Talk:Murder of Grace Millane

Requested move 10 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Death of Grace Millane.  Nixinova  T  C  20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Grace Millane → Death of Grace Millane – Per WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM. (If the accused party is subsequently convicted of murder, then title could be renamed "Murder of" per WP:BIO.) Plinuckment (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think this is better since there's not really much to be said about her personal life.  Nixinova  T  C  19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it since this article is not really about her life but rather her death.  Nixinova  T  C  19:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name suppression

The suspect was granted 20 day name supression but British media is publishing his name. Should it be used in this article?  Nixinova  T  C  21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles which use his name: [1] [2] [3] [4] • Articles about his name supression/warning the public not to use his name: [5] [6] / [7].  Nixinova  T  C  21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that any Wikipedia editor residing in New Zealand who adds the defendant's name to the article would be liable to legal action should NZ authorities be able to identify that editor. (There were similar issues over a certain NZ dignitary whose name was suppressed by the NZ courts but was "outed" by an Australian journalist on his website.) I've asked for clarification at the WP Helpdesk Help desk. --Plinuckment (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The servers hosting Wikipedia are located in the United States, which is not subject to New Zealand law, so the name doesn't need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Be it noted that New Zealand's Minister of Justice has criticised the British media for not respecting the name-suppression order. (To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: "Your journalists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should.") --Plinuckment (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Why risk the accused being acquitted on a technicality due to breach of the name suppression order. "The defence would be looking for every opportunity to say a trial right might be compromised and that was why suppression needed to be abided by, he [Minister of Justice] said." https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109252701/justice-minister-andrew-little-urges-british-media-to-ensure-justice-for-grace-millane. This is matter of justice for a murder victim, not a legal argument about server locations blah blah. Nurg (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact remains that New Zealand law is not applicable to Wikipedia itself as it is physically located in the United States- although New Zealand citizens would be bound by it(as noted in the warning at the top of this page). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So we should probably mention the relevant policy governing this matter: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime. I'll quote the relevant part: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." I'd personally be happy leaving it out for now: it is a temporary order, people can find the name elsewhere if they want to look for it, and in reality it doesn't really add anything to the article. There will probably be a lot to add to this article at a later date, and I don't see why the name of the suspect couldn't also wait a bit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The BLP policy is certainly more relevant than NZ law. The article currently does not mention the name so it is probably fine as it is now. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Technically the page is still not complying with NZ law because it includes links that identify the person. Never mind, it's not as if his name is going to mean anything to you unless you happen to know him. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not bound by NZ law and neither is media outside of NZ. The name meaning something or not does not change this fact. The New Zealand government is free to take measures to block access to outside websites, just as Turkey and China do, or negotiate and sign treaties with other countries requiring them to respect NZ laws in this area. Where I live, the names of criminal suspects are public record. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Where you live is not relevant to the discussion. All countries have laws which control or restrict the publishing of certain information, including the country that hosts Wikipedia (the US). I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Section 211(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 means that even if they were based in New Zealand, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held legally liable for breaching name suppression laws unless they acted in a reckless manner. Individual users, however, can be held legally liable for their actions.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It only took a few moments to find the name with a search engine so it's not a well-kept secret. Leaving it out of the article is fine but there's no need to go crazy redacting links to news media. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Name suppression may be imposed for a variety of reasons, sometimes for several at once. Among them is when threats have been made against the accused's family. I note there was an outburst in the courtroom during the first appearance. Those members of the news media who identified the accused will no doubt sleep soundly thousands of miles away even if someone here gets assaulted or their house gets burned down. Akld guy (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't happen, but New Zealand has no power outside of New Zealand to do anything about it. As I indicated, they are free to be like Turkey and China and limit internet use in New Zealand, or negotiate treaties with the other 190 or so countries. People are also responsible for their own actions,(i.e harming a criminal suspect or their family) not the news media. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, it would seem that some of the British newspapers that published the defendant's name are having second thoughts. Looking at the links in the OP, several of them have been taken down, or redacted to remove the name of the accused. Interestingly, the Telegraph article now appears to be geoblocked to New Zealand IP addresses. Plinuckment (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Geoblocks are laughably ineffective. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I've never heard of geoblocking being used to "censor" British news articles in NZ before. Plinuckment (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand however has power within New Zealand to do something about it. British journalists in New Zealand are still subject to New Zealand laws - they can't report court proceedings without accreditation (or leave of the court), and they definitely can't breach name suppression. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 17:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

link to her self-published cv

I'm not very comfortable with including this among our references. There are various news items which refer to the schools and church she attended, we could use those instead if desired. Exact dates of school attendance are not important. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed that reference.  Nixinova  T  C  19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unusually strong reaction"

I removed the sentence in the reaction section that said there was an "unusually strong reaction" to the death, this was not qualified by the source. This seems to be "reading between the lines" of the Guardian source. The Guardian source does mention reactions and tributes, but doesn't say in any way I can read that this was "unusual". For something to be unusual it would have to be by comparison to previous events, and that isn't mentioned. Thanks. 79.74.171.61 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

And I have restored it, slightly reworded, with a ref that uses the word "unprecedented". Akld guy (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the word "unprecedented" strikes me as more hyperbolic and less encyclopedic than the original "unusually strong". She is hardly the first missing white girl NZ has got emotional about (excuse cynicism). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDLI. Can you point to a policy that the statement fails? Akld guy (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I prefer plain English to linking to wikipedia alphabet soup. That said WP:PUFFERY applies. "Unprecedented" is hyperbolic and inaccurate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Age at death

Grace Millane was born on 2 December 1996 in Britain. The article correctly says she died on the 1st or 2nd of December 2018 but this is NZDT, 13 hours ahead of UTC. If she died in the small hours of the 2nd (NZDT), it would still have been only the 1st in Britain. Therefore, based on time elapsed from her birth, she had not attained 22 years of age yet. Is it wrong to show her age as "21 or 22"? Should we change it to just 21? Akld guy (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to leave it for now. More precise details may arise as a result of the accused appearing in court later this month. LiamXn (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the age altogether as this is confusing.  Nixinova  T  C  01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of Infobox and photo

In my opinion the article would be better without the infobox and the photo (taken from her facebook apparently). It should be treated as an article about the event, rather than a biography of Grace Millane. Compare for example Murder of Amanda Duffy, an article I did a bit of work on. There is a well known picture of her that is likely public domain, but nobody seems to think it necessary to include it in the article, to create an infobox or even to include much biographical information about Amanda Duffy. And this is as it should be. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Treating this as article on a crime rather than a biography would also hopefully allay the concerns expressed by the people who say they are members of her family. They are of course not following correct wikipedia procedures, but I definitely don't want any nastiness with them, they are going through all sorts of pain and grief. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That's my opinion, too. The long version is at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 9#Not a biography, shouldn't pretend, Talk:Killing of Mollie Tibbetts#WP:DISINFOBOX and Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Not a bio, shouldn't present as one. Events are events. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Trial

RS or not, I'm very reluctant to add details of the trial to this article. I suspect some details have been suppressed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oddity

In the video shown on this NZ Herald website, how is it that the camera tracks the couple while they are walking through buildings? It's not like they have been zoomed in on from a wide angle fixed-position camera – in the video the camera is being panned from side to side and following them. How is this possible? Akld guy (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Omnidirectional security camera, maybe? Muzilon (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand the technology. My question is, why is the camera being panned around and following them? At that time they were just ordinary people of no significance whatsoever. Were the movements of one of them being tracked? Akld guy (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing the police stitched the camera footage after its significance became obvious. Kind of like Google Street View. Muzilon (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It may be a 360° camera that NZH panned across to make the video.  Nixinova  T / C   03:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it was the NZH. Likely the police as Muzilon suggested. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Please change this sentence: "Millane's post-mortem blood-alcohol level was measured at 106 milligrams per decilitre of blood, just over twice the legal driving limit of 50 mg/dL."

To read: "Millane's post-mortem blood-alcohol level was measured at 106 milligrams per millilitres of blood, just over twice the legal driving limit of 50 mg/mL." Changes highlighted in bold. AngelaHarseldorf (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC) AngelaHarseldorf (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. That would be horribly, horribly wrong. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, actually; I think you read that wrong, Deacon. It was changing dL to mL (as the source says) not vice versa; 50mg per dL is literally nothing.  Nixinova  T C  

Argh, yes I did. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The source says 106 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. 100 millilitres is equal to one decilitre. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not use the name?

Not only is the name of the guy who killed her on reliable sources, the issue of his name affecting the court verdict is now irrelevant as he's been convicted. There is no need for wikipedia to suppress names based on NZ law (or the law of any other nation) as he been discussed in numerous other articles. We don't censor the Tiananmen Sqaure article just because of Chinese law, so there is no reason to do so here. There is zero consensus for withholding the name of a convicted murderer on a wikipedia article. Also, claims of broken sources are probably caused by geoblocks in NZ - the source is fine, try a VPN if you can't see it. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Obscure Lobotomy, as long as there is no consensus for what you want, don't insert the name. So far it seems like your only reason to be on Wikipedia is this issue--I am warning you that you will be blocked if you do it again without consensus. Don't drop the name, not here on the talk page either. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think this is my only reason to be on Wikipedia? It's the first edit that I made here, but isn't that the case for every single editor here? They all make a first edit on an article? And thanks for the welcome, the warmness of your threats to block me are very kind. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sage advice from my esteemed colleague to let some discussion develop, however, I would prefer this warning to have been issued after someone reverts the addition with a valid reason. There have traditionally been a few reasons the name has not been used. Most NZ editors will wisely avoid the addition at this time, there was no conviction, and there was a lack of reliable sources (specifically regarding a conviction). I'm not going to condone or not condone the addition, but the policy-based reasons for excluding it have apparently expired. There is a small issue remaining - the reliable source being used for the conviction is the Evening Standard. I've no objection to using the ES for some things, but some might argue that more reliable sources for the conviction would be relevant. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If this was an article adding something that was illegal in a less politically correct nation than New Zealand, people would be crying about censorship - but New Zealand is a nice place, so double standards are in play. And yes, the reason for excluding it no longer matters - but people would prefer to jump in with reverts, insinuations and threats of blocks than contribute to the discussion that I started. I would link to some more source, but that would probably be seen as linking to his identity and get me blocked as people seem to be out for blood right now. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I did say it's a small issue. If you like you can just name the publication. I can tell you if it's considered reliable, and if I can find the same information. I think you need to be very aware there are two types of reference - those before the conviction, and those after it. We are looking for those after it. In any case I think it's appropriate to wait for more comments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few. The one which seems like the most reliable (or at least the source I would trust the most) is the Indepenent. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the more reliable publications. 23 November 2019? Agreed, it does say that, and should be added the potential list of sources (IMO) before the Evening Standard. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

CAN YOU ALL JUST HOLD YOUR HORSES PLEASE?. He is due to be sentenced today. Name suppressions typically lapse at this point. Then we can stop having pointless arguments and inflammatory discussions about how "politically correct" (GOD I FUCKING HATE THAT TERM!) NZ allegedly is. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think we've found the answer to the question. Shall we agree to add it if it's unsuppressed, and if not we can revisit after that? This could probably have been done a couple of months ago, but now we're where we are we can wait an extra (half?) day. I think we've adequately shown there's no rush. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fair and sensible to agree to. Zero rush. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just removed the name again. I see the consensus here as not to include it at least until the sentencing later today.-gadfium 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well sentencing happened and name suppression is still intact. Fairly sure the norm is name suppression will be removed after conviction [8] if it's as serious as this one, rather than waiting for sentencing unless there is a reason to keep it. Or to put it a different way, sentencing is mostly irrelevant for name suppression terms, it's conviction, and other proceedings. Since name suppression wasn't lifted, and since protecting the victim clearly doesn't apply, it's not hard to guess why name suppression may still be intact. I mean it's possible there is still a battle to keep it intact for a retrial but that's never worked in the past e.g. [9]/[10] and as that example showed, even with such such battles is often ended by now. So it's likely the other obvious reason applies. Therefore it seems likely that name suppression will be lifted within say 2-3 years at the latest. If it is the obvious reason, it also means it's a little weird to say the reason for name suppression no longer applies. If anything it's stronger now that he has a conviction. (Not trying to start a debate about whether it's a good reason, simply saying it's a little weird to suggest it no longer matters etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a long time. I was reading a couple of interesting articles by the NZ Herald about the suppression - one post-conviction[11], and one post-sentencing.[12] Apparently the reasons for the suppression are also suppressed, but the judge did allow media to report that it relates to 'fair trial rights',[13] and the Herald say the reasons have not changed after the conviction. Reading between the lines, they're referring either to the appeal of this conviction or a trial for another one. Again, I'm not going to condone or not condone the addition, but I will say that I think the way forward, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is through a Wikipedia:Consensus through other editors commenting. It might also be worth dropping a note at WP:BLPN. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Well it probably won't be that long. More likely under a year. But it depends what happens, as with all legal proceedings. I mean in this case the conviction was in a year, but that doesn't always happen. (Even in the US, it's hardly unheard of for a conviction to only happen 2-3 years after being charged.) "fair trial rights" was the obvious reason I was referring to, and as I said, my impression is because the possibility of a re-trial is too abstract, it's not generally accepted as a reason to continue suppression, so..... Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems likely that he is facing other charges, and publication of his name would unduly prejudice the jury. This is actually a fairly common situation when someone is accused of murder - the police will have a whole raft of lesser charges in reserve if they don't get them for murder, and will usually drop them if they get a murder conviction, regarding it as a poor use of taxpayers' money. But we'll have to wait and see what happens. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I make no comment on your first sentence. But I'm unconvinced it's likely the rest is an accurate summation of the situation from my observation of how things work in NZ. While it may clearly violate double jeopardy, it's rare that someone will be charged with different offences arising from the same set of facts after acquittal. If there are difference offences arising from the same set of facts, they will be charged together and part of the same trial. They aren't 'in reserve'. It's only likely there will be a separate trial if either new evidence emerges, or they were charged together but one resulted in a hung jury. Difference offences arising from different sets of facts, that's another matter.... But these are also not 'in reserve' they proceed at their own pace separately and are generally not dropped no matter what happens in some other trial, unless something that happened in that trial makes it unlikely a conviction will succeed, or maybe if the chance of success is already low, or perhaps if it's a very minor charge; in part because that will be unfair to the, likely other, victim. Ultimately, I'm fairly sure time will tell. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

He should be named Erzan (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable discussing the inclusion but if you want to argue for inclusion, you need to start with the basics. What are the actual sources? If the only one you can find is Evening Standard, the BLP norm would be that we exclude any contentious information covered so poorly, given how widely covered this case as. Someone mentioned the Telegraph, is that source still working? Are there any other sources besides those 2? (I mean RS, so don't bother to bring up Daily Mail etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

One final comment before I probably leave this until there are new developments. I have no legal background and the only specifics I know about this case nearly all come from NZ media reports. (With tiny bits read e.g. on this talk page and forums.) In case it isn't clear, my comments above are all based on my limited understanding based on observation and stuff I've read about the law (including occasionally the actually law). I didn't read the story mention by zzuuzz but what was highlighted here seems to tally with what I expected.

For BLP and other reasons, I've avoided saying the obvious. But I was hoping others would also read between the lines and consider the obvious, since it may affect how we go from here, as people were saying it no longer matters etc, which is very weird if the obvious reason is correct. I've also felt it best to correct what are IMO likely misunderstanding of the situation where these arose since I fear that will confusion discussion over what to do here.

Of course, we shouldn't actually be speculating here. But the thing, so far no one has said mentioned any sources which provide any real detail. The best was zzuuzz, which while helpful as confirmation, was also easy to guess. Meanwhile some media may have reported the name, but that seems to be all. So whatever you may think of the NZ law, it seems likely it has had a serious effect on what has been reported, even if it didn't stop the name being public.

For some people, maybe this doesn't matter and we should just mention the name since there are some sources. (Although I'm still unconvinced there are enough compared to the level of coverage, but I haven't looked.) For others, maybe it does matter that there may be something here we don't know about and we can only guess what it is since sources are not covering it, so I hope they seriously consider where we are at now.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s now 2020 and we’re well into the age of the internet, in which, in the majority of countries, there is no internet censorship. We are all of us a part of this, like it or not. That the name suppression within NZ continues post-sentencing is strange. It took me about 30 seconds to find it. And then there is the contention by the OP in the OP, Obscure Lobotomy, that the argument for or against name suppression has come up many times, with continual suppression here on WP continually failing. So I can’t see any reason to withhold it here any longer. We’re now post verdict, post sentencing. Wake up there down the back! Boscaswell talk 08:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• So (fairly obviously) I SUPPORT naming. Boscaswell talk 08:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Independent can be used as a source. Also, how about Metro? is that a reliable source? Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

it’s in the Evening Standard. That was the one I saw on googling. I think anything in Metro is not considered an RS. Boscaswell talk 10:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't name. Reading between the lines etc it seems likely that he's facing some serious but unrelated criminal charges which could see him getting a few more years slapped on to his already hefty prison sentence. It would be difficult to find a fair and impartial jury if they all knew him as "the piece of shit who murdered Grace Millane", therefore the courts have decided not to publicise his name for the time being. The majority of people are not on Twitter or wherever else his name is being plastered. Sure if you live in New Zealand you can find out his name if you really want to, but you have to actively seek it out. The majority won't do that. Because really, why do they need to know his name? What does his name mean to you? The current situation in New Zealand is that the majority of us don't know his name, and this is for the best. If you hate the guy as much as I do, how about keeping his name out of the article until whatever other legal issues involving him are resolved? How about respecting another reasonably civilised country's court system? Why is it so important to you guys that his name be in the article anyway? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Your court system quite simply isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia also respect the court system of China and censor everything they don't like? How about we also recommend that Thai court system that doesn't allow criticism of their royalty, or perhaps we need to start respecting Sharia law as well? I might understand just a little if his name was hidden on some dodgy forum somewhere or only on Twitter but it isn't, it's reported in major news sources, big national newspapers. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does his name matter to you? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me. It matters to the credibility of an encyclopedia. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

So the BBC and other UK sources that choose to respect New Zealand courts are not "credible"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the BBC an encyclopedia? No offence, but you really don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, your time might be spent best elsewhere. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You become an expert on wikipedia after how many edits? Or are you a resurrection of a banned user? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

People, please be WP:CIVIL. Insulting each other will not win consensus to either of your positions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your condescension is not needed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"You become an expert on wikipedia after how many edits? Or are you a resurrection of a banned user?" MaxBrowne2 please focus on the edits not the editor. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to claim the moral high ground on that front after this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to deal with criticism very well. I'm sorry if it upsets you, but your lack of competence isn't my fault. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And you lecture me about focusing on the edits not the editor? You're a WP:SPA whose entire purpose appears to be disrespecting New Zealand court rulings and trolling. You've probably been blocked or banned under different handles. Go away, wikipedia doesn't need you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how petty, childish and paranoid your last comment was? I couldn't care less about New Zealand court findings, and guess what? Neither does Wikipedia. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start a WP:RfC as to whether Wikipedia should disregard New Zealand court orders then? Muzilon (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no need. Consensus is very clear on this type of situation. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you refer us to some precedent-setting discussions or RfCs about that? See WP:NOTATABLOID. Muzilon (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you will find that WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLPCRIME cover it very well. "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" - the key part of that policy being - unless a conviction has been secured, and in this case a conviction most certainly has been secured. This seems to be very much a case of New Zealand editors complaining "I don't like this" merely because they see it as a slight on their legal system, which of course is not relevant and most certainly isn't grounds for excluding such hugely relevant content from the article. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Immediately under WP:BLPCRIME we have WP:BLPNAME, which says "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" (emphasis added). And even WP:NOTCENSORED says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons". So, you need to show that inclusion of the convicted party's name outweighs those BLP caveats. Muzilon (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:BLPNAME "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." - now what do you think? Is the murderer of Grace Millane directly involved in the Murder of Grace Millane article's topic? LOL. The answer is obvious, so there is no reason to withhold the name. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course the convicted party is "involved" (although I suppose theoretically he could still appeal he is now appealing his conviction), but his name has been "intentionally concealed in a court case" (via the name suppression order). Rather than just arguing with other editors on this Talk page, I'd suggest you start a formal WP:RfC to seek consensus. Muzilon (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Ramsden Bellhouse

There are reliable sources mentioning Ramsden Bellhouse as her home village. It's very close to Wickford and Wickford is well known so media reports typically say she was from Wickford rather than "Ramsden Bellhouse near Wickford". It would be ok to use either in the article. It's not actually her birth place though, her family moved there when she was about 10 according to the NZH. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should avoid naming the small village, just use the town, and if we must elaborate just say near Wickford. I note the BBC are mentioning Wickford, and they're usually quite sensible about these things. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Administratively Ramsden Bellhouse is part of Billericay rather than Wickford. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, given the choice, she was from Wickford (it's also closer). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to "avoid" mentioning Ramsden Bellhouse. What has happened is that the media sacrificed a small amount of accuracy for readability; British readers will know where Wickford is but unless they're familiar with the area they probably won't know where Ramsden Bellhouse is. I would suggest that wikipedia should prefer to "err" on the side of accuracy rather than readability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's basically a privacy issue, and one of sensitivity for the family. I'd rather not go into too much detail about that, but it's a small English village. I don't think many will know where Wickford is, I suspect the media have sacrificed accuracy for sensitivity. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case we could just say she was from Essex. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Name Supression RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia should not follow NZ law and censor the killers name. Goes agianst WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLPNAME.

Articles using name

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/22/grace-millanes-killer-unmasked-creepy-fantasist-failed-salesman-11201228/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7718413/Grace-Millane-killers-flatmate-scared-slept-knife-bed.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/grace-millane-murder-jesse-kempson-suspect-arrest-court-trial-new-zealand-auckland-a8676321.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/grace-millane-killer-anonymity-new-zealand-a4367871.html

LoganBlade (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reject:This RfC should be rejected out of hand as the requestor did not correctly follow instructions in formatting it, in particular with respect to neutral wording. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Wording and spelling errors aside, I've taken the liberty of fixing the malformed signature via the WP:UNSIGNED template. I'd also mention that those sources (except the Independent) are not considered WP:RELIABLE per WP:RSP. Muzilon (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And FTR, I note that the editor who initiated this RfC has just been indefinitely blocked for various misdeeds. Muzilon (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Include - per reliably sourced, verifiable, and not censored. Including the name of someone convicted of murder shouldn't be considered controversial on Wikipedia. Additional sources - Telegraph, Independent.ie, Belfast Telegraph. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Be it noted that an appeal against the murder conviction began today.[14] Muzilon (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Noted, probably should be added to article, don't you think? Isaidnoway (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly – I've added a (sourced) sentence. Muzilon (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose to including the name until judgement on the accused's appeal is handed down, at which point name-suppression will likely be lifted. Even though Wikipedia as a U.S. website is not subject to NZ law, WP:NOTCENSORED still needs to be balanced with WP:BLPNAME, which states that "When the name of a private individual... has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Muzilon (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But the case is over and he's been charged and is sitting in prison. I agree that there is not significant loss of context however the court case has been closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The case is *not* over – an appeal has just commenced, as I mentioned. His conviction could be downgraded from murder to manslaughter, or theoretically an even lighter sentence (heaven help us). PS. You still seem to be having trouble with your signature, as your name is not displaying correctly here. I've corrected that (yet again). Muzilon (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason his name continues to be suppressed, most likely he's facing rape charges, but the more people casually throw his name around the more likely they are to be thrown out. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In any event, I think in these cases Wikipedia should lean on the side of caution rather than being "judgemental". One can name and shame after the appeal is done and dusted. Muzilon (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This was the same response given in early February. Court appeals can take years. Do we just let the article sit with the omission of his name until then? LoganBlade (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTATABLOID: "As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity." As the case is currently before the courts, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution, yes. (And I've corrected your signature for the 3rd or 4th time – it's displaying your username as "Thanks", which is "unnecessarily confusing" per WP:SIGPROB.) Muzilon (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In the suspect section of the article, reader's of the article (including those in NZ), learn where he was born and grew up, parents separated, who he was raised by, former jobs, previous locations where he lived, estranged relationship with his family, dishonesty, alleged stealing, drink-driving conviction, arrested for disorderly behaviour, allegedly fathered a child. In the trial section, reader's of the article (including those in NZ), learn he was charged with murder, convicted of murder, he liked masochistic and bondage sex including choking, rented a carpet cleaning machine, defendant tried to hide and bury the victim's body, defendant had personal insecurity, defendant strangled Millane to death, conducted internet searches on how to dispose of bodies, viewed pornography, created a "labyrinth of storytelling and lies", jury reportedly wept following the verdict. Where's the sensitivity and good judgment in publishing this information in the article, good lord, talk about prejudicial information against this man. Reader's of the article (including those in NZ) know his intimate personal background/history and sordid details of the crime, the only thing censored is his name. Arguments for exclusion of his name are not convincing at all, considering what the reader's of the article already know about this person. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sordid details/background or not, WP:BLPNAME says that it is often preferable to omit a name that has been suppressed by the courts. Wikipedians who want to "out" the defendant need to justify why Wikipedia should not follow that policy in this case. Muzilon (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPNAME, it also says when the name has not been widely disseminated - according to reliable sources already used in this article - despite the suppression order, in the hours and days after the verdict, overseas media (WP:RS listed above) and social media users - including in New Zealand - published the killer's name, so he has already been "outed" (aka widely disseminated), including in New Zealand. WP:BLPNAME goes on to say consider whether the inclusion of names who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The person convicted of the murder of Grace Millane (the article's topic) is directly involved, as evidenced by the amount of detail already given in the article about the individual. So I have justified my argument for inclusion of the name, because my argument does follow WP:BLPNAME, and is also compliant with one of our core policies that his name is verifiable. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the name is WP:VERIFIABLE, but I question whether in this case "verifiability" outweighs the fact that WP:BLPNAME says weight should be given to issues of name suppression. Furthermore, the "outings" in New Zealand were not WP:RELIABLE sources – they were leaked by members of the public on social media or in personal communications. (Facebook, Twitter, etc. are not generally considered WP:RELIABLE per WP:UGC.) Although some newspapers in Europe did choose to publish the accused's name (presumably some party who attended the court hearing leaked the accused's name to Europe, which means that party breached NZ law unless they left NZ before doing so), Wikipedia still needs to demonstrate that this contentious decision outweighs WP:HARM and the fact that the accused's name has been "concealed in a court case". This is Wikipedia, not WikiLeaks. Muzilon (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we use Facebook, Twitter, etc. as sources in this article, don't need to, because we have reliable sources reporting it — British media and social media quickly flooded the internet with the man's name and details, overseas media and social media users published the killer's name. And media outlets all over the world routinely make contentious decisions to publish leaked and/or anonymously sourced information, (see WikiLeaks, Steele dossier, Edward Snowden etc.), that could possibly be considered illegal, objectionable or offensive, so what. Wikipedia has already demonstrated over and over they do so as well, as long as the content follows policy and guidelines, which this content does, his name has already been "widely disseminated" and he is "directly involved in this article's topic". My understanding of the initial decision to suppress his name was because of his right to a fair trial, his trial is over, convicted in November 2019. His appeal was heard by three judges who know his identity. Like I said above, prejudicial information against him has already been published by NZ media outlets and Wikipedia, the suppression of his name is moot, because it's already known, along with the details of the crime. Wikipedia doesn't purposefully omit (i.e.suppress or censor) verifiable information on convicted criminals, including their names. If his name is solidly verifiable, then it's already "out there" in the reliable sources, excluding his name from Wikipedia doesn't magically obliterate it from existence, it just makes it less accessible - that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I think you and I place different weights on WP:BLPNAME and WP:HARM. Anyway, I have nothing further to add at this point. Muzilon (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, because I would include (name self-censored) per WP:V, WP:BLPNAME, WP:COMPREHENSIVE and exclude the Auckland businessman per WP:NPF. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you may have a point about naming the Auckland businessman. However, as for "Mr X" (as I shall call the person with name suppression), I contend that the BLPNAME clause about omitting a name that has been concealed in a court case should take precedence over other clauses or policies in this case. Muzilon (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Publishing the name may prejudice the appeal or other pending trials. Wait until the suppression is lifted by the courts.-gadfium 06:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose the suggestion. I do not want us to take the risk that justice might be sacrificed on the altar of a Wikipedia policy about non-censorship. I do not want to see a victim or her family denied full justice because a court order was breached or circumvented and the offender was therefore able to escape full justice on a legal technicality. I also don't want us to risk the New Zealand authorities blocking access to WP from New Zealand. The name suppression is not permanent, and WP is not news media, so let's be patient and let justice take its course first. Nurg (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems we now have an edit war as to whether the defendant's name should even be quoted on this Talk page. Per WP:HARM, "In cases where names are removed from an article to protect the privacy of a semi-notable individual, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is a presumption in favour of privacy, and as such, in most cases, the names should not be restored unless there is a definite consensus to do so. In some such cases, editors should avoid quoting the names themselves (or other contested biographical information) on talk pages during the discussion; it should be remembered that talk pages are public space, and that information discussed there is available to readers. " Pinging admins Drmies and zzuuzz, who I see have commented here on this issue previously. Muzilon (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  In terms of which side admins will take in terms of action against users, this is a no-brainer. Without a clear consensus to use the name, no one should be edit-warring to restore it, even on this page. Look, I understand that inclusion of the name is a valid topic of debate, and it might even be mentioned in a URL/source or two (which are appropriate to mention). But it seems at this time there is a local consensus to leave it out of this page where possible, or minimally a lack of consensus to include it. This is a perfectly valid decision in terms of policy. There is also something gratuitous about restoring the name - this RfC can be discussed equally well without it. Therefore, if you want an admin opinion on the matter, which I reserve the right to implement, Isaidnoway and LoganBlade should knock it off forthwith. (courtesy ping) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Understood, I reverted once and will not edit war. I do want to be clear though, my arguments and edits to this talk page have been solidly based on WP policies and guidelines, and do not violate the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted and where I reside). So I will now self-censor my recent comment above, due to the threat of being sanctioned. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaidnoway, thank you, but let me note that leaving the name out is also based on WP policies and guidelines, and does not violate any law. I know you know that, but I want that to be clear here. zzuuzz, thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to the admins for weighing in. (A pity Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are sometimes so vague that editors can interpret them so differently.) Oh, and I see that although a couple of mentions of "Mr X's" name have now been redacted on this Talk page, his name still appears under the subheading "Name Usage" above. Muzilon (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I see one argument in this RfC that is based on WP policies and guidelines for leaving the name out of the article, and it is admittedly a weak oppose. What I don't see is a discussion that took place and a consensus established for excluding his name in this RfC/talk page, so there was no consensus to remove it from this RfC/talk page in the first place, it was edit-warred out, but yet only two editors were named and shamed and threatened with sanctions for edit-warring. And the conclusion by zzuuzz that there seems at this time there is a local consensus to leave it out - exists in this RfC is dubious at best, and a !supervote at worst. If an admin wants to exercise their discretion in enforcing WP policies and guidelines, and explicitly state leave his name off this talk page, that's fine, I'm OK with that, but I don't appreciate being one of two accused of edit-warring when there were other editors involved as well, and no discussion/consensus established to exclude his name from the RfC/talk page in the first place. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So far, I see 2 votes in favor of including the name and 3 against. If you scroll up to the subheading Why not use the name?, you'll see that Drmies had previously cautioned another editor not to post Mr X's name on this Talk page (which would seem to be in accordance with the WP:HARM paragraph I just quoted). Muzilon (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the strength of the arguments, not a simple head count of the !votes, and thus far I'm not seeing consensus to leave his name out. There are only three arguments at this time based on WP policies and guidelines, your weak oppose and two include. The other comments/opposes in their respective order mention a rejection of the RfC, an oppose based on prejudicing the appeal or other pending trials, how can including his name in the article prejudice the appeal when the three appellate judges already know his name, and as far as I know, the defense counsel didn't mention any prejudice in relation to this RfC or WP article in their appellate argument, since the trial judge and appellate court have no jurisdiction over WP, and where's the source to support there are pending trials? And an oppose based on justice being denied/sacrificed on a legal technicality, maybe they don't know he was convicted of murder in 2019, and that the suppression order doesn't apply to WP, so he's not going to magically "escape full justice on a legal technicality", because his name was included in a WP article, that's nonsense. So I don't see any weight being applied to those comments in determining consensus. And you've mentioned the essay WP:HARM several times, but never defined what the actual harm is in including his name in the article or the talk page for that matter, can you explain your thought process on that, even if it's just your opinion or speculation, I'd be interested in hearing it. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaidnoway (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The judge indicated, following conviction and sentencing, that publishing this name would "create a real risk of prejudice to the defendant's fair trial rights".[15] Maybe you know better than the judge, but this clearly suggests an ongoing process could be affected. Prejudicing a fair trial can disrupt, delay, invalidate, and otherwise affect legal processes and other people involved in them. Who and how is something we don't know, but it's a stretch to claim to know that it's nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see Isaidnoway lobbying to "out" the parties with NZ name suppression in Queenstown suppressed indecency case or Larnoch Road murders. Why the focus on this case? Muzilon (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the judge did not indicate that specific reason you quoted. The source says "The reasons for the order and the legal arguments made by both the Crown and defence are also suppressed". So you don't know the specific reason for the name suppression. The only quote attributed to the judge in that article says the man's name would remain suppressed "until further order of the court". The source also goes on to list eight potential reasons for name suppression, none of which you know to be the specific reason, because the reasons for the order are suppressed. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that it involves a bit more reading - on this page, the linked article, and another linked in that article. On 21 Feb 2020, after sentencing: "the Herald can report that the reasons are the same and have not changed since last year's trial." On 21 Nov 2019: "[During the trial the judge] allowed media to report that continued name suppression was because [fair trial rights..]"[16] As you know, this is one of the reasons specified in law, with the addition that it applies to the defendant's trial rights. But let's assume I've got this wrong and that we don't actually know the specific reason, and it could be one of the others, such as "endanger the safety of any person" - that could be even worse, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you just link to the article in your first reply, or for that matter in your second reply. If the suppression order was because of fair trial rights, his trial is over, been convicted and sentenced. There's now no reason for WP to continue to censor his name. His case has now been heard in the appellate court and is awaiting decision there. In relation to my nonsense comment, this source says that The lives of a family ripped apart in a "barbaric way" by a lying killer received justice today, which appears to negate the oppose argument based on family denied justice. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The one article you're linking to doesn't say, as the other one does, that the potential to prejudice fair trial rights continues after both conviction and sentencing. That's really the point I'm making above. It clearly suggests a continuing process which could be affected (and nowhere does it say it relates to this trial). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

WP reports information that we know per RS and V, and then WP updates content when new sourced information becomes available. We know he was convicted and sentenced, we know his name has been widely disseminated, so that's what we report. This article is already rife with personal details about him, and almost every detail discussed in the murder trial, which also has the potential of prejudicing fair trial rights. Editors here seem to want to have it both ways, publish every detail about him and the murder trial, but yet leave out the name of a convicted murderer (both with the same potential), because of a law in NZ, which doesn't apply to WP. Prejudice and bias is dealt with by the courts, not by WP. In the case of fair trial rights, it can either be through a voir dire, or other court hearings to address it. If different judicial proceedings result in a seemingly contradictory outcome, or new information, then WP updates with that new information. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitious: as others on this Talk page have noted, there must be a legal reason why Mr X's name remains suppressed during the appeal, whether due to ongoing concern about "fair trial rights" (either in this case or a separate case) or some other factor; zzuuzz has linked to a number of possible reasons why name suppression may be imposed. (Curious that the European tabloids were willing to disclose the name but not the reasons for the ongoing suppression.) And although Wikipedia as a U.S. website is not subject to NZ law as such, the clause in WP:BLPNAME about giving weight to court name-suppression does not specify that it only applies to U.S. court cases. As I mentioned, WP has articles about other NZ court cases involving name suppression; it might be possible to "out" those parties with the excuse that "it's OK because I found a reliable/verifiable source, and as I don't live in NZ, I don't have to consider the legal or ethical ramifications of divulging those names". Muzilon (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you keep putting the word out in square quotes. And I've also mentioned a couple of times that editors here don't seem to really actually care about his fair trial rights, or any other ongoing concerns, as evidenced by the amount of prejudicial and biased content in the article against him. There doesn't appear to have been any consideration to the legal or ethical ramifications of divulging that information. But yet we'll draw the line at publishing a widely disseminated name of a convicted murderer. The argument seems to be, well, we can publish that prejudicial and biased information against him because it's sourced and verifiable, and not subject to a court suppression, so that's OK, but when it comes to his name, which is sourced and verifiable, but subject to court suppression, oh no, that's not OK, it's illegal in NZ. Appears to me there is a double standard being applied here. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already mentioned other WP articles such as Larnoch Road murders and Queenstown suppressed indecency case. The sordid actions of the participants with name suppression are included but their names are not – even though those names may be available in reliable/verifiable sources. If you want to out Mr X (I won't use quotation marks if that bothers you) on Wikipedia, but not those other New Zealanders... isn't that a double standard? Muzilon (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Straw man and Whataboutism and Trivial objections and of course - Pooh-pooh. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OTHER. Could it be that in the case of "Mr Q" (as I shall call the Queenstown person) and the Larnoch Road murders, Wikipedia is following the BLPNAME policy that it is often preferable to omit a name that has been intentionally concealed in a court case? And if so, why should Wikipedia not follow that policy in this case? Muzilon (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Or alternatively, could it be because those two articles have consensus not to add the names - consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. A quick look at their talk pages, show no voiced disagreement, no content disputes, no RfCs ever being conducted. That's the way I see it. So no, I don't consider it to be a double standard on my part to participate as an uninvolved editor in a publicized RfC at this article, where there is a content dispute, while at the same time not going to those articles and engaging in disruptive behavior by editing against consensus. And I've already explained to you why my argument for inclusion of his name is compliant with BLPNAME. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I beg to differ with your interpretation of BLPNAME. Anyway, this RfC is going to set an interesting precedent, that's for sure. Muzilon (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Cautious Oppose, there seems to be a bigger issue here, which no one has tackled - which is whether WP has the right to overrule local law and convention without good reason. No offence to US editors, but I have known instances when US media's disregard for UK sub judice rules and UK sensitivities has been crass beyond belief, equally UK citizens sometimes view US legal processes (O J Simpson trial?) as being sometimes a media circus, and sometimes little better than a 'public lynching' (Central Park jogger case?) - OK don't get back to me to remind me of gross British miscarriages of justice, my point is that many countries atempt to balance the public right to know with other considerations - such as the guarantee of a fair trial, therefore WP claiming some 'universal right' to know/watch/name has to be exercised with caution. There have been instance on WP - when dealing with the actions of secretive, corrupt or authoritarian judiciaries for example - when I would put 'public interest' over judicial or local sensitivity, but in this case, how is the reader informed by knowing the perpetrator is Jack Sproggs, aged XY, originally from Hicksville? Essentially it's trivia to 99.9% of readers.Pincrete (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a reader, I don't find the names of convicted murderers, convicted sex offenders, convicted of financial fraud, etc. to be trivial information, I want to know the names of murderers and sex offenders, and as an employer, I want to know those names as well. When their names are censored due to a suppression order, the public is vulnerable to these unidentified criminals being able to do it again, the public needs a heads up to be cautious around them. It is valuable information, not trivial. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like we may be veering into WP:ADVOCACY. By way of further actual WP precedent, see Talk:Death of Baby P, where consensus was not to name the guilty parties until after name-suppression was lifted by the British courts. Muzilon (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And here is precedent of the public being vulnerable to these unidentified criminals being able to do it again. In NZ, a woman who was granted name suppression — she had previously been convicted of a substantial fraud under a different name, was granted name suppression of that name, changed her name, and went on to defraud the Ministry of Transport of more than $726,000. As others have pointed out, WP doesn't even know the reason for the name suppression, could be several reasons, so WP doesn't even know if the name suppression will ever be lifted. But what WP does know per WP:RS and WP:V, is his name and that he has been convicted of the murder of Millane. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

WP doesn't appear to have an article about that fraud case, so I'm now getting a whiff of WP:ACTIVIST or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We might not be happy that the killers of James Bulger (who does have a WP article) got permanent suppression for their name changes either, but that's the way the legal cookie crumbled. As for Millane's killer, I personally think it unlikely that his name suppression will be permanent. And it's not impossible that his conviction might be downgraded to manslaughter on appeal – horrifying though that prospect may seem to many. Muzilon (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If you'll notice, and keeping WP:AGF in mind with your unsubstantiated whiffs, the original comment I replied to, speculated and asked → how is the reader informed by knowing the perpetrator is Jack Sproggs, aged XY, originally from Hicksville? Essentially it's trivia to 99.9% of readers. I merely answered that speculation with examples of how the reader is informed by knowing the names of convicted criminals and that info is not trivial, and in my follow-up reply to your comment, provided a reliably sourced example of the public being vulnerable to these unidentified criminals being able to do it again. There's certainly not anything wrong or suspicious about a rebuttal to a comment (speculation) in this discussion, as evidenced by your rebuttals. I haven't accused you of being an activist or any other WP label, I'd appreciate the same good faith. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

When I gave examples (above) of other cases of WP (apparently) deferring to name suppression you accused me of "Straw man, Whataboutism, Trivial objections, and of course - Pooh-pooh". Actually, I think the articles I mentioned are examples of WP:OTHER, which says WP should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Kind regards, Muzilon (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As name suppression has now been lifted I guess this RfC is now entirely redundant. Would an admin care to close it off? Muzilon (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I was right about the reasons for his continued name suppression, he was facing other serious charges. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Molloy affair

On 7 February 2020, Auckland businessman Leo Molloy was identified as the individual who had breached the suppression order preventing the name of Millane's murderer from being made public.

Problems here – the wording seems to imply that Molloy was solely responsible for all the leaks, when the two sources cited don't appear to specify that was so. (He may have been just one of several parties.) Also, Molloy hasn't yet been sentenced and is applying for discharge without conviction, so his case is still technically sub judice.[17] Muzilon (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback... I've just updated that paragraph. Muzilon (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a redirect pointing to this article. The discussion will occur at RfD September 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

POV - Legal Aid

Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to representation in NZ law (and in any other civilized country too), and for those without the means to pay for a lawyer legal aid is considered a right, not a privilege, right up to the appeal stage. Civics 101. The whole "Taxpayers coughed up $400k" thing is POV and pandering to the Newstalk ZB talkback redneck crowd. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

By way of comparison, the David Bain article also has a subheading called "Cost To The Taxpayer". Although he was acquitted on the retrial, of course. Muzilon (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

say his name Jesse Kempson

BBC has officially lifted the banned on Jesse Kempson .

Jesse Kempson, 28, can now be named after a court order banning his identification was lifted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-55346213

--Wisdood (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

BBC doesn't "officially" decide that, NZ courts do. It's just that some international media apparently don't respect NZ courts. And no don't say his name. Forget you ever heard his name. Grace Millane is the only name that deserves to be remembered. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and pic

Do we really need them? I removed them on the basis that this is an article about a murder, not a biography of Grace Millane. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Drunk driving conviction and drunk/disorderly arrests

Include mention or not? I'm ok with leaving them out altogether, or simply mentioning them as evidence that his previous offences were minor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC) And @Qualitycontrolling, if grammar is the issue then fix it. And please don't insult me in your edit summaries. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove this sourced information? Qualitycontrolling (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not particularly relevant and is just normal youthful misbehaviour rather than serious offending. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant. It was mentioned in a reliable source profiling the accused. Your opinion that "normal youthful misbehaviour" results in criminal records is irrelevant (and disturbing). Stop removing sourced information and trying to downplay criminal behaviour. Qualitycontrolling (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant how? All it shows is that he probably had some issues with alcohol. So what? So do lots of people. Most of them don't murder young women. And please, once again, quit the personal attacks, especially in edit summaries. This is a core principle of wikipedia and if you ignore it you are likely to find yourself blocked. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note, this editor has been banned for sock puppetry and chronic incivility, and is listed under WP:LTA as "Best Known For IP".

Regarding the content issue, I would appreciate some feedback from other editors. I have, of course, no intention whatsoever of "whitewashing", or else why would I restore the references to his rape and sexual assault convictions to the lead? However, it seems to me that low-level alcohol-related offending is not evidence of serious criminality, and is certainly not an indicator that this person is a threat to young women. For this reason I don't consider it particularly relevant background information. Far more relevant is evidence by people who knew him, such as his former softball team mates, who commented on his behaviour and attitudes towards women. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I also generally support a rewrite along the lines of this edit by User:PuzzleSolved999, with a few style and grammar fixes (PS999 is a native Spanish speaker). I've been saying for a while now, this article should not be treated as a biography of Grace Millane, but as an article about a crime. "The article has been like this for X years" is, of course, not a valid argument. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)