GrayhamWebb

Right to be forgotton

... applies to internet search engine results. Why on earth you should think it applies to Wikipedia editors I have no idea. Welcome to Wikipedia. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the 'right to be forgotton' is an application of various sections of GDPR. It is applied to search engines when someone wishes links to their criminal convictions not to show up (and other news stories, a criminal conviction is not actually required). It does not apply to any of the websites that those links are to, normally newspapers or other databases. The reason for this is reported news is a historical record, and the 'right to erasure' (under GDPR) has a public interest exception when it comes to most news reporting. As an encyclopedia relying on publically accessible published documents, Wikipedia is not even remotely close to being subject to GDPR with regards to being forgotton, or erasure. This has nothing to do with where Wikipedia is hosted, or editors being around the world, GDPR just does not apply to Wikipedia in this particular case. Now Google and other search engines could hide all links within the EU to the various news articles that report Frampton's criminal past, you could even attempt to argue they should hide any search results that point to the wikipedia article because it contains details of his criminal past. This would be unlikely to get anywhere at all, given Frampton has published a book about his smuggling and (presumably) made money off the back of it. Its also unlikely he has, or will succeed with a RTBF case, given google at this moment is serving to me, in the EU, many many many results for 'Paul Frampton Smuggler' and has done for the last 7 years or so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, GrayhamWebb. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Paul Frampton, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I dont know if you really are Paul F as you claim, but dont edit that page any more, just in case. Thanks. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Olssen report

Contact a newspaper, lodge an appeal in Argentina etc. Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary documents. If the report was published by a third party peer reviewed journal, that would be one thing. If it was included as part of a story in a newspaper on an appeal against the conviction, fine. But by itself, its a paid-for report and falls under unpublished primary document. Which we dont use. In fact our BLP policy would explicitly prohibit using it regardless of its conclusions. If the report had (hypothetically) reached the opposite conclusion "It was totally Frampton, he wrote those texts" we still wouldnt use it without it being published in a reliable format that satisfies our policy requirements. I suggest you contact a PR specialist to get some advice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I will also add. Do not ping admins to a page where you have made outright smears against another living person. It is a terrible idea. I have removed the comments from view as the chances of you getting what you want at this time are nonexistant, and while they remain, the chances of you being blocked and unable to communicate at all are significantly higher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)