Talk:David Haigh

Profile created by PR employee

The history of this page shows that it was created by Liam Atkins, who is an employee of a PR/Marketing organisation employed by Mr Haigh.

Page was created and is maintained by user 98Lemur29

See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple&oldid=569191882#Liamatkins_.E2.86.92_98lemur29 Liamatkins → 98lemur29

Current name: Liamatkins (talk · contribs · deleted · logs · target logs · block log · listuser · SUL info · central auth · Google) (ping user) Requested name: 98lemur29 (talk · contribs · deleted · logs · target logs · block log · listuser · SUL info · central auth · Google) For bureaucrat use: rename user Datestamp: 08:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Reason: Change for privacy on edits, unable to delete my account. Liamatkins (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Liam Atkins is credited as the creator of Mr Haigh's personal website (see bottom left): https://web.archive.org/web/20121002080459/http://www.davidhaigh.co.uk/

Hi Melcoustalk. This is exactly accurate. This page is created by a David Haigh associate for promotion of David Haigh. It is full of inaccuracies. The most heinous being that he never graduated from Southampton University with a degree in law. You will notice the citation given is simply a newspaper article where he himself claims to have graduated.

This does not appear to be true. the opposite appears to be the case where this page has been subjected to continual vandalism from those having a conflict of interest or dispute with subject or otherwise paid by themCarndu77 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please can an editor review the continual removal of clear sourced content by user Melcous and others. Carndu77 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely no connection to the subject of this article, nor have I ever been paid to edit wikipedia. All my edits to this article have attempted to bring it in line with core guidelines and policies, as well as making sure content is verifiable and as per the sources used. Carndu77 you are a single purpose account and were asked in June 2018 to disclose your connection to the subject of the article, which you have still not done. Melcous (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Melcous, Thank you for confirming you have no connection to the David Haigh. However do you have a conflict of Interest and / or another reason to act in a bias manner and negatively edit and vandalise this page. What is you specific interest in David Haigh. Your summary above is not accurate. You are removed =sourced indpiednt stamens of fact and replacing them with libellous statements. for example that Haigh was convicted of fraud. its public information that this was not the cae. you seemingly want to place this libel stamens at the head of the page and repeat it elsewhere. We have also seen other edits you have made where any reference of Mr Haigh being appointed by Princess Latifa are removed by you. A international noteworthy story. It shows Mr Haigh positively though. so again you remove it. Please clarify what your COI is and that you are not paid by any connection or otherwise under the influence or connected to any party opposing Mr Haigh or his human rights work. Carndu77 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

1. There are currently at least two sources in the article that state Haigh was arrested and convicted regarding fraud charges: 1 and 2. If you wish to provide other sources that say differently, please do so here but so far you have not.
2. The content about Latifa was removed because no sources were provided when the content was restored by you here. Melcous (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism, removal of sourced content and evidential Bias COI by user Melcous

Dear Melcous, we have created a serape heading to deal with this. Please can you explain each of your deletions, reversion and additions that are unsourced, or removal of sourced content. You have even seemingly simple deleted pictures of mr Haigh, why? Please disclose the reason for your Bias / COICarndu77 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Melcous,

As one of the many example of your Bias. You removed all early life content about Mr Haigh. This was simple and fully sourced. You did this multiple times removing numerous edits by various editors or a long period.

It is normal practice to include place of birth and family and spouse details. Yet you repeatedly delete them so that the early and family life section of Mr Haigh is simple a statement about sexuality, and written in a negative way. Are you Homophobic, are you seeking to discriminate against Mr Haigh on these are others grounds. This is a criminal offence. It is also noted that any edits setting out the LGTB activism of Mr Haigh us generally deleted by you

An example of the normal writing is on all of the pages you create for yourself, again repeated are you a paid editor?

On your created page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemeri_Murray you wrote the below. Yet you delete any editors similar writing on Mr Haigh page. Please explain specifically why.

Murray was born in Adelaide.[1] She graduated from the University of Adelaide in Law in 1953 and Arts in 1954, studying piano at the Elder Conservatorium of Music.[2][3] Carndu77 (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You will need to provide clearer examples of what you are talking about in removing "all early life content" because I cannot see which of my edits you could possibly be referring to by that statement. Yes, I have removed some personal information from this page because it was unsourced (eg here). This is clearly different to the example cited above about Kemeri Murray when the content is sourced. You have been calling me a "vandal" (eg here) for months. It is very clear that I am not (or that you do not understand what that word means), and my edits have been explained in my edit summaries. You will also need to explain what you are referring to when you say "any edits setting out the LGBT activism of Mr Haigh are generally deleted" by me because as far as I can see, I have never deleted such content, and it is still on the article right now. I have removed some headings that seemed excessive to me here. The things you have said about me here, on my talk page, and on your talk page are inaccurate and not verified by the facts of my editing of this article and I would ask you to stop making such accusations. Pinging a couple of other experienced, non-SPA editors who have edited here, who might be able to have a look and help out regarding this Jessicapierce, Pol098. Melcous (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversies: Stonewall Diversity Champion??

First, apologies I'm a very very inexperienced user here, so if I've breached any usual syntax or etiquette, please forgive and / or delete and amend me as necessary. So, my point: The section which details Haigh's move to sign LUFC up as a Stonewall Diversity Champion appears under the heading of "Controversies" for reasons which are not apparent from the content. I am not aware that the development was seen as anything other than positive by commentators, and stakeholders (including fans). The only hint of controversy is the (uncited) assertion that this was done "ignoring the instructions of its Islamic owners" which, apart from being an assertion unsupported by any sources, is also suggestive to me that, with the use of the word "Islamic", of a comment inserted by someone with an agenda. It is also notable that the material around later events, which could perhaps be more widely seen as "Controversial" are not included under "Controversies". Something needs to be done here. Apart from either removing the "Islamic owners" assertion, or providing evidence of its veracity, this section needs to be called something more appropriate than "Controversies" imho. While not a confident editor, if no one comes back with a compelling reason not to (such as evidence of a controversy) I intend to change this section title, perhaps to "Activism" or perhaps "Support for LGBT Equality" as that would be more accurate and informative. 195.171.127.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is written solely as a self promotion article by Haigh himself or an associate

Haigh never graduated with a law degree from any university. His citation is himself saying this to a media source. Haigh is a convicted fraudster, who stole £4 million from GFH and is desperately trying to associate himself with human rights causes so that he can claim that he is being victimised by the Middle East Nearly nothing in the article is true. The citations are all questionable in the same way the false one about him graduating university is