Talk:Robin Spencer

Untitled

Addition of Spencer's leading role in the wrongful conviction for murder of solicitor Sally Clark; this had been described as one of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice. Limhey (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the significant edit/delete by Neljack which was unwelcome and in my view unjustified. Please do not do this again without discussion. I believe I have been neutral and relied on cited fact. No attempt has been made to make Spencer 'look bad'. He seems to have managed that in regard to his actions affecting Sally Clark without my help. This edit was in my view an attempt to sanitise the article. I also believe the description of the piece as 'irrelevant' is completely without foundation; I suspect that her family and friends would agree with me. If she had survived I firmly believe that she would have wished that Spencer be held accountable for his actions in her case. The facts indicate that he escaped that. Limhey (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Further undo of Neljack's deletion. Clark is dead. Her own words relating to Spencer merit inclusion. Limhey (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC

Further reversal of unexplained significant edit delete by Neljack who advises that reversion can only occur after 'consensus'. It is impossible to reach any consensus with an editor who fails to extend the courtesy of first raising concerns in talk and then twice deletes material with no explanation in 'talk'. Please see my comment above. This looks like edit warring and will reported as such if the action is repeated. Limhey (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Limhey, I had several concerns with the section:

• It used non-neutral language such as "cruelly", "zealously" and "disingenuous" - and they were being stated in Wikipedia's voice, not just attributed to particular source.

• It relied heavily on non-neutral sources that I did not regard as good enough on a BLP. John Batt was a member of Clark's defence team and a campaigner on her behalf. The Daily Telegraph article says in the heading "Bob Woffinden argues her case", so it seems to be more an opinion piece than a neutral news article.

• The section was unduly long - considerably longer the all the rest of the article.

• Whether others involved in the case were found to have committed professional misconduct is not relevant to Spencer's article. The only point of this paragraph appear to be to suggest that, unlike them, Spencer wrongly "got off" from the misconduct charges against him. This is a perfectly valid opinion, but Wikipedia is not here to promote this opinion, any more than we are to promote the opinion that Spencer was wrongly accused of misconduct. We have to be neutral.

• Spending a paragraph on the case's effects on Clark and her death is disproportionate. This is an article about Spencer and the focus should be on his involvement in the case. The effects on Clark and her death are fully treated in the article on Clark herself.

Some of the material I excised could perhaps be included if rewritten in a neutral and concise manner. I did not attempt to do so because I did not have access to all the sources. And there is other material that could properly be included - it would be relevant, for instance, to include a description of what exactly Spencer was accused of doing in the professional misconduct charges.

If we cannot reach consensus, then we can raise the matter at the BLP noticeboard to get more opinions. Neljack (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for finally providing your reasons for your third repeated major edit/delete of this article Neljack. I disagree with much of what you write. In particular I think you are completely wrong to dismiss John Batt. You act as self-appointed accuser, judge and jury on the validity of Batt's account. I suggest you read the book before doing so in future. And to dismiss an article in the Daily Telegraph because a journalist rightly argues her case is pedantic nonsense. Your's is not a stance of neutrality but a stance of you deciding what you decree to be neutral. Wiki does not exist in such a fantasy world. In my view you adopt a position of untouchable controlling arrogance. You suggest some of it could be re-written in a concise and neutral fashion, but rather than take the effort to do so you perform a wholesale delete, twice without explanation and then a third time. You did so 'without access to all the sources'. You seem to have missed the importance and significance of Spencer's role in this protracted miscarriage of justice. The contrast in outcome between the senior lawyer and the senior doctors is highly relevant. He escaped scrutiny on the decision of a single senior judge. You write that certain words were inappropriate - and yet rather than edit them out you deleted whole sections. The words you objected to were in referenced sources. The word 'disingenuous' was used against Spencer by another QC at Clark's successful appeal.I believe Clark's own words about Spencer do belong on his page; he among others was responsible for the destruction of her life. Yes by all means put it to the BLP noticeboard. Given your overbearing style and manner it is clear we shall never reach a consensus. In the meantime I shall extend you the courtesy of not doing a revert. I shall also consider raising this matter as an example of edit-warring on your part, I note comments of similar concerns on your page. Limhey (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disingenuity

Spencer's response to the finding of Williams's concealed exculpatory bacteriology reports was described by Clare Montgomery QC (in her skeleton argument for the second appeal) as disingenuous. There should be no doubt about this criticism. It means he was lying to the Court. Limhey (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop edit warring. Please see WP:BLP for guidelines on how to edit articles about living people. Also important is to consider WP:UNDUE. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment which is unclear in terms of who it addresses; if you have followed the complex sequence of edit/deletes and reversions and read the above commentary you should have been aware that I was keen to avoid an edit war. My reversions ceased once Neljack finally deployed Wiki etiquette and attempted to explain the 3 times significant edit/delete without attempt whatsoever to modify/edit. I believe Wiki etiquette gives guidance on this. With regard to 'undue weight' please feel free to research and find any evidence that Spencer's persistent behaviour towards Clark in this case was in any way acceptable, just or fair. Then please edit it in. Here's a tip, there isn't any. Limhey (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)