[WikiEN-l] Non-office OFFICE actions

Fri Jun 23 09:16:36 UTC 2006

On 6/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at 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.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com