portrait, as we live in a democratic society that was their right and as their comments were published those comments are now in the public domain. Contrary to your view I have not make any claims, either positive or negative against Judge, all I have done is summarize material publicly available on the net, most of it from reputable sources. Given WP policies I was very careful to make statements based on source material rather than provide personal opinion. It was also my intention to continue working on the amendments to the article using those source materials and other source material including material which shows her in a more positive light. I suggest you engage in a google search under "Virginia Judge" and see for yourself the wealth of material that is publically available and on the world wide net, including numerous photographs of Ms Judge, much of it from highly reputable sources such as Murdoch run papers. The blog site you are so critical of is that of an independent candidate for the seat of Strathfield who is entitled to his view. Australia is a democracy in which citizens are encouraged to engage in creative and objective criticism. In my view there is nothing defamatory on the blog site, if there were, Ms Judge would have long ago instituted proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court. Despite her position in which she would have available top Crown legal advice, she has not do so. The solution is to remove the blog sites and leave the rest. As you are not prepared to provide a detailed commentary as I have requested, I ask that this issue be given to others in WP for their input, preferably those with no personal interest in an Australian political campaign. I was under the impression that WP was interested in providing objective truth to its internet public. The current article without the added commentary is both misleading and deceptive as it does not provide a full coverage of her political career.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bachaven ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

lack of objective reasons by LibStar whose answers suggest subjective bias, please read commentary on my edit page

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 01:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{adminhelp} Bachaven ( talk) 02:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

agree with decline of block above. LibStar ( talk) 03:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

{{adminhel Bachaven ( talk) 06:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC) I seek help from someone other than the politically biased LibStar who refuses to reply to my inquiries or to provide objective criticism. Currently I assume that Wiki is biased towards the Australian Labor Party. reply

The people of Strathfield electorate gave their opinion of Virginia Judge in the election by not re-electing her.

The article that you are writing on the Victims Compensation Tribunal is not of the quality expected of Wikipedia articles. When I reverted the article to an earlier (more appropriate) state last year, I made a comment on the article's talk page, as is the proper course of action when making large edits. I notice that you have not made any reply to those comments, and so I will reproduce some of what I wrote here in case you did not see it:

The article was in a very poor state. I think it is important to point out that Wikipedia is not a place to publish personal essays, and articles should maintain a neutral point of view.

There were numerous problems with the previous state of the article:

• The background section quoted a lengthy portion of a speech made by a politician opposed to the original establishment of the tribunal. Information about the political debate at that time is appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article. However, lengthy quotes should be avoided where possible, and authors ought to try to work briefer quotations into sections that summarise the views expressed. This Wikipedia essay on the use of quotations provides helpful guidance. Further, authors should avoid representing only one side of a debate. In this instance the Labor government of the day controlled the state legislature and succeeded in passing the act that established the Victims Compensation Tribunal; I believe their point of view should therefore be considered notable and summarised in this section.

• Several instances of "essay-style" writing. For example, "Is the tribunal inquisitorial in nature?", "No authority has established that S.140 of the Evidence Act (NSW) does otherwise than reflect the common law. The principles are well known.", "A reasonable person could well ask how a Tribunal of Fact that does not seek evidence from the nominated defendant and does not permit an appeal by that person know that it has always make a correct judgment?", and "NO SUCH WORDS HAVE EVER APPEARED IN VICTIMS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION IN NSW". This type of language is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

• Excessive criticism of the Tribunal without inclusion of opposing views. This violates the requirement for articles to express a neutral point of view. The article said that the Tribunal awarded compensation to claimants who made "probably fraudulent" claims, called the Tribunal "inadequate, unbalanced, and unfair", and accused the NSW government of a "cover-up".

• Original research. For example, the ' High Probability of Fraudulent Claims' section not only included several uncited statements, where claims were cited, they were often used to reach original conclusions. This violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research.

• Inadequate referencing. Many sections included no references at all.

I encourage any users wishing to edit the article to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that their future contributions can help to improve the article. In particular, the neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research policies are applicable here.

Please familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines linked above before continuing to edit the article. -- superioridad ^{( discusión)} 10:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Bachaven, February 8th I restored Victims Compensation Tribunal to a usable state. Since then, you have again edited this article, rendering it in my view again unsuitable for Wikipedia. Other editors (see above, and see the article's talk page) have already explained to you why your contributions are not helpful. There exist many platforms on the internet where you can publish your personal views, essays, and the like to your heart's content. Wikipedia is not such a platform. Please learn about Wikipedia and how you can contribute before making edits here. Superp ( talk) 15:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Superp,

Thank you for your criticism, given that the article has been on Wilipedia for over 4 years it is gratifying to see that someone has shown critical interest.

In my view the article has been logically ordered. It begins with a brief description of the history of the Tribunal and the basic current regulations and policies. One of those policies has not been to allow nominated defendants to be a party before the Tribunal thereby depriving the Tribunal of valid evidence which may have convinced it to make a different decision. The quote from Mr.John Dowd, then leader of the Liberal Opposition in 1987 (later Justice Dowd) demonstrates that similar concerns were held by the NSW Opposition. As the quote is not available on the internet I have quoted it in full. I then walk readers through a brief expose of the common and statutory law relating to natural justice commencing with the famous 1932 quote from Chief Justice Barwick in relation to the civil standard. The law in Australia, as in all common law and civil law countries is that a tribunal of fact should have before clear and cogent evidence from both parties before a decision is reached. The NSW Victims Compensation Tribunal is unique in that nominated defendants are not a party and therefore cannot give evidence. Similar tribunals were prevalent in Soviet Russia (particularly in the 1930's and following WWII), Tudor England and during the French Revolution to quote a few obvious historical examples in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people lost their lives. The quote by Barwick clearly demonstrates that in Australian law the civil standard, the standard by which this Tribunal reaches its decisions, must be guided by clear cogent evidence from both sides. The NSW Victims Compensation Tribunal does not reach this standard. By way of example, I then proceed to analyze the contradictory judgments in the Marsden matter. This is a particularly contentious issue as Bravehearts site in Queensland has quoted the NSW Victims Compensation Tribunal's judgment as evidence that Mr. Marsden was a pedophile. This is a very serious allegation made on the basis of a Tribunal decision that did not hear evidence from Mr. Marsden and did not allow cross-examination of the alleged victim. As clearly demonstrated in the article it is contradictory to the finding in the NSW Supreme Court by Justice David Levine on the same issue. On the one hand Justice Levine did not accept on the civil standard the evidence of Victor Edward Stals (nor for that matter any on the other alleged victims of Marsden)while on the other hand Judge Coorey of the NSW District Court awarded Stals compensation also on the civil standard) that such acts took place. The recounting of this history is not based on my opinion, it is based on fact in which two opposite judgments were made on the same issue on the civil standard. One judgment cannot stand against the other. These two judgments are unique and may never be repeated.

I then proceed to detail the attempts made by Marsden's friend Peter Breen, then a member of the Upper House of the NSW Parliament to seek redress for these systemic problems and how his criticism was received by the Labor party. I also demonstrate a number of other cases in which similar questions have arisen. Finally, I briefly examine possible breaches by the Tribunal of International Law.

Some of your criticism is quite incorrect:

1. Original research: my criticisms of the Tribunal are NOT original as can be seen from the REFERENCED quotes by Mr. Peter

  Breen, Senator Heffernon and the late John Marsden.  Mr Breen and Senator Heffernon stated their views in Parliament.  All I 
  have done is elaborate upon those views, which I understand is permitted by Wilkepedia.

2. As far as I can see the majority of opinions and facts are referenced. Please provide examples were they are not referenced.

I agree that the article could be more balanced and removal of "essay style" writing. I will endeavor to revise the article in order to met your criticism. However, I have problems with Wilipedia formats and will need someone internal to correct those problems.

Regards,

Bachaven

Bachaven, it appears your reply should have been directed at User:Superiority instead of me ( User:Superp), as you address her/his comments. As for your need for "someone internal": you are that internal Wikipedian yourself: you are as much an editor here as I am. There is a wealth of reference material, technical documentation, policies, etc. etc. available.

At this moment I am contemplating restoring the article again, as there is no doubt in my mind that would be an improvement on its current state. Superp ( talk) 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Your addition to Victims Compensation Tribunal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This refers to the section Case E The Mamdouh Habib Case (2009) Superp ( talk) 23:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Superp,

Thank you for your comments. I am in the process of revision. As this will take a little while I should appreciate your comments during the revision process. Bachaven

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply