The introduction is misleading. He has not been found guilty of committing war crimes. He sued newspapers for slander for saying he committed war crimes and he lost that case. He has not been found legally guilty of anything. There are implications because of the failure of his slander case that he is guilty, but these opinions have no legal standing. 203.6.144.251 (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A judge made findings of fact that he did commit war crimes and these are reported by numerous third-party WP:RS. This has been discussed to death in this talk page. AlanS^talk 04:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Judge made a finding. Roberts-Smith lost. The rest is obiter. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BRS kicked an "own goal", which he and his supporters have to live with.Sampajanna (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is incorrect. It was a civil case, that cannot make a criminal finding or provide a conviction. The introduction is written to try to create the strongest impression of criminal guilt, with the civil case, which is still an ongoing case with an active appeal, taking up almost the entirety of the introduction.

WP:BLPCRIME is clear:

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[e] include sufficient explanatory information."

And it was a defamation civil case as well, not even any kind of civil case to determine tort or compensation for the alleged war crimes.

This topic was indeed already heavily debated. Including a great deal of "Bludgeoning the Process" by you. WP:BLUD. But no consensus was ever reached regarding the matter.

Disclosure- I was also heavily active in that debate at the begining (I signed with an IP address which may or may not still be the same) and had arguably entered Bludgeoning the Process territory with a dozen or more comments, which is why I stepped out of that conversation. Something you also should have done long ago. You should leave debating about and editing this article to others who are not so heavily emotionally involved in the topic and have a more neutral view. Something I had been doing and something I will do again after this comment. But it just didn't sit right with me to see people acting as if some kind of consensus had been reached when there wasn't and the people claiming it had are the very people who had been aggressively pushing their own viewpoint in the previous debate.

The debate was never resolved previously, and as seen from the current talk page there is still a strong disagreement with the way the article is currently written to emphasize the results of a civil case as if it were an actual finding of criminal guilt and established fact in the Wikipedia voice. 2600:1700:1041:A690:2106:821B:58DC:4C56 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refer to WP:BLPPUBLIC. This has been discussed to great extent and the opening is fairly stable now after great workshopping and arrival at consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]