http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Lauder-Frost has been stubbed following an OTRS query https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&Ticket...
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. 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), 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.
They have argued long and hard for removal of this conviction from the article. I do not think neutral biography can omit it.
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.
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.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
They have argued long and hard for removal of this conviction from the article. I do not think neutral biography can omit it.
Without being familiar with the subject, if it explains why he stopped being publicly politically active, then it's quite plainly something which ought to be included.
The legal questions are best left to the UK lawyers among us, if it should be debated publically at all.
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.
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.
I don't think it really hurts to stub the article until the dispute blows over, it may help prevent users from getting indignant and making the article "worse" in order to spite Lauder-Frost (this sort of thing has happened many times when the subjects or articles try to influence the content).
The old versions are all there in the history, of course, for anyone who wants to look at them.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Lauder-Frost has been stubbed following an OTRS query https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&Ticket...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
On 6/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Per [[WP:LIVING]], we can't say that without a source.
# # ^ "Right-wing activist jailed for cheque thefts", The Independent, 28 November 1992, p. 2. # ^ records of the Court of Appeal, case number T19921351
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.
No UK law against mention spent convictions. Otherwise tabloids would never be out of court. Foundation doesn't have any UK assets and there is not reason for any of the board memeber to enter the UK.
Provided it's sourced, of course.
It is.
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 has been blanked by a member of OTRS. Admins have already ben slightly made aware of the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Where exactly are they going wrong?
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:17:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No UK law against mention spent convictions. Otherwise tabloids would never be out of court. Foundation doesn't have any UK assets and there is not reason for any of the board memeber to enter the UK.
That is the crucial question, isn't it? Without the text of the complaint to OTRS we can't know whether the article was stated to be biased or whether it was the apparently (but without legal advice not definitely) baseless claim of protection under ROA.
If it was accuracy there is no reason not to start rebuilding from the known verifiable facts. Which, it has to be said, are mainly about the criminal conviction.
Guy (JzG)
I suggest focusing on his political activities. If they are not notable, the personal details of his life are not either.
Fred
On Jun 23, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:17:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No UK law against mention spent convictions. Otherwise tabloids would never be out of court. Foundation doesn't have any UK assets and there is not reason for any of the board memeber to enter the UK.
That is the crucial question, isn't it? Without the text of the complaint to OTRS we can't know whether the article was stated to be biased or whether it was the apparently (but without legal advice not definitely) baseless claim of protection under ROA.
If it was accuracy there is no reason not to start rebuilding from the known verifiable facts. Which, it has to be said, are mainly about the criminal conviction.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:24:29 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I suggest focusing on his political activities. If they are not notable, the personal details of his life are not either.
Tony Sidaway closed the last "real" AfD as keep because he was secretary of the Monday Club. I thought this a tenuous claim to fame, myself. Actually the theft, appeal, imprisonment and custody battle for his daughter which the theft funded are far and away the most interesting things about him. Otherwise he's just a generic "darkies go home" far-right Tory.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:24:29 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I suggest focusing on his political activities. If they are not notable, the personal details of his life are not either.
Tony Sidaway closed the last "real" AfD as keep because he was secretary of the Monday Club. I thought this a tenuous claim to fame, myself. Actually the theft, appeal, imprisonment and custody battle for his daughter which the theft funded are far and away the most interesting things about him. Otherwise he's just a generic "darkies go home" far-right Tory.
Indeed. I wouldn't be put out at all if the article was deleted; he's at the threshold of notability if that. However, if we're to have an article, it should be brief but accurate.
It does seem that, aside from being a source of juicy 'nutjob tory right' quotes when needed, his conviction for pilfering funds from his health authority position is the most newsworthy thing he's done. And I'd certainly agree that most of THAT press was sheer schadenfreude at seeing a "high Tory" caught with fingers in the till.
I couldn't find any reference material that suggested that reporting upon a spent offence that had entered the public consciousness through publication in the national press at the time was likely to be forbidden under the Act. Granted, I'm now in the USA and the only law libraries I have access to are American ones, but I suspect that Sussexman and sundry anon contributors would have raised some if there were to be found.
It would be a much different matter if it were regarding an conviction that had never garnered press attention, I suspect.
This is a very difficult area for Wikipedia because, unlike most complaints, it has nothing to do with publishing untruth or speculation. It's about our publishing a sourced fact with more than enough in the way of citations to justify it, but that someone is arguing should be removed because of privacy law - despite the public nature of the very sources upon which the article is based.
Note that the article has not gone into salacious detail of his conviction - the article's words were (more or less - not looking at it right now) 'retired from public life following a 1992 conviction for theft". Nothing else.
I'd also note that it's easy to get a solicitor to write threats on headed paper - regardless of the legal methods.
-Matt
On Jun 23, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:24:29 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I suggest focusing on his political activities. If they are not notable, the personal details of his life are not either.
Tony Sidaway closed the last "real" AfD as keep because he was secretary of the Monday Club. I thought this a tenuous claim to fame, myself. Actually the theft, appeal, imprisonment and custody battle for his daughter which the theft funded are far and away the most interesting things about him. Otherwise he's just a generic "darkies go home" far-right Tory.
Guy (JzG)
I'm sorry, but I was a divorce lawyer. While this case is a little extreme, a person acting nutty during a highly contested divorce is not notable.
Fred
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:17:18 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I'm sorry, but I was a divorce lawyer. While this case is a little extreme, a person acting nutty during a highly contested divorce is not notable.
How about a person who was a prominent member of the Law'n'Order party, a rentamouth for the far right, who was caught with his fingers in the till to the tune of over £100,000 - with the public purse as victim?
Guy (JzG)
On 23/06/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
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.
No UK law against mention spent convictions. Otherwise tabloids would never be out of court. Foundation doesn't have any UK assets and there is not reason for any of the board memeber to enter the UK.
This is a surprising interpretation of the Rehabilition of Offenders Act 1974, given my well-thumbed copy of Law for Journalists devotes an entire chapter to warning readers to be careful about it. I'm not saying it is impermissible, but there are certainly some legal strictures involved.
As always, I'm glad wikien-l is not a forum for legal advice.
On 6/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This is a surprising interpretation of the Rehabilition of Offenders Act 1974, given my well-thumbed copy of Law for Journalists devotes an entire chapter to warning readers to be careful about it. I'm not saying it is impermissible, but there are certainly some legal strictures involved.
As always, I'm glad wikien-l is not a forum for legal advice.
Well there is some fairly solid stuff about how you are allowed to get hold of the information.
On 6/23/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This is a surprising interpretation of the Rehabilition of Offenders Act 1974, given my well-thumbed copy of Law for Journalists devotes an entire chapter to warning readers to be careful about it. I'm not saying it is impermissible, but there are certainly some legal strictures involved.
As always, I'm glad wikien-l is not a forum for legal advice.
Well there is some fairly solid stuff about how you are allowed to get hold of the information.
-- geni
However if we look at say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3025035.stm
If I've read the act correctly the conviction became spent over a year ago. Yet the BBC is still publishing that to people within the UK.
On 23/06/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This is a surprising interpretation of the Rehabilition of Offenders Act 1974, given my well-thumbed copy of Law for Journalists devotes an entire chapter to warning readers to be careful about it. I'm not saying it is impermissible, but there are certainly some legal strictures involved.
As always, I'm glad wikien-l is not a forum for legal advice.
Well there is some fairly solid stuff about how you are allowed to get hold of the information.
However if we look at say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3025035.stm
If I've read the act correctly the conviction became spent over a year ago. Yet the BBC is still publishing that to people within the UK.
a) You will note that I did not say "you cannot ever publish this material". You just need to have a good reason to. I would not place my money on all occurences in Wikipedia being good.
b) Bound over to keep the peace is spent one year after the binding expires, assuming no recidivism, and that article says nothing about how long he was bound over for.
c) Now's the fun part. That article is clearly in an archive and can be proven* to have been untouched for three years. That simple fact opens up huge new vistas of legal questions, and nobody knows what the answers to any of them are...
This field is complex. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I recognise that fact. I would be really quite grateful if you did the same.
* the BBC, bless them, archive every single alteration made to their site at commitment, so you could prove this if you had to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:17:41 +0100, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- the BBC, bless them, archive every single alteration made to their
site at commitment, so you could prove this if you had to
I suspect the reason is precisely that - well, you could prove it if you had to :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 6/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
This field is complex. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I recognise that fact. I would be really quite grateful if you did the same.
Yeah ok I conceed the point