User talk:Egonb

June 2011

Re: this edit: I am not going to edit war over this issue. However, Talk:David Threlfall states that Irish media sources have named the people involved in this injunction. This is correct information, and it is generally agreed that injunctions of this kind cannot be enforced outside England and Wales. See also [1].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your message of clarification. However I am left with the concern that you may be neglecting the content of the Appeal Court judgement, which gives particular weight to the privacy of the family and the protection of adolescents who may become victims of bullying. The judgement by Ward LJ is very accessible and deserves consideration. An earlier comment on this appeared to be dismissive. If on further consideration you wish to restore the disputed section your edit will be the stronger.Egonb (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, see also Talk:Pauline McLynn, where I wrote: "It is not a secret that Pauline McLynn has been named in connection with the injunction ETK in the Irish media. When I added this to the article, the aim was not to invade privacy, but to prevent incorrect information from being added to other articles about actors and television personalities (this has happened). The current information in the Irish media about ETK is correct and therefore not defamatory. However, there should be a wider debate about whether it is suitable for the article."

There is also a commentary on the issues involved at Talk:CTB_v_News_Group_Newspapers#G_and_G_v_Wikimedia_Foundation_Inc_.5B2009.5D_EWHC_3148_.28QB.29. The material here is not defamatory, but has privacy issues. We have been here before with Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas. The English language Wikipedia is read in a wide range of countries, and there does need to be a balance struck between privacy and not suppressing information that is not libellous and freely available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a thread about this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#UK_privacy_injunctions_and_BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy your time here. You are under no obligation to answer, but given the pattern of your editing, I wonder if you are involved in this superinjuction business in some way? Are you perhaps a lawyer that deals with these issues? It is often useful to know where an editor is coming from. Polyquest (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for both courtesy and curiosity. I am not legally trained but have had a great deal of experience in reporting to courts and legal teams from an expert position.

This typically involved a lot of research into the the legal framework and ploughing through evidence and written opinions. There is a catch in this: you have to know enough to function but too much raises suspicions of bad faith. It needed habits of caution and attention to detail. :I am also a newcomer looking to edit in another area, and in need of basic experience and a map of the minefields. THe ANI referral came as a shock but it has been very instructive. I am grateful for that. I'm trying to set up some contacts with editors of articles on World Music, but forgot to log in. So far a change in my edit pattern won't be apparent until I get my act together and master WP terminology.--Egonb (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody was accusing you of acting in bad faith, but a pattern of edits related to BLP articles can suggest a potential conflict of interest. The main reason for referring this to ANI was to get some fresh input, as we had started to go round in circles at Talk:David Threlfall‎. The ANI discussion confirmed what I already thought, which is that the ETK injunction has not jumped over the BLP notability threshold as yet, and there is a risk that including it would set off further tabloid hype over gossip with Wikipedia being drawn into it. The current compromise, with the names in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy but not in the BLPs, seems about right. When a person's name is typed into Google, their Wikipedia BLP article is often the first result. Unsurprisingly, this happens with David Threlfall. This creates a need for Wikipedia articles not to give undue weight to minor issues or negative information. Many Wikipedians have stern views about repeating tabloid gossip, and this is far more effective than any privacy injunction. The ETK injunction is notable for the Spycatcher type of effect that it has created in the Irish media, but the information itself (two minor TV celebs have affair) is classic forgettable Sunday newspaper stuff. This is why it should not be in their BLPs unless more coverage emerges. It would be playing along with the Mail etc to hype this beyond its worth.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The bad faith issue was very real in the encounters with legals - get the balance wrong and you can appear naive and gullible on one side, and bent or arrogant

on the other; this has happened, long enough ago. I am not surprised about the discussion but obviously I have not the experience to know how the BLP rules work for mentions on other articles. I have revisited and found the page had gone quiet, but saw nothing to indicate whether the subject was closed or not. I'm expecting the story to lie dormant while the tabloids pick over Giggs & F&F. I thought the observations about "Daily Mail" were sharp; I assumed there would be resistance to being gamed and used as a proxy. -Egonb (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the course of looking for info re Sligo Today I was told that Sunday World is widely available through UK newsagents, distributed through the usual channels: Smiths News I believe but have not verified this. Bought a copy of yesterday's edition, cover price 1.20 Euro. Could be that the publishers missed a link here and put their UK distributor into jeopardy, at least in need of a defence: innocent dissemination applies here to defamation and is accepted for ISPs. Contempt of Court actions likewise seem to put the burden of proof on the prosecution and this defence might be relevant in principle (but laughable in practice - imagine a fruit & veg merchant "innocently" pushing supplies of German beansprouts). I hope this background helps as the story unfolds. Strange however that the Mail did not cover the Sunday World availability when earlier it had pointed its readers to WP talk pages.

Concerning the BLP: I could see early on that naming in the context of sparse error-strewn coverage did not help to stand up WP as an encyclopaedia, and I had picked up on another editor comment about relative lack of notability. Most of what I know is from research. --EgonBoczek (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This was in the Mail a few days ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)