On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:47:44 +0930, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
This article originally stated that Lauder-Frost was cleared on appeal of charges of theft. This turns out to be a lie: he was convicted.
Per [[WP:LIVING]], we can't say that without a source.
And sources for both the conviction and failure of the appeal has indeed been provided, as has a source for the sequestration of assets following conviction. The London Gazette is one of the most reliable sources there is, in matters of public record.
His supporters assert that the theft may now not be mentioned (although they were perfectly happy for the lie to be in there, it seems),
That shouldn't be in there either.
Obviously :-)
because it is a "spent" conviction under the rehabilitation of offenders act. This appears to be a novel interpretation, since the text of the act as posted to Talk only prevents publication with malicious intent.
I assume that this is a piece of UK law, which probably doesn't apply to Wikipedia since the servers and the WMF are based in Florida. However, IANAL, and the UK has some wacky defamation/anti-libel laws, so anything could happen.
The law prevents a prior conviction from being used to discriminate against a job candidate, and prevents its malicious use, but does not prevent (as far as any of us can tell) its use in a neutral biography.
They have argued long and hard for removal of this conviction from the article. I do not think neutral biography can omit it.
Provided it's sourced, of course.
Indeed. And William posted numerous references to support it. Sourced it is - and as far as I can tell Lauder-Frost doesn't deny it either.
Lauder-Frost has had his solicitors write to one editor (who made no significant edits to the article as far as I can see) and has contacted the Foundation; Brad is involved. User Sussexman has been blocked for alluding to these legal threats before they were made - he is clearly in contact with Lauder-Frost.
Well, legal threats are grounds for immediate and indefinate blocking.
Yup. Sussexman is blocked (see legal threats by proxy post above), I am not sure whether that is good or not - tough call.
I think they are gaming the system. They wanted a long puff piece about Lauder-Frost, when it was trimmed and the truth of his conviction added they wanted it deleted.
It's been AFD'ed twice, and kept both times. At present it's semi-protected, which is the appropriate action to take when extensive IP/sockpuppet vandalism has taken place.
It was already sprotected, and unusually here the IP vandalism consisted of *removing cited content* rather than adding uncited content.
Guy (JzG)