I could be sent to prison at any time. But at such moments when I reflect on that I always consider that if I do I’ll probably be sharing a cell with Chris Spivey, not only would he be entertaining but he also looks like the kind of guy who’ll watch your back while you’re picking up the soap, if you know what I mean.
Oh well, onwards and upwards…..
Credit Goes To ‘A Survivor’
“Information disputed by subject
I’ve removed reliably sourced information disputed by the subject in a twitter conversation. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Reverted, the information removed is properly sourced and relevant, and Laud has described himself as a member of the Club in an article which he wrote for the Daily Mail. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Should add that Laud himself, of course, has a COI in terms of this article. If he has issues with the contents of this article then he is welcome to come to this page and discuss them, but he will need to provide reliable sources in the usual manner.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC) It’s our responsibility as editors to get the article right – see WP:BLP – whether the subject himself shows up on the talk page to discuss it or not. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to force subjects to become editors. –Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC) No but nor should we be taking instructions from the subject themself on what the article should or should not include. If they take issue with the contents then there are routes available for them, but properly sourced material should not be removed following comments made by the subject on Twitter. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Laud is now threatening me with legal action on twitter. I have strated (sic) a discussion at ANI.  Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)”
More From ‘A Survivor’
Here’s the discussion Kegg is having with his Wiki colleagues about laud’s threats:
Derek Laud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) The subject of article is threatening me with legal action on twitter via direct messages. Myself and another editor, User:Rangoon11 added reliable citations to the article around the beginning of November. The subject subsequently contacted me on twitter disputing the information from the reliable sources, which I removed.  This was then reverted by Rangoon11 and taken to talk  . Shall I copy the direct messages here? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC) No, I think you should stop adding tedious tabloid twaddle to the article about him, and then perhaps he’ll find something better to do with his time than direct messaging you on Twitter. Single-sourcing controversial information about living people to the Daily Mail isn’t the best of ideas. (I do also vaguely wonder why you’ve made it possible for him to interact with you on Twitter about your Wikipedia edits.) I’ve also repeatedly blanked some potentially defamatory material from the talk page of that article; it’d be useful for a few extra people to keep an eye on it. –Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I dont see a problem with the two pieces regarding his membership of the conservative ‘club’ and his driving conviction. Both are properly sourced, but beyond that, both are directly related to his political career. The driving conviction very much so. Or at least, it has been reported by reliable sources to be. I dont think it needs that much detail however. The SA apartheid stuff is tenuous at best though. RE the defamatory stuff, totally agree that needed to be nuked, have put on watch for now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I don’t consider the Daily Mail, nor indeed the New York Daily News, as reliable sources for controversial information about living persons, certainly not when one of them is used as a single source to support an assertion that “it has been reported by reliable sources to be directly related to his political career”. If there are multiple reliable sources that say so, why not cite them? –Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Well the Mail piece references the driving incident, as does the Telegraph, I suspect the Independant one does as well given the citing in the article but their website appears not to be processing search queries at the moment to check. Whoever did the citations only used one for each sentence/claim, rather than citing them to all the articles that can confirm it. It looks like any news item mention of him ends up with ‘And he pulled out due to being convicted yadda yadda’ as that is the most interesting thing about him. If you disregard his Big Brother claim to fame. Looks like there are multiple sources beyond the Daily Mail, and some are used elsewhere in the article for other claims. I agree for the most part about the Daily Mail btw as a reliable source, however that should probably be run by RSN. It doesnt help he actually writes/wrote for the Mail on Sunday. His membership of the conservative club in itself doesnt seem controversial at all, he has talked about it openly (and his reasons for leaving). The pulling out of the election due to his driving conviction might qualify as controversial. He only said ‘business reasons’, its the press that blame it on the driving. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC) He has disputed with me factual elements of the articles cited. Should this not be an issue between the subject and the publications cited? This article experienced some very high traffic at the start of November, and will continue to do so. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC) If you mean by that “is the mere fact that the subject has disputed the content enough of a reason to remove it?” then, no it isn’t. Say what you like about the Daily Mail but an article in it written by Derek Laud which says Derek Laud was a member of the Monday club is a reliable source, regardless that he has since denied it on Twitter. (i.e. The issue appears to be between him and himself and need not involve us). I also found this for corroboration. Formerip (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I am puzzled about Laud’s denials of being a member of the Monday Club, since he wrote an article for the Daily Mail discussing it. And the Daily Mail is a national midmarket newspaper and a perfectly reliable source. I also query why an editor has been discussing the article with the subject in this way on Twitter. This seems inappropriate, even if not a stict breach of WP rules. It is worth noting that there have been repeated additions of unsourced attack content about other issues, so the article will benefit from more people watching it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC) On the attack content (unrelated to the Monday Club membersship or driving conviction) I’ve asked for semi-protection. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Following a request on WP:RFPP, I’ve just semi-protected the article for a week and activated pending changes for after the semi-protection expires. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)”