Talk:Cliff Stanford

Untitled
"and started Demon off in the boiler room of a cinema with a borrowed £20,000".

HUH?

That sounds like a juxtaposition of the tales of Demon Systems and Demon Internet. Demon Systems came first, formed by Cliff Stanford, Owen Manderfield and Grahame Davies. Later on it was the springboard for Cliff to offer a CIX board that if 200 people stepped forward with a years advance subscription, he would provide a raw SLIP connection with full TCP/IP access and a static IP address using Demon Systems to provide the hardware and development muscle.

"boiler room of a cinema" sounds like the early venue for Demon Systems, but Demon Internet was in the back room of a former church hall.

Kfsone 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder for me: I need to check the biography template and listas to this. Template:WPBiography Foxywizard (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No issue with your updating this stuff but you could get the facts right first! Cliff Stanford (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion
Reverted family information and added source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.3.73 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Family
I'm the Sylvia Spruck Wrigley referred to in the article. I'm not sure why that section was removed but the information was correct as it stood and I have reverted it. If this honestly requires a source (most family information doesn't appear to) then you can reference https://www.facebook.com/CliffStanford for relationship status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The constant reversion of this paragraph is beginning to border on vandalism, in my opinion. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz believes that the information which is cited as correct in 2000 is now incorrect, he should change the text to the past tense and provide his own citation for the current state of affairs. Cliff Stanford (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has messed with the entry citing "December 2000 is rather clearly not current, other ref reqd". Why does he feel that he does not need a reference for his change. If he feels that a Dec 2000 reference is out of date, let him change the tense and quote the current situation, with a reference. Simply removing valid text time and time again is pure vandalism. Cliff Stanford (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hacking
It came up again recently that I was convicted for "hacking" so I thought it was about time I put the record straight. I've made that whole section clearer and added in some references. Cliff Stanford (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
A vandal is constantly deleting sections of this page, despite valid citations. In addition, he (or she) is ignoring valid citations, and providing no valid citations of his own.

I am constantly reverting his changes but this is beginning to become a full-time job. Can anyone please advise me as to how to prevent this vandal from deleting bits of this page?

Cliff Stanford (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To begin with, you're not going to find much support for your insistence that a 12-year-old article is "current", not to mention your insistence on mentioning the private person you assert you're in a "relationship" with in the article. You also shouldn't falsely claim that self-published web pages are independent, reliable sources. And, of course, you shouldn't attack editors who remove BLP-noncompliant material from the article as vandals. Article subjects don't control the contents of their bio articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless you can come up with a more recent source, that's the most recent there is. There are many, many 12-year-old sources on Wikipedia.  Also, I didn't post the original line; it was posted long ago.  Are you really stating that Leslie Porter wrote his own obituary with your "self-published" comment?  Also your edit comment is getting very close to the mark. Why don't you come out and say your real name instead of hiding behind anonymity? Cliff Stanford (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My comments are only on the recent edit warring (I haven't gone through all the earlier diffs):
 * The bit about Dame Shirley Porter should not be in this article because it is only slightly related to Stanford and it seems "coatracky" to me. The relationship part appears to be acceptable and reasonably sourced (though the stepfather bit isn't) although it should be slightly reworded to sound less like a "status update". -- Mrmatiko (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Chess?
I can find nothing to verify (and establish the importance of) the chess tournament. Unless such sourcing is found, it should be cut, in my opinion. Perhaps two of the editors kept clippings of the newspaper articles; that would be very helpful. (Do people still keep clippings?) Drmies (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Books indicates that the first "Redbus Investments Knockout" was mentioned in New Statesman magazine in 1999. The remainder I cannot speak to, although  and  bear further investigation. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what are you waiting for? If it's the company card for your expenses, fughedaboutit. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Information with citations
Here's a revised version of the Stanford/Porter issue for review, hopefully giving a bit more detail and clarifying the sequence of events. Comments much appreciated.

In 2002, Stanford and John Porter became embroiled in a boardroom fight and Porter forced Stanford from the board. Stanford employed Private Investigator George Liddell to investigate John Porter. As a result, they discovered information about Dame Shirley Porter's finances which was offered to Westminster Council. In May 2003 Liddell emailed Karen Buck, MP, saying "DSP's money is alive and well and running around London in the form of her son John Porter. We can show the money trail from him to her and we can certainly prove he acts on her behalf." The solicitor for Westminster Council stated that the freezing order on part of Dame Shirley Porter's assets was "obtained on the basis of both the Stanford/Liddell evidence and evidence from other sources". Stanford and Lidell discovered and exposed more than £34m of assets of Dame Shirley Porter. This resulted directly in her repaying £12m to Westminster Council.

To be added into the References template:

References: Andrew Hosken (2006). Nothing Like a Dame. 1st. ed. London: Granta Publications.

Dimondenberg, Paul (2006). The Westminster Whistleblowers. 1st. ed. London: Politico's.

AkaSylvia (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/shirleyporter_20031105.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/shirleyporter_20030628.shtml AkaSylvia (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else has pointed me at these online articles by Hosken which might be preferable for citations as they are easily checked:
 * I am happy enough with the above, knowing virtually nothing about the subject, and the article should now be editable for you, so go right ahead and see how we get on. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm not able to edit the page, protection has been reduced but not removed. AkaSylvia (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the text allowing for formatting so that it is actually readable:

In 2002, Stanford and John Porter became embroiled in a boardroom fight and Porter forced Stanford from the board. Stanford employed Private Investigator George Liddell to investigate John Porter. As a result, they discovered information about Dame Shirley Porter's finances which was offered to Westminster Council. In May 2003 Liddell emailed Karen Buck, MP, saying "DSP's money is alive and well and running around London in the form of her son John Porter. We can show the money trail from him to her and we can certainly prove he acts on her behalf." The solicitor for Westminster Council stated that the freezing order on part of Dame Shirley Porter's assets was "obtained on the basis of both the Stanford/Liddell evidence and evidence from other sources". Stanford and Lidell discovered and exposed more than £34m of assets of Dame Shirley Porter. This resulted directly in her repaying £12m to Westminster Council.

To be added into the References template:

AkaSylvia (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, of course. This is just another attempt by a party with a spectacular conflict of interest to whitewash a course of conduct that led to Stanford becoming a convicyed criminal -- in my home state, he'd be a convicted felon, but you'd need someone better versed in UK law to settle the exact point. BLP content must be balanced, not puff pieces that leave out the less savory aspects of their subject's behavior while pretending quite dubious actions were disinterested public service. And Shirley and John Porter are living persons, too, and the proposed treatment of them is grossly unbalanced and violates BLP. Note that what's been proffered here is rather different from the treatment in related articles, and really has little to do with Stanford himself. Wikipedia isn't a host for Facebook-like pages where notable miscreants and their associates can tee off on their adversaries. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've marked the edit request as answered, because there does not seem to be a consensus to make this edit to the article at this time. Consider redrafting the content and/or filing a request for comment to get outside input. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hullaballoo, if you can help me to understand your objections, I'm happy to work on redrafting. I hope that we can agree that the above covers the primary points brought up previously:

1) Stanford was not looking for financial information when he discovered Shirley Porter's hidden assets 2) The content now has stronger references to a selection of reliable sources

There's never been a question of removing references to the criminal case against Stanford, which are absolutely relevant.

I am unclear as to how the above is different from the treatment in related articles. The above uses the same references as cited in the bibliography of Shirley Porter and they are quite clear that Stanford/Liddell documents directly resulted in her payment. That page focuses much more on the actions of Porter (also a convicted criminal, I have no idea what her charge would be in your homestate) rather than the details that resulted in her exposure, which I thought was sensible considering each person is the primary subject of their own page.

I am more than happy to redraft if I could please be given guidance as to how to correctly cite the available material without offending your sense of morality. I feel like the underlying issue here is whether it is acceptable that "notable miscreants" can occasionally accidentally do things in the public interest. AkaSylvia (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cliff Stanford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403041828/http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2005/09/15/demon-founder-pleads-guilty-to-email-snooping-39152318/ to http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2005/09/15/demon-founder-pleads-guilty-to-email-snooping-39152318/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403041838/http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2005/09/16/cliff-stanford-to-appeal-email-snoop-verdict-39152365/ to http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2005/09/16/cliff-stanford-to-appeal-email-snoop-verdict-39152365/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)