3125:. There is actually very few of such contemporary cases over here - for the benefit of our American editors who may mistakenly assume that there are currently controversial miscarriage cases in the UK frequently like there is in a massive country like the USA. Likewise, I cannot agree that it is casting a net too wide to link even more specifically to previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a campaign to free an individual but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later. That is clearly not casting a wide net, since such public cases with such outcomes are indeed very rare (and even more rare in the UK), but are comparable to the Michael Stone case as it has been characterised by a years-long and very public campaign to free him, but he is still being ruled guilty by legal bodies to this day decades later. To not recognise the similarities between these very specific cases is, in my view, symptomatic of outside editors being unaware of the background of the Stone case and what it is currently defined by - the decades-long and uniquely very public debate over whether it's a miscarriage followed by legal bodies repeatedly concluding that it is not. I agree with the TrueCrimefan22's sentiments above that the Michael Weir case can be jettisoned since it does lack that public campaign element, but that the others are more relevant since they involved similar public miscarriage campaigns with specifically comparable aspects
2811:. If it was just about linking to claimed miscarriage of justice cases in the UK then I would obviously oppose, since you would be right to say that that casts the net far too wide. But it isn't about that. Those entries are linked much more specifically to previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later. That is clearly not casting a wide net, since such public cases with such outcomes are indeed very rare (and even more rare in the UK, compared to somewhere else like the USA), but are comparable to the Michael Stone case as it has been characterised by a years-long and very public campaign to free him, but he is still being ruled guilty by legal bodies to this day decades later. To not recognise the similarities between these very specific and narrowly-defined cases is, in my view, symptomatic of outside editors being unaware of the background of the Stone case and what it is currently defined by - the decades-long and uniquely very public debate over whether it's a miscarriage followed by legal bodies repeatedly concluding that it is not. I agree with TrueCrimefan22's sentiments that the Michael Weir case can be jettisoned since it does lack that public campaign element, but that the others are more relevant since they involved similar public miscarriage campaigns with specifically comparable aspects
3087:- If there's anything 'non-neutral' here, it's Sirfurboy's motive in coming here to whitewash this content and previously claiming he had a consensus to do so, when no other editors were advocating for the deletion of the whole section and after his deletion was itself challenged. Sirfurboy spent many days recently clashing with me and Snugglewasp on another unrelated article, and then magically appeared to revert Snugglewasp's edit on this new page, presumably from looking at their edit contributions (which I'm not saying is illegitimate to do on here, but clearly he has a COI-style desire to oppose his adversaries' edits wherever). And the fact is that it is very misleading to pose this as a question of whether we should "add" this content as Sirfurboy has portrayed it as, with it actually being longstanding existing content that he has come on here after his clashes with other editors to challenge. It would be more accurate to introduce this RfC with "should we delete this content".
714:
3413:. It's unlikely you'll be able to reel off a list of cases that come under that very specific and narrow definition, let alone ones with their own article. It's not about linking to cases that are claimed miscarriages, because correct, if that was the criteria we'd be here all day. It's about linking to very specific, similar cases and precedents where a very public, years-long miscarriage campaign has ensued but have ultimately still ended with a conclusion of guilt. That is what the Michael Stone case is quite unique in these days, and linking to the very few other cases which have ended as such and have a separate article is not going to be endless. It's going to be links to a just a few relevant tangentially related previous cases and precedents, which is absolutely in fitting with what a see also section should include.
2939:. Now, I would be interested to hear you reel off a list of cases that come under that very specific and narrow definition. It's not about linking to cases that are claimed miscarriages, because you are correct, if that was the criteria we'd be here all day. It's about linking to very specific, similar cases and precedents where a very public, years-long miscarriage campaign has ensued but have ultimately still ended with a presumption of guilt. That is what the Michael Stone case is quite unique in these days, and linking to the very few other cases which have ended as such and have a separate article is not going to be endless. It's going to be links to a just a few relevant tangentially related previous cases, which is absolutely in fitting with what a see also section should include.
3625:. I've said that Truecrimefan22 makes a valid point that the Weir case wasn't really a wide public campaign, so I agree with him that that one could be jettisoned. But the point is not that the cases are linked because of the 'unsuccessful appeals' aspects, it's the large public interest aspect. Because of the Barrie and Hall cases being well known due to their previous very visible campaigns, that is why there was such interest in them. Same with the Stone case. Stone's case = a very uniquely visible campaign for freedom that's ended (as of 2023) on an unsuccessful note years later. The Hall and Barrie cases? The same. Add that to the fact that the Hall and Stone cases were explicitly spoken about in reliable sources together during their campaigns:
3709:"Stone's case = a very uniquely visible campaign for freedom that's ended (as of 2023) on an unsuccessful note years later. The Hall and Barrie cases? The same." Although I have no real opinion on the non-Weir entries in the section, I have to point out that this justification doesn't really work. Stone's case is actually still ongoing, as the CCRC is conducting a fresh review of his conviction that may or may not result in a different conclusion. It's also inaccurate to say that attempts to overturn Barrie's conviction ended in failure. Rather, Barrie's conviction was successfully quashed only for him to be convicted of another unrelated offence.
2019:) that is nothing to do with miscarriages of justice and was simply linked due to its similarities and very close time proximity to the case, which is why parallels were drawn between the cases in the media. In no way does this fit with any argument that it needs to be removed because of POV surrounding miscarriages of justice. And further, I do not agree that linking to cases where a person was apparently guilty can be equated to the POV of linking to linking to obvious miscarriages of justice to suggest he might be innocent. Stone
2599:'maybe innocent' cases and 'maybe guilty' cases. The solution I think would be to maybe add another current suggested miscarriage of justice case to redress the fact that there are three 'maybe guilty' ones and one 'maybe innocent' one, but deleting the whole section is in my view is not necessary, especially considering the first entry is nothing to do with the miscarriage of justice element of this discussion and so shouldn't come under an arbitrary deletion of all content.
2451:- The page is a biography of a convicted criminal in the UK. There is discussion of whether the conviction is safe, but the conviction has not been overturned. The selection of the see also targets lists has no objective basis and at some point three of the targets have been chosen to point to criminals where arguments were made that they had not committed the crimes only for them to be later shown to have done so. In April this year, an editor pointed out the POV issue with:
591:
570:
755:
shouting the fact to him from the next door cell whilst awaiting trial. Er, that's it. That's the evidence. It is known that Stone had suffered for many years from mental instability. He knew it himself, and had asked to be taken into the care of an institution. He was refused, for the reasons given in the article, viz, his condition was regarded as untreatable, so under
English law, they couldn't detain him, even at his own request. Fairlightseven 18/12/08
3495:@MeltingDistrict: This is an RfC. The question is neutrally posed, and I think it is clear. Should the current see also section, as it is, remain in the article. An RfC is a discussion, and a useful outcome would be a clear steer on how a see also could be constructed. This would be useful if the result is "no, the current see also should not remain asis". The closer of the RfC will normally take such points into consideration in their close summary.
601:
2617:- I would suggest the removal of Michael Weir specifically. Unlike the other people mentioned, Weir was never the subject of anything that could be described as a "campaign" to overturn the conviction; he appealed and had the conviction quashed on procedural grounds. Nobody other than his legal team advocated for him and the press did not take up his claim of innocence. The relevance of this case to Michael Stone is thus negligible at best.
3762:- This see also section was added by a sockpuppet and repeatedly defended by sockpuppets of the same sockmaster and blocks have now been issued. I have thus requested this RfC be closed. However, I believe there is useful guidance here from editors who have commented in good faith about what should or shouldn't be in a see also, and would thank all who offered that. I'll leave it for an uninvolved editor to sum that up as they see fit.
1964:
miscarriage of justice. But the reverse is also true if we link a bunch of cases where a potential miscarriage of justice was suggested and then someone admitted it or was proven guilty. We cannot have POV in the see also section (or anywhere). See also would have to be something that is unequivocally relevant and related without POV. I don't know what that could be, and I don't know why we need a see also section.
113:
95:
2502:, it is the official position which we must follow, and by no means is it the same as 'suggesting' he is innocent, as that would be to contradict the rulings of a court of law (and subsequently several other legal bodies). So you are right, it would constitute an improper non-official spin to suggest that this case must be an unrecognised miscarriage of justice, but suggesting that the case is
2027:, it is the official position which we must follow, and by no means is it the same as 'suggesting' he is innocent, as that would be to contradict the rulings of a court of law (and subsequently several other legal bodies). So you are right, that would constitute a non-official spin that suggests that this case must be an unrecognised miscarriage of justice, but suggesting that the case is
3479:) so I asked: should the section be kept ASIS (and I pasted the current see also section, the ASIS version). That was the neutral question. I then explained why I oppose keeping the section ASIS. I have never opposed any See Also, but I do believe having nothing would be better than the status quo. But I welcome an RfC outcome that allows us to build a neutral and useful see also.
289:
1813:, as you have clearly followed me there after disagreeing with my edits on this article. I would hope that in future I do not have to worry about the possibility of you reverting edits I make on other articles which you have almost never edited before because you are stalking my contributions list! In any case I hope we can both agree as editors to come to terms with each other.
299:
268:
1829:
confession of another person convincing and I think the conviction is sound. But what matters is that this is what the sources overwhelmingly support. I did look at your contributions list: making a clean start you should perhaps expect some scrutiny of your contributions. Always happy to engage, as you have done, in the issues and improving the ‘pedia. With all respect,
64:
679:
204:
183:
3154:
relatively quickly identified and arrested; in the
Bushell and Bryant cases no real progress has been made in 25 years. If parallels between the two cases have been discussed in reliable sources then we could potentially include it in the article; if they haven't then maybe we shouldn't be linking it as a "similar" case in the see also section.
3613:, you have again misrepresented my argument after I have done my best to explain this to you and others here a number of times in the clearest possible terms - so I am given to wondering whether you are doing so purposely at this point in order to try and negate my point in the hope of a favourable close summary. You claim my argument is that
2708:. The Michael Stone case is currently defined by the debate about whether it is a miscarriage of justice or not. So linking to notable UK cases in which there is a debate about whether they do or do not constitute miscarriages is absolutely tangentially related. But I do agree with Truecrimefan that Michael Weir could be removed.
3724:
the crime! Hall's appeal was based on alleged weaknesses of the forensic evidence; Barrie's was based on exculpatory CCTV evidence; Stone's is based on claims that key witnesses lied, and on
Bellfield's subsequent confession. Barrie and Hall both had support from miscarriage of justice campaigners; Stone doesn't seem to have.
3272:. The point is that no one has provided any citations as to why links to various people who were acquitted and then went on to kill are in anyway relevant to this case. Do you really mean to support inclusion of Simon Hall, Ernest Barrie and Michael Weir in the see also here? Or do you mean that you support inclusion of
123:
3723:
Indeed. The cases are pretty distinct: Stone's case is currently being reviewed and he continues to maintain his innocence, Hall's conviction was upheld and he later admitted his guilt, and Barrie's conviction was overturned when it was concluded that the CCTV evidence showed someone else committing
2094:
unequivocal as you have portrayed it as, since they say above that they are "open minded" and that they actually see the positives of the section as well as the negatives. It is also then not true that I am "the only one contesting for its retention at this point" - Truecrimefan22 chose to retain the
1939:
I don't really see an issue, the see also section exists to link to related or comparable articles, those that are tangentially related. The
Michael Stone case is these days essentially defined by the debate of it being a miscarriage of justice, so related links on contentious miscarriages of justice
1756:
you suddenly appear when there is news about
Bellfield confessing and decide to remove any suggestion of him being a suspected serial killer. Indeed you are correct that personal views are irrelevant, therefore I would invite you to explain why you think we should go against Knowledge (XXG) standards
1697:
Thank you for engaging. Please do not assume my views - as it happens you are completely wrong,and I invite you to delete your assumptions in your comments above. In any case, personal views are irrelevant: the man is guilty of those murders in the eyes of the law, and we must reflect that verdict.
773:
The article suggests that proposals to incarcerate people labelled as suffering from
Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder have been dropped. This is incorrect. Indeed in the new legislation currently before the house it is the need for conditions to be treatable before mandatory incapacitation can
3687:
It was The Gnome that did a similar misrepresentation before, I meant that you have repeated their mistake and done a very similar thing again, perhaps you did not read where I clarified to him before? I think in general you should avoid trying to represent other people's points in your own way like
3186:
In fairness, comparisons between the Bryant/Russell cases were directly made on the national
Crimewatch episode that month, the one around the same time as Micheal Stone was convicted. So they were both in the news and compared at the time. In general I also support leaving the see also ones as they
2225:
The status quo is to leave the article as it has been for years, not to revert it back to your version which lasted five days. Your edit has been challenged, the page is restored to the status quo while it is discussed and if and when you can demonstrate a clear consensus. Even if three editors have
2099:
are contesting for those specific two entries to be removed. As a result, you re-establishing your favoured version with the unnuanced claim that others unequivocally support you and you have a clear consensus is clearly misleading and not appropriate, and so I once again ask that you self-revert as
1917:
I mean, after an article about Biden will we have "see also: senile psychopath wreaks havoc" In short, how are these cases linked to the Stone case and what on earth is the reason for listing them when they have in common that there had been a misguided and totally incorrect notoin of a miscarriage
1647:
To remove the statement that Stone is a suspected serial killer based on the words of Levi
Bellfield is clearly wrong. Stone is still legally the man who is responsible for the Russell murders. If his conviction gets quashed then by all means, remove the suspected serial killer description, since he
1149:
The circumstantial evidence against Stone, such as that he was known to steal lawnmowers and a lawnmower had been reported stolen in that area, is vacuous, also. I can find a report of a stolen lawnmower in any district of
England you wish, obviously. For the police to have done that is fine, but if
942:
If you are going to delete a reference or make an edit use the talk page to first discus your intentions beforehand with other editors. This is common courtesy. Don't assume that you know best and that you have a right to interfere with contributions from other editors - otherwise you will be banned
850:
The article does not make clear whether in fact Damian Daley was in fact found guilty of the offense for which he was on remand or, if so, what sentence he got - or indeed what sentence would have been normal for such an offense by a career criminal with his record. This information is important to
788:
However, the issue which really mattered, but which was not made clear to the jury, was the screamingly obvious fact that even if Stone had shouted his confession from the rooftops for the whole world to hear, it wouldn't have made the confession any more credible in proving that he was actually the
2493:
case, which is apparently simply linked due to its similarities and very close time proximity to the
Russell case, is nothing to do with the miscarriage of justice argument, in no way does this fit with any argument that it needs to be removed because of POV surrounding miscarriages of justice. And
2045:
I removed the whole section with an edit summary that included "These are indiscriminate," a point I have made above. They are all indiscriminate, because they are selected by individual editor preference and knowledge. I did not remove them all because they are all about miscarriages of justice, I
1912:
I'm a bit confused why there is a 'see also' section which lists apparent miscarriages of justice when the convict ended up proven guilty anyway. Is it a weird back-door type of NPOV or am I just being paranoid? Does the section suggest that non-circumstantial evidence will be found against Stone?
1357:
is a little odd even if he is guilty of the second murder, though it does just about fit the definition. This edit therefore (a) re-orders the material to a more logical order, and (b) sticks to the bare facts of the suspicion of one other murder. My earlier edit to this effect was reverted by an
1129:
Just to add more to this, I looked into the early press reports, saying that a Psychiatric nurse had reported Stone having said that he feels like killing someone, a week or so before the Chillenden murders. In fact he had said that he felt like killing *particular people who had wronged him in the
1043:
I have invited Off2riorob to use the appropriate forum such as the discussion page before unilaterally removing contributions from other editors without providing an acceptable reason, but he has not provided any such reasoning. Simply pressing the delete button is not what one calls editing. Where
899:
Can the editor who is deleting the external link to the MichaelStone site please stop vandalising this page? The link is a reliable link to more resources about the case whether or not you agree with the content. We're not here to act as a censor based on our small paltry subjective opinion of what
812:
There is no longer a requirement that treatments actually work, nor is there a requirement that patients participate in the treatment (ex: with taking therapies and other therapies that require active participation by the patient), merely that the treatment is considered appropriate, and is readily
3408:
has noticed above, this discussion is not about; it is whether to keep the current version. Also, it should be further clarified to the few editors who think that this discussion as about whether to just link to miscarriages cases in general - that is not the case. The point is that other than the
3295:
People are acquitted because there isn't the evidence to convict them, or to sustain a conviction on review. That doesn't mean they're angels, pure of heart, or incapable of offending later. You imply that Ernest Barrie was "acquitted only to go on on to offend again" (emphasis mine), when in fact
2791:
Apologies for the wrong call. Edited your signature in. The point, however, still stands: There are many murder cases where a miscarriage of justice has been claimed. Citing them all, or even a token portion of them, does not provide any useful information or understanding. Each case is different.
2070:
Therefore, you are just as complicit in edit warring here, and I return your request for me to not edit war with a polite request to you to self-revert and restore the content to the status quo while it is being discussed, if you are interested in avoiding further edit wars. In any case, you claim
1765:
the definition of suspected serial killer, no ifs no buts. That's not original research, it's just the letter of the law. It is not appropriate to put your own personal spin on it, it is not down to personal opinion, it is down to the fact that he has been convicted of two murders committed in one
1720:
As to his being a serial killer: I did not find this suspicion in any of the sources (but you may know better). It is certainly sourced that he is suspected of committing another murder, and so my edit included that in the lede. But to go beyond that to declaring him a suspected serial killer is
1133:
Also, the conjectured motive (that he saw a happy family and was consumed by jealously over the fact that he had been brought up in care) is unsupported by evidence, while the motive for Bellfield (that Josie had caught his eye and then looked away, as had incited Bellfield to kill other women) is
3153:
that similar. Bushell and Bryant were a teenager and an adult woman killed in two separate knife attacks some distance and nearly a year apart; the Russells were an adult woman and her two pre-teen children all attacked with a hammer in a single incident. In the Russell case the perpetrator was
1661:
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, point B is clearly misleading since a suspected serial killer and a serial killer are two very different terms. If this debate was about describing Stone as a serial killer in the opening line then I would obviously object. The way you have worded that point
1141:
It was maybe worse that this evidence was suppressed, and not given to the jury, as the jury knowing that there is some mysterious reason why Dr. Sugarman put Stone's name forward could leave an unanswered question in their mind. Of course, an unanswered question shouldn't go towards establishing
3452:
and provide a useful article even if the links to other articles are very tenuous. As a reader, I would rather have an article that links to some very tangentially related article in this space than one that omit one with an obvious relationship. I see this space as providing the reader with the
2954:
Fine, let's take this avenue instead. You are now claiming that the Michael Stone case is "quite unique", yet you insist we should have in the "See also" section links to other cases. Methinks you do not realize the meaning of the term "unique." But even more importantly, could you clarify which
2169:
how long are you just going to follow other editors you don't like to other pages and revert them? One editor, you, wants to remove the content entirely, while two (including me if it's not already obvious) are against this, while two others are either undecided or want a partial removal of the
1280:
I agree that the article's current title leaves a lot to be desired. "Murder of Lin Russell" doesn't quite cover it, since she wasn't the only victim, and Stone's conviction hasn't been overturned (yet). If his conviction is overturned, then there would be clear grounds to change the article to
754:
Well, I for one regard his conviction as unsafe, since no evidence of any kind was presented to the court or jury to indicate even his presence at or near the crime scene. The only evidence was that another convicted criminal, known to be a pathological liar, claimed that Stone had confessed by
3281:
is possible, but only to agree that the current one suffers from a POV issue and can be removed. A good outcome of this RfC would be if editors provide a guideline for how a suitable section could be constructed, and I would commend your suggestion that citations should show that the cases are
1828:
Happy with your proposed compromise edit, if you wish to make it, or I can. To be honest I have no memory of editing this article 9 years ago - though if you say I did then I’m sure that’s right. It was the recent publicity which drew my attention to it. For what it’s worth I don’t find the
1963:
which has a UK section, but there remains a POV issue in linking that, in that those are listed cases recognised as miscarriages of justice, where as Stone's case is merely debated as one. Thus I don't think that would do. Linking that would be POV suggesting that this must be an unrecognised
1137:
The fact that Dr. P. Sugarman had alerted authorities to the similarity between the photofit and Stone's appearance was perhaps known to both the jury and the jury in the retrial. This perhaps may have made the jury wonder what is the underlying reason a figure of authority in the Psychiatric
2197:
The one following editors around is you. You have never edited this page before, but you pop in here to revert contested material into an article against ONUS, apparently because I was the one to challenge it. And in case it is not clear, as three editors have objected to it, your reversion
879:
See also the case of Omar Benguit where the police and CPS relied exclusively on the testimony of crack heads to gain a murder conviction - and that conviction was gained only after a THIRD attempt on a 2nd re-trial - so the defendant had to face three trials in total. That is what you call
3577:
he supports the idea of the links remaining because the descriptions provided help explain how the other articles are related, and that they should therefore be kept with those accompanying apt descriptions. He then suggests that if there are citations that might further help identify the
2462:
see also section that has a list of editor selected cases does not have a suitable objective basis for case selection to withstand arguments of bias - conscious or otherwise. Without objective selection criteria for the cases that ensure neutrality, I oppose any such see also section.
3588:, which involved discussing both the Stone and Simon Hall cases and their relevant CCRC appeals at a time when the Simon Hall case was similarly thought to be a miscarriage case like with Stone. If there are reliable sources which mention the Stone and Hall cases in the same breath,
2133:
STATUSQUO comes from an essay, and I don't think I departed from it, as it was you who reverted material in, despite the discussion. In any case ONUS is a core policy. I challenged the content and we now must wait for the consensus to emerge. Let's see what other editors think.
851:
assessing Daley's credibility. Also the fact that the witness who admitted lying had also fabricated a confession, should be made clearer. After all, the fact that the police accepted and made use of a fabricated confession indicates how determined they were to convict Stone.
758:
The article says some people still hold Stone's conviction as unsafe, however, the only evidence is this is from newspaper articles from 1999 - long before the more recent legal proceedings. I believe the statement should be removed unless more recent evidence can be produced.
1138:
profession would put Stone's name forward. Sugarman said it was only the match of the photofit that he was going by. Surely he was aware of the fact that Stone was from roughly the same area of Britain and that he had confessed homicidal feelings to his Psychiatric nurse.
3156:
In general, I think that linking specific other crimes in the see also section is a pretty questionable business – there's always a question about why we have chosen those specific ones. In this case, I would consider the most obvious candidate for a see also link to be
3245:
keeping the links to the other articles in this section, provided the descriptions that explain how the other articles are related is also retained. Perhaps add citations to sources that also identify there are relationships between the articles, so that this can be
2671:
but that would cast an unacceptably wide net. A relation between two crimes, for example, would be about both culprits getting caught through some identical yet uncommon method or happenstance, e.g. DNA identification after more than a decade or so after the crime.
1494:
of two murders and is suspected of one more. On Knowledge (XXG) crime articles, it is standard to begin with descriptions of suspected serial killers with the description of them as suspected serial killers. That is why the category suspected serial killers exists
1489:
Both of those points you have raised are completely misleading. To ask whether we should "start with the conviction or the suspicion" is bizarre, since the article stating in the opening line that he is a suspected serial killer covers the fact that he has been
2001:. You are the only one contesting for its retention at this point. That is a small but clear consensus against inclusion. I have reverted this now. Please do not edit war it back in without first establishing a consensus on what should be in that section here.
1774:, indicating that you previously accepted the fact that it is proper to describe him as such. In order to clear up any confusion about whether someone 'really' is a serial killer if they have only killed on two occasions, the best example to look at would be
3165:
has been suspected, but we haven't included that. My inclination would be that in contentious cases like this see also sections are just asking for trouble and we shouldn't include them, or at least shouldn't include specific cases in them; if for instance
1781:
The concerns you have appear to have are that as you think that as Stone is best known for being convicted of killing the Russells, you believe that should be the first thing stated in the article. Therefore, I suggest a compromise. The first lines should
872:
Damien Daley is irrelevant to the case because even if Michael Stone had confessed to the prisoner Governor, there would still have been no value in the confession - it merely repeated what had been publioshed in the national press on 23rd September 1997.
3508:
That is not what is in the see also section. The last three entries are selected apparently to make a POV point about Stone's appeal. Why else would we have a link to a case, and state its relation here is that they were acquitted only to go on and kill
3370:, etc. We get to assess usefulness by the relevancy criterion, which has already been discussed at length in this RfC. I completely agree with you about putting the reader first and believe that the best way to serve the readers' requirements is to have
1794:
in 1960) is a British man who was convicted of the 1996 murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell, and who is a suspected serial killer. He was sentenced to three life sentences with a tariff of 25 years for the Russell
1227:
Regarding my earlier comment which said "journalists had a very serious responsibility here," just speaking as the Knowledge (XXG) editor who made that comment in the past, I would like to thank the BBC 2 crew for living up to that responsibility.
2639:, and I thank you for making a much more nuanced and reasonable suggestion. One way to balance it out could be to add one more 'probably innocent' case, but equally I think removing that one as one of the 'probably guilty' cases is also valid.
1221:
OK since the program is not available via the BBC website, I included another reference, and a single-line summary of the program from Daily Telegraph. I have now seen the program on youtube, but realize that youtube is not an appropriate
730:
3448:" section is a standard heading for Knowledge (XXG) articles, removing the heading does not make sense, and removing the content, particularly if it has been long-standing, does not make sense either. In this case I think editors need to
1760:
I find it completely ironic that you state that "personal views are irrelevant", then set out your own personal stance on whether Michael Stone does not meet the definition of suspected serial killer. Let us be clear here, Michael Stone
3501:
This is not nearly as rare as you suppose. Commons committee evidence in 2021 revealed there were currently 1700 prisoners in the HM Prison system in the UK who were in this position, 96% continuing to maintain innocence beyond tariff.
3302:). See our text for Michael Weir. We are still doing it. So, again, thank you for what you say, and I think the point you make is quite right, but I wonder whether this is not so much a "support" as a "comment - how it should be done".
2400:– unsolved similar, and contemporary, high-profile random murders of a child and a mother out walking with their dogs in 1997 and 1998 respectively. Bryant was murdered three days before Stone was first convicted of the Russell killings
1958:
If there is a relevant see also section it must not be indiscriminate or subject to POV. So if miscarriage of justice is the relevant related issue then a see also to a curated list of miscarriages of justice could be relevant. We have
1498:, to classify and record all the articles pertaining to suspected serial killers. It would make no sense whatsoever to have Stone in the category of suspected serial killers yet omit any description of him as a suspected serial killer.
3622:
are previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual, but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty (or there was a presumption of guilt) years
3866:
2934:
I'm not sure you've concluded from the full post I made that I am just arguing for entries just because they are claimed miscarriages of justice. No, and I'll repeat, I am saying that other than the first two the the entries
2861:
where a miscarriage has indeed or is suspected to have occurred, we will find in our net a lot of catch. Especially when we take into account my first point. Yet, even ignoring the "rest of the world" and focusing on the
1145:
With all the information now publicly available, it really seems that no jury would have convicted only on an unbelievable jailhouse confession through a pipe...when all the evidence supports that Stone was not involved.
1648:
would not be one. But as it stands, Stone has murdered two people and police themselves (and Stone in a confession) have stated that he is responsible for another murder. As it stands, Stone is a suspected serial killer.
1634:
The only possible reason you could have for going against regular standards and not calling Stone a suspected serial killer is that you do not think he is guilty of the Russell murders. Fine, you may think that, but as
3592:
And I think that if we used these two sources to provide further citations for the link being made, then that that would be to do exactly what Cameron is asking for: adding any extra citations to aid verifiability.
2170:
content. That is not a clear consensus or mandate for your actions, hence why I have reverted back to the stable version while you attempt to find editors other than you who wants the removal of the whole section.
1372:". With respect to the IP editor his being a convicted murderer is of more weight than his being suspected of an additional murder, and should come first. The reversion of my first edit was in turn reverted by
2667:, which is rightfully loose but still enough to help us navigate issues such as this RfC. In the murder cases suggested for inclusion in this article, I fail to see any stronger relation than the fact itself of
2594:
where there are also concerns about it being a miscarriage of justice and them being innocent, and then mentioning other cases where they were actually maybe guilty offers an element of balance by linking to
3276:
see also section, as long as it can be shown that the cases are closely connect and relevant (per Gnome et al.)? To be very clear for whoever does the close here: the intent of the RfC is not to say that no
2118:
have removed these or advocated their removal. Removing these specific entries under the auspices that there is a consensus for it is particularly incorrect and improper, and I request that you self-revert.
2494:
further, I do not agree that linking to cases where a person was apparently guilty can be equated to the POV of linking to linking to obvious miscarriages of justice to suggest he might be innocent. Stone
250:
2454:
I'm a bit confused why there is a 'see also' section which lists apparent miscarriages of justice when the convict ended up proven guilty anyway. Is it a weird back-door type of NPOV or am I just being
1113:
The disappearance of the near complete length of boot lace from police custody at a time when in the light of continuing developments in DNA research tests on it could have led to Stone’s exoneration.
817:
The bit in brackets in the above sentence does not make sense to me. I can't fix it because I don't understand what it's trying to say, and I can't access the referenced source. Please reword. Thanks,
3411:
are previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual, but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later
2937:
are previous very rare and similar UK cases where there was a similarly very-public campaign to free an individual, but where they were eventually apparently still determined to be guilty years later
3121:
Because I don't agree with this notion that it casts a net too wide to link specifically to a few fellow contemporary notable UK cases in which there has been very public miscarriage campaigns e.g.
1770:
be also determined as a serial killer clearly lacks a full understanding of what meets the definition of serial killer. It is, of course, notable that you began this thread with the admission that
3498:
You suggest that it is rare that someone would maintain innocence for years, and despite that, still remain incarcerated years later from unsuccessful appeals I have two points to maoke on that:
2924:
saying that it be right to just link to 'possible miscarriage of justice cases'. That was clearly not my point, but you've inaccurately concluded it was above by declaring that 'my argument' is
1778:. He killed four but only actually killed on two separate occasions, once in 1985 and once in 1989. Yet meets the criteria to be described as a serial killer and is rightfully described as such.
215:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1922:
I'm sure that society at large would welcome some definitive evidence one way or the other about this guy; a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence never sits reassurngly in history.
1110:
The absurdity of Stone confessing to Daley when he had just been moved into segregation at his own request to avoid contact with co-inmates who might want to allege he had confessed to them;
3836:
2955:
criterion do you seek to impose? Is it that the ostensible miscarriage of justice still prevails? In which case, who ascertains it does? Not the courts, of course, since their decision is a
216:
2046:
removed them because we have not established any objective criteria by which the see also section may be constructed. That is also why what you say about Stone's guilt is also immaterial.
1918:
of justice? I'm open minded to reading whatever reply there is about this, just sort-of mystified. Would anyone have an over-riding interest in skewing the article one way or the other?
1080:
are written by two barristers to argue for Stone's innocence and could contain a lot of references to primary sources, explanations of details like the boot-lace that was lost by police.
1757:
and exempt Michael Stone from being called a suspected serial killer when all others in the category of suspected serial killers are described as such in the first line of their article.
1662:
implies that this discussion is over whether he is a serial killer. No, it is in fact about whether the fact he has been suspected of being one should be recorded in the opening line.
1416:. Bellfield's alleged confession is interesting and has picked up a lot of media coverage, but it carries no legal weight at the moment and should not be given undue prominence in the
1641:"Bellfield's alleged confession is interesting and has picked up a lot of media coverage, but it carries no legal weight at the moment and should not be given undue prominence in the
43:
3728:
3400:- This section should be re-titled "should we delete this conten"t" anyway, since it's current wording makes it sound like the user is asking whether we should allow someone to
211:
188:
1805:
I really don't want to clash over this issue with you, but I am just concerned about the way you have come about altering my edits. Your subsequent reversion of my edit on the
2690:
for reasons already mentioned. "long-established version" is no valid argument, does not mean version is "correct". The page is poorly written and imbalanced enough already.--
2226:
objected to it - which as has been made clear is not an accurate summary of the situation - two others have objected. That is not a clear consensus and I think you know that
1150:
there is nothing linking that lawnmower to Stone the evidence should be discredited publicly too, not left hanging around newspaper reports to influence any potential jury.
1063:
The articles in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly (may be behind a pay wall but sometimes can be accessed for free if you search for them by google instead of using the link)
2529:
was added on 17 September 2022, and expanded over a few ensuing edits. It was first contested on talk on 23 April, and then contested by three different editors on 21 July
1107:
The bloodstained fingerprint on one of the girl’s lunchbox which could not have been Stone’s and was very unlikely in the circumstances to have been made by Lin Russell;
657:
3731:
and it's not clear to me why these particular ones have been chosen unless the intent is to encourage a particular viewpoint about people who appeal their convictions.
876:
If Kent police and the CPS weren't so determined to convict Stone using the testimony of prisoners, it is quite possible that Milly Dowler would still be alive today.
3106:
Can you state your reasons for support other than editor conduct? It would help the admin who eventually closes this RfC to determine the weight of each argument. --
3856:
1186:. I would suggest that this article might benefit from a radical re-write in the light of the content of that programme. Alternatively a new article, entitled e.g.
647:
48:
3831:
439:
240:
2357:
linking specific other crimes in the see also section is a pretty questionable business – there's always a question about why we have chosen those specific ones.
3846:
435:
349:
2842:
or not. So linking to notable UK cases in which there is a debate about whether they do or do not constitute miscarriages is absolutely tangentially related."
3861:
3811:
1800:
That is a fair compromise to make whereby we start with his convictions for the Russell killings as you wish. We also still follow Knowledge (XXG) standards.
623:
2586:- because the content was the long-established stable version until Sirfurboy came to this page to continue his personal content disputes with both me and
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
3368:
Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. ... One purpose...is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics
3293:, who objected to this same inclusion on a different unrelated article, also made the point on his talk page to the sock who put this here and elsewhere,
515:
2412:– UK murderer who maintained his innocence for years after his conviction and was helped by miscarriage of justice campaigners, only to go on to confess
141:
23:
1019:
re accusations of vandalism, neither editor is vandalizing Knowledge (XXG) in my opinion. Can we please discuss this rather than edit warring over it?
2920:
Well I mean you've completely misrepresented my point there, and I would invite you to perhaps re-read what I said. I'll say again, I'm am absolutely
2506:
an unrecognised miscarriage of justice is not the same at all, as, well um, that is officially the case, as has been maintained on multiple appeals.
1446:: IP raised concerns on his talkpage, I didn't oppose his statement. If the person is not serial killer, IP shall be informed and the article fixed (
3851:
1511:
For context, here is a non-exhaustive list of British murderers who are described as suspected serial killers in the opening line of their article:
359:
3826:
3821:
2281:
entry from the list, another is that they have "an open mind" but "sort-of like the section the way it is, though, too" and a third that wants a
1083:
Someone with time&patience might search through this to see if the existing article is lacking anything important that might be found there.
1008:
977:
831:
I thought 'taking therapies' might be a typo for 'talking therapies', which would naturally require the cooperation of the person being treated.
614:
575:
446:
145:
3615:"it is rare that someone would maintain innocence for years, and despite that, still remain incarcerated years later from unsuccessful appeals".
3841:
3147:
2490:
2397:
2016:
1844:
Thank you, it is good we have come to an agreement. In fairness I should have suggested the compromise earlier. But yes I shall change it now.
999:
If I can jump into this at this point, this edit warring over the inclusion of the link isn't achieving anything. I'm sure you both know about
2359:
The only real support was for possibly linking to immediately related general topics - usually achievable within the text - or related lists.
2031:
an unrecognised miscarriage of justice is not the same as, well um, that is officially the case, as has been maintained on multiple appeals.
746:
Something's gone wrong with this article - "Jason Greenwood" is arrested, charged and convicted, then "Stone" appeals unsuccessfully... WTF?
3201:
3188:
3026:
3001:
2887:
2835:
2831:
2777:
2746:
2722:
2709:
1960:
2853:
and even more rare in the UK, compared to somewhere else like the USA." First of all, this is an English-language encyclopaedia but it's
1075:
1069:
1066:
952:
If you have something useful to say then say it - but Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need editors who just sit there pressing the delete button.
544:
Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a
140:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
3816:
832:
3328:
even comes into it, provided the descriptions are neutrally worded and factual. Following the links is a reader's choice, not yours. -
3209:
2730:
408:
1089:
The significant height disparity between Josie Russell’s description of the murderer and Stone’s height (6ft 1in as against 5ft 7in);
149:
2963:. Or is it that the case has caused a "public campaign" (or a "very-public campaign") to free the convicted person? Or do we deploy
1556:
If you wanted to link at the list of Americans described as suspected serial killers we would be here all day. But some examples are:
545:
478:
325:
136:
100:
3736:
3175:
2498:
under the eyes of the law and has had multiple attempts to challenge this dismissed, therefore 'suggesting' that Stone is guilty is
2023:
under the eyes of the law and has had multiple attempts to challenge this dismissed, therefore 'suggesting' that Stone is guilty is
1412:
Agreed, although I have doubts about the safety of Stone's convictions in the Russell case, it is not the job of Knowledge (XXG) to
858:
3578:
relationships between the articles that they should be added to aid verifiability. And Dewe makes a very relevant point, as there
2326:
I’ve heard a claim that Stone had served in, or tried to join, the military. Does anyone know if this is true, or has a source?
1353:
It seemed odd to lead the lede with a suspicion rather than the event for which he is convicted; in addition the use of the term
1026:
707:
494:
2776:
Think you’ve confused me with someone else there mate. And literally the OP says above why linking to that would be a bad idea?
703:
3296:
there's no "again" here since as far as the law's concerned he wasn't guilty of the first crime -- that's what acquitted means.
2420:
1072:
75:
3626:
3583:
3436:, as in one post he appears to support inclusion and in the next, opposes it. I interpret this to mean all the comments for
1360:] with the edit summary: "Articles begin with a description of the person/event. He is a suspected serial killer, just like
2590:, and I have a very different view about those entries being non-neutral. On the contrary, the listing of both a case like
2383:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3798:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
536:
3664:
section should be based on something other than editor whim. Some objective basis. You then define what you wish to use:
699:
504:
312:
273:
3732:
3171:
2352:
1866:
The double murder is more notable than him & should have its own article rather than be a redirect to this article.
1539:
2849:
argument for inclusion, i.e. that cases where a miscarriage of justice is claimed by many people to have occurred are "
3268:
Thanks for your thoughts. I think what you say is actually in line with comments above, e.g., The Gnome who points to
1890:
1806:
1775:
1586:
3371:
3251:
3167:
2067:
To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion.
1205:
Someone has added the reference (thanks) however is there any source for the script or a summary of the documentary?
718:
489:
1199:
822:
2202:
does not have consensus. STATUSQUO was already metioned. You might like to review it. 13:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
3225:
section and some other edits on this page that I think are problematic were added by sockpuppets of BarehamOliver
32:
3697:
3635:
3598:
3418:
3130:
3092:
2944:
2827:
2816:
818:
472:
920:- at wikipedia it means a specific thing which my editing here is not, so please stop that, I will take it as a
3714:
2754:
2750:
2644:
2622:
2604:
2231:
1898:
1849:
1818:
1681:
1667:
1310:
1263:
1255:
1195:
468:
3205:
3192:
2781:
2726:
2713:
81:
1044:
there is contention over a point, it should be discussed in the light of Wikpedia's guidelines and policies.
836:
3226:
2427:
1929:
1233:
1210:
1180:
broadcast a two-part documentary programme in which a team of independent experts re-examined the evidence:
1158:
1120:
1701:
Not all multiple murderers are serial killers. This man is suspected of a second attack/third murder, and
862:
854:
3536:
3466:
3333:
3259:
3158:
3042:
2875:
2758:
797:
775:
3710:
2636:
2618:
2240:
I suggest if you want to debate what STATUSQUO (essay) and ONUS (policy) say, you do it on my talk page.
2072:
2061:
1994:
1988:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
1473:
917:
2566:
2511:
2409:
2331:
2301:
2124:
2105:
2036:
1945:
1871:
1329:
1295:
1049:
959:
905:
885:
622:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
606:
524:
455:
324:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1810:
789:
murderer. This was because anybody following the news could have cobbled together the same confession.
1076:
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-4
1070:
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-2
1067:
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-%E2%80%93-Part-1
3693:
3631:
3594:
3429:
3414:
3324:
issue. Are these links useful to the reader? In my opinion they are, so include them. I do not think
3126:
3088:
2940:
2812:
2757:, etc. Your notion of informing the reader about it would be better served by one simple link to the
2430:– UK murderer who had his murder conviction quashed only to be found guilty again several years later
1834:
1735:
1524:
1402:
1369:
1032:
985:
929:
916:
Seeing as you have not done it I have opened a request at the External link noticeboard. Please read
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
3692:, as I don't think it helps your argument as it just appears like you are twisting what we've said.
3170:
were a blue link and yet we couldn't link it in the body for some reason that might be appropriate.
3030:
792:
Very One-Sided and Tabloidy; also the Last Link in External Links seems non-notable and non-useful.
500:
63:
3767:
3677:
3628:
3586:
3518:
3484:
3379:
3307:
3233:
3068:
2972:
2910:
2830:. I'm afraid you did not notice that my remark was addressed specifically to the reason invoked by
2797:
2766:
2677:
2640:
2600:
2543:
2468:
2438:
2268:
2245:
2227:
2215:
2187:
2179:
2139:
2051:
2006:
1969:
1894:
1845:
1814:
1766:
incident and has confessed to, and is suspected of, another murder committed in 1976. So saying he
1677:
1663:
1455:
1306:
1259:
1191:
3784:
3459:
be interested in too, as well as if were not satisfied by this article, try these others instead.
3111:
3033:
and assessor of this article, that is the sort of broader article I thought was missing from the
3013:
2890:. Not a small catch! And just wait till we board the political murder fisherboat! What about the
2867:
2695:
2367:
2076:
1998:
1925:
1860:
1752:
well I think its a fair conclusion to make when, having not edited the Michael Stone article for
1601:
1534:
1361:
1282:
1229:
1206:
1154:
1116:
321:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
2967:? Which would, of course, render the case even ...more unique, were we to use you terminology. -
2866:, we get, beyond the avalanche of American cases, some of which involve the death penalty (e.g.
2079:
have challenged the exact same content as you, but in fact this is misleading as Truecrimefan22
39:
3531:: You asked for comment, not a litigation discussion. I say keep the section, warts and all! -
2095:
Bushell and Norris entries, and Createangelos also never challenged these, so if anything only
3689:
3572:
3562:
3532:
3503:
3462:
3405:
3355:
3329:
3255:
3060:
3038:
2895:
1596:
1571:
1514:
1365:
793:
3582:
sources which do conflate the Stone and the provided linked cases together - e.g. these two:
3476:
3325:
2960:
1982:
1642:
1417:
1320:
1092:
Josie’s description of the murderer’s hair as yellow and spiky contrasted with Stone’s hair;
530:
2587:
2562:
2507:
2327:
2297:
2120:
2114:
But as I've just said above, you have no consensus for removing the Bushell/Norris entries.
2101:
2032:
1941:
1867:
1324:
1290:
1289:
articles, but I think it's too soon for that now. Maybe "Michael Stone (criminal)" instead?
1286:
1073:
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Unconvincing-Conviction-Michael-Stone-Part-3
1045:
1012:
955:
901:
881:
764:
590:
569:
128:
1447:
1413:
1016:
1000:
3005:
2927:
that cases where a miscarriage of justice is claimed by many people to have occurred are "
2883:
2482:
2083:
do the same as you as they removed only the Hall, Barrie and Weir entries (and one other)
1830:
1747:
1731:
1619:
1576:
1496:
1443:
1398:
1021:
1004:
981:
925:
509:
3672:
directed to lesser known but more comparable cases than well known but unconnected ones?
3449:
3321:
1722:
921:
2838:
wrote: "The Michael Stone case is currently defined by the debate about whether it is a
3763:
3673:
3620:
Let me copy and paste what I said yet again, that other than the first two the entries
3610:
3558:
3528:
3514:
3480:
3433:
3375:
3317:
3303:
3299:
3229:
3162:
3064:
2968:
2906:
2891:
2808:
2793:
2762:
2673:
2539:
2464:
2434:
2264:
2241:
2211:
2207:
2183:
2164:
2135:
2047:
2002:
1965:
1451:
1373:
1254:. Or else, at least, the apparent disparity between the current title here and that of
1247:
619:
520:
3247:
2956:
3805:
3780:
3354:
Every link to another Knowledge (XXG) article is potentially "useful to the reader,"
3107:
3009:
2899:
2871:
2691:
2661:
related or comparable articles enable readers to explore tangentially related topics
2415:
2363:
2258:
1710:
1581:
1391:
1354:
774:
take place that has been dropped. The article is currently substantially inacurate.
451:
3788:
3771:
3740:
3718:
3701:
3681:
3639:
3602:
3540:
3522:
3488:
3475:
Apologies if I was unclear anywhere. The RFC question itself has to be neutral (see
3470:
3422:
3383:
3337:
3311:
3263:
3237:
3196:
3179:
3134:
3115:
3096:
3072:
3046:
3017:
2976:
2948:
2914:
2857:
one mostly about England, Britain, or the USA. Second, were we to look for cases of
2820:
2801:
2785:
2770:
2749:. There are many murder cases where a miscarriage of justice has been claimed, e.g.
2717:
2699:
2681:
2648:
2626:
2608:
2570:
2547:
2515:
2472:
2442:
2371:
2335:
2305:
2272:
2249:
2235:
2219:
2191:
2143:
2128:
2109:
2055:
2040:
2010:
1973:
1949:
1933:
1902:
1875:
1853:
1838:
1822:
1739:
1685:
1671:
1459:
1437:
1406:
1334:
1314:
1300:
1267:
1237:
1214:
1162:
1124:
1053:
1038:
989:
963:
933:
909:
889:
866:
840:
826:
801:
778:
768:
3122:
2591:
2403:
1636:
1529:
1423:
2277:
Well no, as one of those has made it clear below that their position is to remove
2406:– subject of a similarly high-profile and current miscarriage of justice campaign
1011:
as pointed out above, it makes sense that this be discussed there. I have warned
3445:
3363:
3289:
see also names do not have this support and have an issue with POV. I note that
3269:
3000:- Summoned on talk page. This casts a net so wide we would have to sort through
2863:
2664:
1519:
1379:]. My last edit, restoring the lede to the version I originally made, is here:
760:
304:
3037:
section, but could not put my finger at the time. Thanks for the suggestion. -
3004:
and determine which ones should be included. Same if you wanted to say he is a
2481:- This content has stood for several years until you followed me here from the
112:
94:
2879:
2486:
1591:
596:
459:
294:
118:
1281:"Chillenden Murders" or something similar and rewrite it to be more like the
1142:
circumstantial evidence of guilt, but juries are comprised of human beings.
3290:
1885:
It's surprising that there is no source with a date of birth. His record at
1181:
483:
3630:, and you have cases between which similarities can be justifiably drawn.
3362:
choice of yore. We have some rather loose but still helpful guidance from
1384:
Grateful for the views of other editors, and in particular for views on:
420:
Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted
3358:. But the "See also" section" is not supposed to function like that ol'
2254:
Also to add, it is actually 4 editors who have contested this. This edit
1098:
The total absence of any relevant microscopic evidence from Stone’s car;
425:
421:
1104:
The finding of hairs there which did not belong to him or the Russells;
2931:
and even more rare in the UK, compared to somewhere else like the USA."
2489:
pages where you had previously clashed with me. Removing a link to the
1886:
1177:
1009:
Knowledge (XXG):External_links/Noticeboard#Michael_Stone_.28murderer.29
978:
Knowledge (XXG):External_links/Noticeboard#Michael_Stone_.28murderer.29
288:
267:
1981:
you restored the see also section despite this discussion. Please see
1420:. The tag of "suspected serial killer" also carries no legal weight.--
900:
is "reliable" or not. The link is reliable which is all that matters.
3867:
Knowledge (XXG) requested images of judicial and penal systems people
3590:
why would it be wrong for us to provide a see also link between them?
722:
1086:
The last of the articles summarizes evidence of Stone's innocence:
148:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
3561:, your statement above comes off as an attempt by you to re-model
3461:" It is for the reader to choose what editors (plural) suggest. -
2090:
the Bushell and Norris entries, while Createangelos's position is
1101:
The absence of any such evidence linking him to the murder scene;
316:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of
203:
182:
1676:
Oh yeah I should add that the IP was me when I was at work btw.
402:
317:
2834:
for supporting inclusion of the other articles in "See also."
673:
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
2521:
Just to clarify the record a little. No, the section has not
2351:
the proposed 'see also's. The consensus is best summed up by
677:
3648:
As that was my first reply to you, I fail to see where the
2538:. Each time it was you that reverted the material back in.
1893:, which shows his birth was registered in the 2nd quarter.
1250:, I still tend to think this article might be better tiled
3432:: At first I was somewhat puzzled by the proposal made by
1387:(a) should we start with the conviction or the suspicion?
3569:. Well no, this is my interpretation of what was said by
3282:
closely related for any individual cases to be selected.
618:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
225:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
3567:
support for your own argument that it should be deleted
2536:
2533:
2530:
2286:
2262:
2255:
2084:
1979:
394:
389:
384:
379:
3440:
mean that the section should be kept while those that
1003:
at this stage, but it is worth pointing it out again.
3729:
category:Overturned convictions in the United Kingdom
3455:
if you liked this one, then here are some others you
2060:
Sirfurboy, content should be left or restored to the
1153:
Journalists had a very serious responsibility here.
706:. Please replace this template with a more specific
3002:
List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom
1717:, so we should at least start with the conviction.
1246:Especially in light of the recent announcements re
3654:I agree with him that that one could be jettisoned
2292:want a a deletion of the section in its entirety.
1349:Lede: lead with the conviction, not the suspicion.
3837:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
2659:. The "See also" section is supposed to be about
2418:– UK killer whose conviction was quashed after a
1985:which I believe you are aware of, but which says:
228:Template:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
1059:Other material that can be added to this article
3656:so technically you oppose the retention of the
3025:- It would make sense to include a link to the
2886:, Suzanne Holdsworth, and so on. We do have a
1993:This section has been challenged by myself, by
1785:
3161:, on the grounds that it's another case where
2452:
2424:campaign, only for him to go on to kill a man
2296:want at least some of the entries to remain.
2065:
1986:
1167:
8:
2792:Hence my humble recommendation. Take care. -
1190:, might be warranted, in place of this one.
1095:The absence of Stone’s DNA on the bootlace;
2361:Non-admin close, reponding to request below
1377:]; the IP editor immediately re-reverted.
3727:There are plenty of other murder cases in
3565:'s support for the content remaining into
3444:mean the the section should not. Since a "
1728:The views of other editors are requested.
1476:while this issue is still being discussed.
632:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom
564:
367:
262:
177:
89:
3779:the discussion, per sockpuppetry above.--
3646:You have again misrepresented my argument
1618:We could go on. Most are all listed here
1397:Friendly regards and all respect to all,
721:may be able to locate suitable images on
1772:"it does just about fit the definition".
1713:. But "if" and "might" do not outweigh
212:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
2015:But you also removed a link to a case (
1007:has started a discussion about this on
566:
264:
179:
91:
61:
3857:Low-importance United Kingdom articles
3665:
3653:
3645:
3614:
3404:it to the article. Which, and am glad
3367:
3294:
3148:Murders of Kate Bushell and Lyn Bryant
2926:
2660:
2561:So, in other words, more than a year.
2522:
2491:Murders of Kate Bushell and Lyn Bryant
2398:Murders of Kate Bushell and Lyn Bryant
2389:Should the page contain the following
2356:
2017:Murders of Kate Bushell and Lyn Bryant
880:determination to obtain a conviction.
3832:Low-importance Crime-related articles
3666:it's the large public interest aspect
3221:- I have also just noticed that this
2064:while it is being discussed on talk:
158:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography
7:
3847:Low-importance Kent-related articles
3027:List of miscarriage of justice cases
2888:list of miscarriage of justice cases
2379:The following discussion is closed.
1961:List of miscarriage of justice cases
612:This article is within the scope of
310:This article is within the scope of
209:This article is within the scope of
134:This article is within the scope of
3862:WikiProject United Kingdom articles
3812:Biography articles of living people
3372:all information in the right place
1940:cases in the UK are not irrelevant
1472:I have restored the content to the
1305:I would not object to that change.
635:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom
3668:. Why? Wouldn't it be better that
1705:this suspicion is true then he he
14:
719:Openverse Creative Commons Search
3794:The discussion above is closed.
2905:P.S. My emphasis in citations. -
1809:article is a borderline case of
1134:supported by Josie's testimony.
599:
589:
568:
334:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Kent
297:
287:
266:
202:
181:
121:
111:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
3852:C-Class United Kingdom articles
3168:miscarriage of justice campaign
652:This article has been rated as
354:This article has been rated as
245:This article has been rated as
3827:C-Class Crime-related articles
3822:WikiProject Biography articles
2807:See I think you are mistaken,
2261:also reverted by Snugglewasp.
2206:The above comment was made by
2178:The above comment was made by
1163:12:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
769:08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
161:Template:WikiProject Biography
80:It is of interest to multiple
1:
3842:C-Class Kent-related articles
2635:- I support your suggestion,
2372:09:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
1854:20:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
1839:20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
1823:16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
1740:13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
1686:22:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
1672:20:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
1335:16:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
1315:16:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
1301:16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
1268:15:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
626:and see a list of open tasks.
537:Kent geography stubs articles
328:and see a list of open tasks.
219:and see a list of open tasks.
24:biographies of living persons
3789:06:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3772:08:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
3741:15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
3719:12:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
3702:10:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3682:10:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3640:09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3603:09:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3541:09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3523:08:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3489:08:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3471:08:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3423:07:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3384:11:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3338:08:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3312:08:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3264:03:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3238:09:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3197:18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
3180:15:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
3135:08:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
3116:06:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
3097:22:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3073:11:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3047:09:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3018:21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2977:11:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2949:16:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
2915:17:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2821:15:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2802:11:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2786:10:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
2771:21:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2718:19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2700:19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2682:17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2649:14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2627:14:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2609:14:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2571:19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2548:18:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2516:13:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2473:13:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2443:13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2306:19:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2273:18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2250:13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2236:13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2220:17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2192:17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2144:10:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2129:09:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2110:09:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2056:09:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2041:09:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2011:08:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1974:08:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1950:06:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1903:19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
1876:19:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
1540:Thomas Griffiths Wainewright
1460:15:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
1438:13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
1407:13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
222:Crime and Criminal Biography
189:Crime and Criminal Biography
146:contribute to the discussion
3660:asis, and you agree that a
3008:(currently 216 targets). --
2336:16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
1807:Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins
1709:be also determined to be a
1587:William Bradford (murderer)
1390:(b) Is the use of the term
1125:12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
36:must be removed immediately
3883:
3817:C-Class biography articles
3300:User talk:EEng#Just to say
3146:It's not clear to me that
1934:00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
1238:17:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
1176:On 30 May and 6 June 2017
802:22:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
779:10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
658:project's importance scale
615:WikiProject United Kingdom
495:Unreferenced Kent articles
360:project's importance scale
251:project's importance scale
3059:I agree completely with
1215:23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
1039:20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
990:22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
964:22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
934:22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
910:22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
867:10:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
841:09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
827:22:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
813:available to the patient.
651:
584:
473:Maidstone Borough Council
366:
353:
337:Template:WikiProject Kent
282:
244:
197:
106:
88:
3796:Please do not modify it.
3250:and it is not a case of
2755:Murder of Leanne Holland
2751:Murder of Leanne Holland
2381:Please do not modify it.
1256:Michael Stone (loyalist)
1200:21:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
1054:23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
890:23:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
696:Michael Stone (criminal)
686:It is requested that an
469:List of churches in Kent
3733:Caeciliusinhorto-public
3409:first two, the entries
3285:But to note again, the
3172:Caeciliusinhorto-public
3006:suspected serial killer
2523:stood for several years
2353:Caeciliusinhorto-public
638:United Kingdom articles
371:WikiProject Kent tasks:
3159:Murder of Patsy Morris
2840:miscarriage of justice
2457:
2341:RfC - See also section
2069:
1990:
1908:The "see also" section
1797:
1183:The Chillenden Murders
1170:The Chillenden Murders
807:Poorly worded sentence
715:Free Image Search Tool
708:media request template
682:
231:Crime-related articles
70:This article is rated
3210:few or no other edits
2898:? Or even politician
2731:few or no other edits
1323:make the move, then.
1258:should be addressed.
1252:Murder of Lin Russell
1188:Murder of Lin Russell
681:
607:United Kingdom portal
525:Bromley Civic Society
456:Royal Tunbridge Wells
340:Kent-related articles
137:WikiProject Biography
74:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
3505:This is just the UK.
3450:put the reader first
3212:outside this topic.
2733:outside this topic.
2100:an act of goodwill.
1792:Michael John Goodban
1525:Kieran Patrick Kelly
1370:Kieran Patrick Kelly
846:Fate of Damien Daley
819:RandomLettersForName
725:and other web sites.
418:Clean up an article:
2686:(summoned by bot )
2458:My concern is that
1017:assuming good faith
704:improve its quality
702:in this article to
3453:choice to decide "
3320:: I see this as a
2961:not, one hopes, us
2868:Randall Dale Adams
2745:
2382:
1861:Chillenden murders
1602:Martha Ann Johnson
1535:Stephen Akinmurele
1414:right great wrongs
1362:Stephen Akinmurele
1319:I'll go ahead and
1283:Backpacker murders
750:Conviction unsafe?
683:
322:South East England
164:biography articles
76:content assessment
3213:
2759:eponymous article
2743:
2734:
2500:evidently not POV
2380:
2322:Military service?
2222:
2194:
2025:evidently not POV
1639:succinctly says,
1597:Bobby Jack Fowler
1572:Robert Lee Walden
1515:John Bodkin Adams
1366:John Bodkin Adams
924:if you continue.
857:comment added by
784:POV-heavy section
739:
738:
726:
672:
671:
668:
667:
664:
663:
563:
562:
559:
558:
555:
554:
550:
261:
260:
257:
256:
176:
175:
172:
171:
56:
55:
3874:
3576:
3199:
2959:, and certainly
2720:
2283:partial deletion
2205:
2177:
2168:
1751:
1433:
1431:
1430:
1287:Bradford murders
1037:
1035:
1029:
1024:
1013:User:Londonlinks
869:
735:
733:
712:
710:where possible.
680:
674:
640:
639:
636:
633:
630:
609:
604:
603:
602:
593:
586:
585:
580:
572:
565:
542:
516:Expert attention
409:tasks you can do
368:
342:
341:
338:
335:
332:
313:WikiProject Kent
307:
302:
301:
300:
291:
284:
283:
278:
270:
263:
233:
232:
229:
226:
223:
206:
199:
198:
193:
185:
178:
166:
165:
162:
159:
156:
142:join the project
131:
129:Biography portal
126:
125:
124:
115:
108:
107:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
3882:
3881:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3873:
3872:
3871:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3799:
3694:MeltingDistrict
3632:MeltingDistrict
3595:MeltingDistrict
3570:
3430:MeltingDistrict
3415:MeltingDistrict
3127:MeltingDistrict
3089:MeltingDistrict
2957:verifiable fact
2941:MeltingDistrict
2884:Winston Silcott
2876:Stephen Downing
2845:Coming now, to
2828:MeltingDistrict
2813:MeltingDistrict
2535:and 12 October
2483:Richard D. Gill
2385:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2343:
2324:
2162:
1910:
1883:
1864:
1745:
1577:Robert Zarinsky
1428:
1426:
1424:
1351:
1174:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1061:
1033:
1027:
1022:
1020:
1005:User:Off2riorob
897:
852:
848:
809:
786:
776:Dr. D. J. Crewe
752:
744:
731:
729:
678:
637:
634:
631:
628:
627:
605:
600:
598:
578:
510:Kingdom of Kent
490:Citation needed
440:High importance
399:
339:
336:
333:
330:
329:
303:
298:
296:
276:
230:
227:
224:
221:
220:
191:
163:
160:
157:
154:
153:
127:
122:
120:
71:
12:
11:
5:
3880:
3878:
3870:
3869:
3864:
3859:
3854:
3849:
3844:
3839:
3834:
3829:
3824:
3819:
3814:
3804:
3803:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3774:
3756:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3748:
3747:
3746:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3725:
3711:Truecrimefan22
3707:
3706:
3705:
3548:
3547:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3543:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3506:
3496:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3387:
3386:
3374:. Take care. -
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3283:
3252:editorializing
3240:
3215:
3214:
3202:81.133.230.204
3189:81.133.230.204
3183:
3182:
3163:Levi Bellfield
3155:
3152:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3139:
3138:
3101:
3100:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3049:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2903:
2892:Birmingham Six
2843:
2836:148.252.159.66
2832:148.252.159.66
2778:148.252.159.66
2761:. Take care. -
2747:148.252.159.66
2737:
2736:
2723:148.252.159.66
2710:148.252.159.66
2702:
2684:
2653:
2652:
2641:Structuralists
2637:Truecrimefan22
2629:
2619:Truecrimefan22
2612:
2601:Structuralists
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2475:
2432:
2431:
2425:
2413:
2407:
2401:
2388:
2386:
2377:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2342:
2339:
2323:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2228:Structuralists
2223:
2195:
2180:Structuralists
2172:
2171:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2112:
2073:Truecrimefan22
1995:Truecrimefan22
1991:
1953:
1952:
1921:
1916:
1909:
1906:
1895:Martinevans123
1882:
1879:
1863:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1846:The Good Dante
1826:
1825:
1815:The Good Dante
1802:
1801:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1758:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1678:The Good Dante
1664:The Good Dante
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1599:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1394:appropriate?
1374:User:A09090091
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1307:Martinevans123
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1260:Martinevans123
1248:Levi Bellfield
1241:
1240:
1224:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1192:Martinevans123
1173:
1166:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1060:
1057:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
970:
969:
968:
967:
953:
947:
946:
945:
944:
937:
936:
896:
895:External links
893:
847:
844:
808:
805:
785:
782:
751:
748:
743:
740:
737:
736:
727:
711:
684:
670:
669:
666:
665:
662:
661:
654:Low-importance
650:
644:
643:
641:
629:United Kingdom
624:the discussion
620:United Kingdom
611:
610:
594:
582:
581:
579:Low‑importance
576:United Kingdom
573:
561:
560:
557:
556:
553:
552:
540:
539:
527:
521:Channel Tunnel
512:
497:
486:
475:
462:
443:
429:
422:alphabetically
401:Here are some
398:
397:
392:
387:
382:
376:
373:
372:
364:
363:
356:Low-importance
352:
346:
345:
343:
326:the discussion
309:
308:
292:
280:
279:
277:Low‑importance
271:
259:
258:
255:
254:
247:Low-importance
243:
237:
236:
234:
217:the discussion
207:
195:
194:
192:Low‑importance
186:
174:
173:
170:
169:
167:
133:
132:
116:
104:
103:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3879:
3868:
3865:
3863:
3860:
3858:
3855:
3853:
3850:
3848:
3845:
3843:
3840:
3838:
3835:
3833:
3830:
3828:
3825:
3823:
3820:
3818:
3815:
3813:
3810:
3809:
3807:
3797:
3790:
3786:
3782:
3778:
3775:
3773:
3769:
3765:
3761:
3758:
3757:
3742:
3738:
3734:
3730:
3726:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3716:
3712:
3708:
3704:
3703:
3699:
3695:
3691:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3679:
3675:
3671:
3667:
3663:
3659:
3655:
3651:
3647:
3644:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3637:
3633:
3629:
3627:
3624:
3619:
3616:
3612:
3607:
3606:
3605:
3604:
3600:
3596:
3591:
3587:
3584:
3581:
3574:
3568:
3564:
3560:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3549:
3542:
3538:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3513:
3507:
3504:
3500:
3499:
3497:
3494:
3490:
3486:
3482:
3478:
3474:
3473:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3460:
3458:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3435:
3431:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3412:
3407:
3403:
3399:
3395:
3394:
3385:
3381:
3377:
3373:
3369:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3339:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3309:
3305:
3301:
3297:
3292:
3288:
3284:
3280:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3261:
3257:
3253:
3249:
3244:
3241:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3224:
3220:
3217:
3216:
3211:
3207:
3203:
3198:
3194:
3190:
3185:
3184:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3169:
3164:
3160:
3150:
3149:
3145:
3144:
3137:
3136:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3099:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3086:
3082:
3081:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3063:'s comment. -
3062:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3048:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2996:
2995:
2978:
2974:
2970:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2950:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2933:
2932:
2930:
2923:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2912:
2908:
2904:
2901:
2900:Jeremy Thorpe
2897:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2873:
2872:Stefan Kiszko
2869:
2865:
2860:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2799:
2795:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2748:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2735:
2732:
2728:
2724:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2683:
2679:
2675:
2670:
2666:
2663:. That's per
2662:
2658:
2655:
2654:
2651:
2650:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2613:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2593:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2580:
2573:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2549:
2545:
2541:
2537:
2534:
2531:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2474:
2470:
2466:
2461:
2456:
2450:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2429:
2426:
2423:
2422:
2421:Rough Justice
2417:
2416:Ernest Barrie
2414:
2411:
2408:
2405:
2402:
2399:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2392:
2384:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2349:Don't include
2340:
2338:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2321:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2263:
2260:
2256:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2224:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2203:
2201:
2196:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2166:
2161:
2160:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2117:
2113:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2098:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2082:
2078:
2077:Createangelos
2074:
2068:
2063:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1999:Createangelos
1996:
1992:
1989:
1984:
1980:
1978:In this edit
1977:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1926:Createangelos
1923:
1919:
1914:
1907:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1881:Date of birth
1880:
1878:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1862:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1789:
1788:Michael Stone
1780:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1764:
1759:
1755:
1749:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1718:
1716:
1712:
1711:Serial killer
1708:
1704:
1699:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1646:
1644:
1638:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1603:
1600:
1598:
1595:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1583:
1582:John Baughman
1580:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1393:
1392:serial killer
1388:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1355:serial killer
1348:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:Createangelos
1226:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:Createangelos
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1171:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:Createangelos
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:Createangelos
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1058:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1030:
1025:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
965:
961:
957:
954:
951:
950:
949:
948:
943:as an editor.
941:
940:
939:
938:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
914:
913:
912:Londonlinks:
911:
907:
903:
894:
892:
891:
887:
883:
877:
874:
870:
868:
864:
860:
856:
845:
843:
842:
838:
834:
833:94.194.104.41
829:
828:
824:
820:
815:
814:
806:
804:
803:
799:
795:
790:
783:
781:
780:
777:
771:
770:
766:
762:
756:
749:
747:
741:
734:
728:
724:
720:
716:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
676:
675:
659:
655:
649:
646:
645:
642:
625:
621:
617:
616:
608:
597:
595:
592:
588:
587:
583:
577:
574:
571:
567:
551:
548:
547:
538:
534:
532:
528:
526:
522:
519:
517:
513:
511:
508:
506:
502:
498:
496:
493:
491:
487:
485:
482:
480:
476:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
457:
453:
450:
448:
447:Refine/polish
444:
441:
437:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
416:
415:
414:
412:
411:
410:
404:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
377:
375:
374:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
351:
348:
347:
344:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
306:
295:
293:
290:
286:
285:
281:
275:
272:
269:
265:
252:
248:
242:
239:
238:
235:
218:
214:
213:
208:
205:
201:
200:
196:
190:
187:
184:
180:
168:
151:
150:documentation
147:
143:
139:
138:
130:
119:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
3795:
3776:
3759:
3690:Cameron Dewe
3688:with me and
3686:
3669:
3661:
3657:
3652:comes from.
3649:
3621:
3617:
3608:
3589:
3579:
3573:Cameron Dewe
3566:
3563:Cameron Dewe
3557:
3533:Cameron Dewe
3463:Cameron Dewe
3456:
3454:
3441:
3437:
3410:
3406:Cameron Dewe
3401:
3397:
3396:
3360:I Feel Lucky
3359:
3356:Cameron Dewe
3330:Cameron Dewe
3322:Reader First
3286:
3278:
3273:
3256:Cameron Dewe
3242:
3222:
3218:
3123:Colin Norris
3120:
3084:
3083:
3061:Cameron Dewe
3039:Cameron Dewe
3034:
3029:, too. As a
3022:
2997:
2964:
2936:
2928:
2925:
2921:
2919:
2880:Barry George
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2839:
2806:
2775:
2705:
2704:
2687:
2668:
2656:
2632:
2631:
2614:
2596:
2592:Colin Norris
2583:
2582:
2560:
2532:, 7 October
2526:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2478:
2477:
2459:
2453:
2448:
2433:
2428:Michael Weir
2419:
2404:Colin Norris
2390:
2387:
2378:
2360:
2348:
2325:
2293:
2289:
2282:
2278:
2199:
2115:
2096:
2091:
2087:
2080:
2066:
2062:WP:STATUSQUO
2028:
2024:
2020:
1987:
1924:
1920:
1915:
1911:
1889:seems to be
1884:
1865:
1827:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1753:
1730:
1727:
1719:
1714:
1706:
1702:
1700:
1696:
1640:
1637:User:ianmacm
1530:Sidney Cooke
1491:
1474:WP:STATUSQUO
1422:
1421:
1396:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1352:
1330:
1325:
1296:
1291:
1251:
1187:
1182:
1175:
1169:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1115:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1065:
1062:
1042:
1015:twice about
998:
918:WP:VANDALISM
898:
878:
875:
871:
853:— Preceding
849:
830:
816:
811:
810:
794:J.J.Sagnella
791:
787:
772:
757:
753:
745:
695:
691:
687:
653:
613:
543:
541:
529:
514:
499:
488:
477:
464:
445:
431:
417:
407:
406:
400:
355:
311:
246:
210:
135:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
3764:Sirfurboy🏄
3674:Sirfurboy🏄
3515:Sirfurboy🏄
3481:Sirfurboy🏄
3434:Sirfurboy🏄
3364:MOS:SEEALSO
3304:Sirfurboy🏄
3270:MOS:SEEALSO
3230:Sirfurboy🏄
3208:) has made
2896:Judith Ward
2864:Anglosphere
2826:Greetings,
2742:Greetings,
2729:) has made
2665:MOS:SEEALSO
2588:snugglewasp
2563:Snugglewasp
2540:Sirfurboy🏄
2508:Snugglewasp
2465:Sirfurboy🏄
2435:Sirfurboy🏄
2328:Wally Tharg
2298:Snugglewasp
2294:Four others
2265:Sirfurboy🏄
2242:Sirfurboy🏄
2136:Sirfurboy🏄
2121:Snugglewasp
2102:Snugglewasp
2071:that users
2048:Sirfurboy🏄
2033:Snugglewasp
2003:Sirfurboy🏄
1966:Sirfurboy🏄
1942:Snugglewasp
1868:Jim Michael
1811:WP:HOUNDING
1776:John Cooper
1520:John Cannan
1358:IP address
1326:Marianna251
1292:Marianna251
1046:Londonlinks
966:londonlinks
956:Londonlinks
902:Londonlinks
882:Londonlinks
859:82.43.84.56
426:by category
305:Kent portal
3806:Categories
2902:? Endless.
2487:Lucy Letby
2410:Simon Hall
1831:Springnuts
1748:Springnuts
1732:Springnuts
1592:Neal Falls
1444:Springnuts
1399:Springnuts
982:Off2riorob
926:Off2riorob
692:photograph
546:suggestion
460:Canterbury
3611:Sirfurboy
3559:Sirfurboy
3529:Sirfurboy
3376:The Gnome
3318:Sirfurboy
3065:The Gnome
2969:The Gnome
2929:very rare
2907:The Gnome
2870:), well,
2851:very rare
2809:The Gnome
2794:The Gnome
2763:The Gnome
2674:The Gnome
2496:is guilty
2455:paranoid?
2393:section?
2285:of some:
2212:The Gnome
2208:Sirfurboy
2184:The Gnome
2165:Sirfurboy
2021:is guilty
1795:killings.
1715:convicted
1492:convicted
1452:A09090091
1321:WP:BOLDly
742:Greenwood
484:K College
442:articles.
155:Biography
101:Biography
40:libellous
3781:Ortizesp
3670:see also
3662:see also
3658:see also
3509:someone?
3446:See also
3279:see also
3248:verified
3223:see also
3108:CNMall41
3035:See also
3010:CNMall41
2744:Wuerzele
2692:Wuerzele
2527:See also
2391:see also
2364:Pincrete
2290:Only you
2259:Tulzscha
2116:Only you
1891:this one
1754:9 years,
1130:past*.
855:unsigned
700:included
505:Copyedit
405:related
3760:Comment
3477:WP:WRFC
3438:Support
3398:Comment
3366:, e.g.
3326:WP:NPOV
3287:current
3243:Support
3219:Comment
3085:Support
3023:Comment
2706:Support
2633:Comment
2615:Comment
2584:Support
2479:Support
2081:did not
1997:and by
1983:WP:ONUS
1887:FreeBMD
1768:"might"
1643:WP:LEAD
1418:WP:LEAD
1222:source.
1178:BBC Two
656:on the
501:Cleanup
465:Expand:
452:Ashford
385:history
358:on the
249:on the
72:C-class
3609:Also,
3442:Oppose
3031:reader
2998:Oppose
2859:murder
2688:Oppose
2669:murder
2657:Oppose
2449:Oppose
1790:(born
1782:state:
1448:WP:BLP
1172:(2017)
1168:BBC's
1001:WP:3RR
761:Dan100
732:Upload
723:Flickr
78:scale.
3777:Close
3650:again
3623:later
3457:might
2200:still
1763:meets
1723:WP:OR
1707:might
1028:human
1023:Quasi
922:WP:PA
688:image
531:Stubs
395:purge
390:watch
3785:talk
3768:talk
3737:talk
3715:talk
3698:talk
3678:talk
3636:talk
3599:talk
3537:talk
3519:talk
3485:talk
3467:talk
3419:talk
3380:talk
3334:talk
3308:talk
3291:EEng
3274:some
3260:talk
3254:. -
3234:talk
3206:talk
3193:talk
3187:are
3176:talk
3131:talk
3112:talk
3093:talk
3069:talk
3043:talk
3014:talk
2973:talk
2965:both
2945:talk
2911:talk
2894:and
2847:your
2817:talk
2798:talk
2782:talk
2767:talk
2727:talk
2714:talk
2696:talk
2678:talk
2645:talk
2623:talk
2605:talk
2597:both
2567:talk
2544:talk
2512:talk
2485:and
2469:talk
2439:talk
2368:talk
2332:talk
2302:talk
2269:talk
2246:talk
2232:talk
2216:talk
2188:talk
2140:talk
2125:talk
2106:talk
2086:and
2075:and
2052:talk
2037:talk
2007:talk
1970:talk
1946:talk
1930:talk
1899:talk
1872:talk
1850:talk
1835:talk
1819:talk
1736:talk
1682:talk
1668:talk
1456:talk
1425:♦Ian
1403:talk
1331:TALK
1311:talk
1297:TALK
1264:talk
1234:talk
1211:talk
1196:talk
1159:talk
1121:talk
1050:talk
1034:Talk
986:talk
960:talk
930:talk
906:talk
886:talk
863:talk
837:talk
823:talk
798:talk
765:Talk
713:The
535:see
479:NPOV
438:and
434:the
432:Edit
424:and
403:Kent
380:edit
331:Kent
318:Kent
274:Kent
144:and
3618:No.
3580:are
3402:add
2922:not
2855:not
2504:not
2460:any
2279:one
2257:by
2210:. -
2182:. -
2097:you
2092:not
2088:not
2029:not
1381:].
1285:or
717:or
698:be
694:of
690:or
648:Low
436:Top
350:Low
320:in
241:Low
29:BLP
3808::
3787:)
3770:)
3739:)
3717:)
3700:)
3680:)
3638:)
3601:)
3585:,
3539:)
3521:)
3487:)
3469:)
3421:)
3382:)
3336:)
3310:)
3262:)
3236:)
3228:.
3200:—
3195:)
3178:)
3151:is
3133:)
3114:)
3095:)
3071:)
3045:)
3016:)
2975:)
2947:)
2913:)
2882:,
2878:,
2874:,
2819:)
2800:)
2784:)
2769:)
2753:,
2721:—
2716:)
2698:)
2680:)
2647:)
2625:)
2607:)
2569:)
2546:)
2525:.
2514:)
2471:)
2441:)
2370:)
2355:-
2334:)
2304:)
2288:.
2271:)
2248:)
2234:)
2218:)
2190:)
2142:)
2127:)
2108:)
2054:)
2039:)
2009:)
1972:)
1948:)
1932:)
1901:)
1874:)
1852:)
1837:)
1821:)
1738:)
1725:.
1703:if
1684:)
1670:)
1645:".
1458:)
1450:)
1432:M♦
1427:Ma
1405:)
1368:,
1364:,
1313:)
1266:)
1236:)
1213:)
1198:)
1161:)
1123:)
1052:)
1031:|
988:)
980:-
962:)
932:)
908:)
888:)
865:)
839:)
825:)
800:)
767:)
523:,
471:,
467::
458:,
454:,
413::
3783:(
3766:(
3735:(
3713:(
3696:(
3676:(
3634:(
3597:(
3575::
3571:@
3535:(
3527:@
3517:(
3483:(
3465:(
3428:@
3417:(
3378:(
3332:(
3316:@
3306:(
3298:(
3258:(
3232:(
3204:(
3191:(
3174:(
3129:(
3110:(
3091:(
3067:(
3041:(
3012:(
2971:(
2943:(
2909:(
2815:(
2796:(
2780:(
2765:(
2725:(
2712:(
2694:(
2676:(
2672:-
2643:(
2621:(
2603:(
2565:(
2542:(
2510:(
2467:(
2437:(
2366:(
2330:(
2300:(
2267:(
2244:(
2230:(
2214:(
2186:(
2167::
2163:@
2138:(
2123:(
2104:(
2050:(
2035:(
2005:(
1968:(
1944:(
1928:(
1897:(
1870:(
1848:(
1833:(
1817:(
1750::
1746:@
1734:(
1680:(
1666:(
1621:.
1454:(
1442:@
1429:c
1401:(
1309:(
1262:(
1232:(
1209:(
1194:(
1157:(
1119:(
1048:(
984:(
958:(
928:(
904:(
884:(
861:(
835:(
821:(
796:(
763:(
660:.
549:.
533::
518::
507::
503:/
492::
481::
449::
428:.
362:.
253:.
152:.
84:.
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.