Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano

I'll try to watch this, but very seldom edit the article nowdays. Fred Talk 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep track also although frankly this doesn't look like a very mediatable situation. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

View by Enric Naval

is it a BLP vio

Whether the inclusion of Giovanni from New Zealand is a WP:BLP violation

The short draft carries only a pair of facts, all opinions and details that differed between sources have been removed, and all that if left is supported by several sources from several different media from different countries (NZ, Australia and UK) (the NZ banning was found at 11 reliable sources, but the short draft only needs to use 5 of them).

Summary: no harm done by adding it here because all harm was already done when the info got out. The info is now freely available on several places on the internet

Now, BLP says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy (...) The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". Now, the banning has been reported at several online newspapers, which means that it can be easily found by someone looking for stuff about GDS, and GDS is a public figure, having appeared at multiple newspapers and interviewed at HARDtalk. Any posible harm was already done at 2004, when The Scotman revealed the banning together with other stuff right when he was trying to buy a futbol club, and one month later an article appeared at NZ Herald remembering details from 1990. And then another article on NZ Herald, and another one, and another one, and then also Sydney Morning Herald and Yahoo news, and two years later getting a mention on Independient Herald Tribune. So it's not as if we were reporting a single obscure mention on a paper newspaper. Notice that the banning happened on 1990, pre-globalization, pre-popular-internet, way before newpapers put their contents online, so everything was on paper copies on NZ, and I can't find any evidence that news of the banning ever got to Europe. Until 2003 or so, it would have been argueable that unburying the incident would harm him, and I would agree. However, later on 2003-2004, he became a popular figure and got lots of media attention, then The Scotman digged on his past and discovered the banning and published it on 2004 on the internet, and the NZ Herald started making articles, which, this time, got placed on Internet with world-wide access. So, the harm was already done, and the facts are public.

consensus at talk page

Whether there is a consensus at the talk page is that it's a not really BLP violation, and whether this consensus should override SqueakBox's objections that it is a violation

That's easy to see. On the RFC it became clear that the draft was too long, and I shortened it. People seem to agree with the short version, and only Squeakbox is still arguing for the removal. There is even a section here asking for people who think it's a BLP vio to speak up, and nobody has answered.

can the draft be changed

Whether the proposed draft (the short version) can be changed so that it stops being a BLP violation

Other users have made suggerences for changes, the last being, for example, inserting "many newspapers report..." at the start [1]. Not sure if Squeakbox ever made any such suggerence, he ought to explain what changes can be done to the draft in order to make it acceptable for inclusion, or if there is any change that he will find acceptable.

steps I took

As so many people expressed BLP and sourcing concerns, I took two steps which I didn't explain on the talk page or anywhere:

• here I consulted a user that got a BLP ban, a ban that he got in part because of editing the GDS article. After talking with him and seeing an old version of the article, I got convinced that I was not repeating the mistakes that had caused the resetting of the article by Jimbo due to poor sources

• here I consultated Jimbo about the quality of the sources, since he was the one that had reseted the article. I had recently started the RFC with the long draft, and after reading his answer I decided to wrote the short draft basing myself on his advice. (I didn't comment it at the time because I didn't want people to see it as an invocation to WP:JIMBO)

Confused Hag2

I am a little confused as to where I should comment upon something.

At one moment, I am involved in a page called "Parties who agree to mediation plus...."; at the next, I am linked to the Giovanni talkpage; and now, it seems as if I have found a new place (wherever this is).

Regardless.... I will comment here.

I have read, and concluded carefully that the Long Draft vs. the Short Draft is far more detailed, obviously.

Previously to this point, I have supported the Short Draft.

Now I feel that I prefer to endorse the Long Draft with a caveat: the Long Draft needs a few minor grammatical edits which will effect the overall interpretation of the main article, but nevertheless will help to provide a much clearer (and more meaningful) understanding of the events surrounding New Zealand than the short version.

I like the long draft. As Eric Naval points out (somewhere), "these are facts". Whether or not, Giovanni Di Stefano likes them is irrelevant. The facts are adequately supported by credible, reliable and verifiable sources. To insert them into the main article is not a violation of BLP, in my opinion. To ignore them on the other hand is to succumb to bullying; and, therefore, is to report less than accurate information. Hag2 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Statements from SqueakBox

BLP needs a "high degree of sensitivity" (BLP opening)and including this scurrilous NZ press story from years ago is very insensitive. Its inclusion clearly also fails our conservative approach to BLP articles, as with the US visa issue, neither of these pieces have been written either sensitively or conservatively. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper, it is not our job to be sensationalist or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" (opening of BLP). We are being the primary vehicle for promoting this old history concerning allegations concerning the private life of Di Stefano, all, this material is clearly BLP material and therefore must be removed. The BLP continues "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." These tales clearly have an immense possibility to damage GDS's reputaion and we are the primary vehicle doing this. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not want any mediation to take place off site. I do want us to broaden the context to the entire Personal legal history section of the article as it is this section which has been causing BLP problems since before I got involved in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement from JoshuaZ

I think that Squeakbox seems to have a fundamental misapprehension. Whether or not Di Stefano likes the material is irrelevant. And there's no evidence that any of reporting in question is "scurrilous" or tabloidish. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One only needs to read the reporting to observe that much of the reporting IS "tabloidish", by which I mean that issues are brought up, but not resolved, leaving a false impression. Fred Talk 03:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What false impression do you feel is being given in this case?Geni 13:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What resolution do you want? The NZ reports seem pretty clear. This is standard reliably sourced material. The only way this isn't resolved is that no matter what happens GDS seems to say "nu-uh!" afterwards. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear whether Di Stefano could visit New Zealand at this time. He claims he has no outstanding felony convictions and offers a certificate to that effect. The harm is leaving implications in the article that there is an outstanding felony or providing abundant links to journalistic accounts which create that impression. Fred Talk 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo also saw the document and said that it proved that he had no convictions in Italy[2]. GDS should send to OTRS the same document, but for UK. That was on December 2007. Recently, on July 2008, a journalist on The Independent published an independent check of his conviction and he only found one unsuccessful appeal[3]. That source is not leaving the impression that he has an outstanding felony, it's plainly stating it. It should count as a followup, as The Independent has covered him before[4], including a 2005 article where it talks about two legal matters that are revisited later on the 2008 article (solicitor thing, and conviction, on the last sentence)[5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I note the statement "He claims he has no outstanding felony convictions and offers a certificate to that effect" but claims don't really mean anything in this context and the certificate given to Jimbo was referred to by Jimbo as ""documentation" written in Italian which I find wholly unconvincing." Nevertheless, I can't see why the article can't refer to the conviction and the unsuccesful appeal (neither of which are disputed by the article's subject), and then say that GDS claims a further appeal overturned the conviction (which clain again isn't disputed by anyone). If GDS or anyone working on his behalf subsequently offers evidence that the conviction WAS overturned, then the article should be changed to reflect this. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to JoshuaZ from SqueakBox

I have not said anything about Di Stefano's personal feelings in my statement here, indeed I have avoided doing so deliberately. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox, your opinion on this matter is nonsense. GDS has no private life. He has spent well over five years in the public arena proselytizing his opinion on matters legal and incidental. This makes him a public target. As such, he is open to public criticism. The article in Wikipedia is gentle; it is not controversial. There are aspects to GDS's life which make this article look like child's play, and they have not been presented, yet. As I said earlier, if you want to protray GDS as Cinderella than you should write a fairy tale. I mean no disrespect, but if you wish to make this a BLP issue than point out just exactly how a fraudster should be treated when confronted with true, hard facts. Hag2 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that he has no private life is what is nonsense, everyone has a private life, and particularly semi-notable people like GDS (he is not Ruth Kelly). What, pray, do you mean by public target? That wikipedia can attack him? The article is only gentle when it does not include controversial BLP material. I am not trying to portray GDS as anything other than a lawyer who takes on controversial clients. One of my main arguments is that the wikipedia article is the main vehicle for keeping alive the NZ and US visa and the fraud bits, and this precisely because he is far less notable than many of his clients, ie the wikipedia articles on Brady, Biggs and Glitter are not the main vehicle for controversial biographical information on them. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

@SqueakBox, BLP is about poorly sourced controversial material, not about well sourced one.

@Hag2 and SqueakBox, both of you need to read Public figure-)

@SqueakBox, Google for "giovanni di stefano deported OR deportation",[6] and you'll see that US deportation is carried by The Scotsman [7], The Independient [8], websites carrying court papers [9][10], a Dundee FC forum [11], Variety [12]. The Scotsman appears on the first page of results before the wikipedia page and carries also the NZ banning and the fraud case. And the fraud case is carried by loooots of sources, starting by The Independient source I just listed. It's not wikipedia that is keeping alive anything. P.D.: Hell, I just found a news article mentioning the UK conviction, the US deportation and the MGM-Lyonaisse case....and it's hosted on GDS' own legal firm website....[13]

Finally, notice that the Variety cites him saying "a major international figure in the motion picture industry.", so much for claiming that he is semi-famous. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re google the only reason people are likely to search for Di Stefano deported is because they have read the wikipedia article already, its an unlikely search term. We are the main source for these things right now because these are old newspaper articles, and GDS is clearly trying to remake his reputation, and successfully given the up to date media coverage of him. This is why BLP is violated here. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, If you search giovanni di stefano without quotes[14], result #4 is a Guardian article with the MGM thing and the UK conviction, #6 is the Scotsman article that mentions the UK conviction, the MGM, the Sandhurst Assests, the US deportation and the NZ banning, #7 is a BBC article with the UK conviction and the Law Society statement, and #8 is The Independient with the UK conviction including the judge's harsh statement about him, the Law Society thing, several other stuff.

And that last result cites him saying that *gasp* he doesn't care about what is written about him as soon as it's signed with a real name (and, what a coincidence, I happen to sign with my real name). So much for statements that the article hurts him. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Its giving a number of false impressions such as that GDS cannot enter the US or NZ. There have, I believe, been at least one documented case of someone unable to enter a country because of what was written about them at wikipedia. I do not believe we should do what GDS says but I do believe we should be protective of his reputation especially as his reputation is clearly very important to him. Gary Glitter has a terrible reputation but nothing we say on his bio is going to make that worse whereas I feel the opposite is the case for GDS. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article just reports that he couldn't enter those countries at a point in time. It said nothing about him being able to re-enter or not, but someone added that he could, without providing any proof or source. GDS is perfectly aware that at any moment he can send documents to OTRS proving that he re-entered, and the article will then be corrected to reflect that and will be kept correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hag2

if Hag2 continues disrupting this mediation with his anal comments I suggest he not contribute to the mediation any further, and in the meantime I have removed a vulgar attack from him against others from this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Um do you mean [15]? It seems harsh but I hardly see that as trolling or terribly vulgar. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We are talking of how to respect GDS, and then Hag2 says that he ought to be helped by "promoters of hoo-haw" and "sue my ***". Not exactly the sort of civilized respectful discussion that BLP promotes :D --Enric Naval (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, its hardly great language, but the notion that the comment should be removed by SqueakBox is ridiculous. The proper thing to do would be to ask Hag to refactor the more strident language to preserve the highly relevant points. In general, removing other editors comments as "trolling" is generally not a good idea. Indeed, it seems throughout this dispute Squeakbox has been quick to label anything he disagrees with as trolling. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you want to defend such obvious trolling comments it is your problem, Josh, not anyone else's, but you and Hag are hardly offering coherent arguments re sue my xxxx. I know rebellious youngsters with neither reputation nor wealth often do not care about being sued but some of us editors here care deeply. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The coherent arguments are quite simple; we have a multitude of reliable sources. If Hag is adding a few additional unhelpful remarks that in now way detracts from the force of those arguments. Moreover lumping me in with Hag isn't helpful. Finally, if you are worried about being sued then go edit a different article. If you have serious such concerns then that if anything means that you aren't editing in a rationale fashion here. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough not to lump you in with Hag, Joshua. I care about any editor on wikipedia being sued not just me, and so should we all. Leaving the article alone would be being like the proverbial ostrich and I have no intention of doing that. This is as much about protecting the freedom of all editors here as it is about protecting the reputation of GDS. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

List of issues on dispute

In reference to additional issue 1 from Additional issues to be mediated I list the point in dispute for the article:

1. point on dispute that caused this mediation
   1. NZ banning
2. well-sourced notable stuff that other editors want to add to the article (I assume that SqueakBox will not agree on adding it):
   1. MGM deal
   2. Sandhurst Assets (judge ruled that too much time had passed and he dismissed the case, but GDS had already been imprisoned almost a year on Italy and had been extradited to UK)
3. well-sourced notable stuff that is already on the article, I assume SqueakBox wants to remove
   1. US deportation
   2. UK fraud conviction
4. more-or-less sourced stuff that is probably not notable enough for inclusion
   1. Telekom Serbia declarations (he acted as a deep throat)
   2. Telekom Serbia accusation (accussation by italian Radical Party's Giulio Manfredi that GDS had participated/collaborated on moving black funds to Milosevic, this person wrote a book and testified on the Italian Chamber of Deputies [16], GDS sued him for defamation, I think the case is still going on)
   3. Ellington Colliery buy-out (bid to buy "the last deep coal mine in North East England". The publicity of the bid is what caused his arrest for the Sandhurst thing as there was a five year old arrest warrant, the bid collapsed later when GDS' associate Arkan was murdered, the mine had to close[17], might be useful to explain why so much time had passed from the arrest warrant until he was arrested)

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to drastically expand the scope of this mediation. That does not seem like a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You think we should limit this mediation to just the NZ banning? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Especially since that seems to be the locus of the dispute for now. Unless SB is objecting to other material already in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He objected to mentioning the US deportation, unless it was followed by a sentence clarifying that "di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then."example. The sentence stayed on the article for several months under different wordings, and it was finally removed for lack of any source for it --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, seeing Fred's post below, it really does not seem a good idea to expand the scope. There are so many issues, each one with its own quirks, we could be arguing here for months. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval, you wrote: "The sentence stayed on the article for several months under different wordings, and it was finally removed for lack of any source for it." I believe the intent still remains as of 17:42, October 6 (UTC) as: "though Di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then." (see the final phrase of the subsection Personal legal....). It is clearly a original research statement without foundation. Hag2 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a claim he makes in emails, but I have never seen an actual source. Fred Talk 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed it was still there. It's still there due to SqueakBox's insistence to keep it[18]. Indeed, the dubious tag only stayed on the article[19] when Avruch proposed here [20] several actions about SqueakBox's actions on the article. No, I'm not going to enter on who was right, I already digressed too much. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the USA issue is as much a part of the dispute as the NZ issue, and IMO for exactly the same reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I opened a new section on the talk page about the US thing.

*sigh* The NZ thing has lots more of sources than the US thing, and it had a lot more of publicity, both on NZ at the time, and on UK and NZ later. And it gets a third part of the space that the US thing gets. Now that's an issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting mediation

Hey, sorry it took me so long to start, been busy with school and, well, editing elsewhere. To start off, can each party explain in brief their side of what they believe needs to be done? Wizardman 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred Bauder

I take a very conservative position. Nothing should be in the article which raises a question it does not resolve. There are a number of journalistic accounts which do this. For example, there are articles which discover that Di Stefano is not a member of the Law Society but never go on to explain that he is a European lawyer licensed in Italy who is not required to join the law society. Or they bring up a past felony conviction which seems to have been overturned at some point, whichout resolving that issue, leaving a false impression. With respect to the New Zealand questions, recent New Zealand accounts don't follow up with the information that he is an Italian attorney in good standing with no outstanding fraud convictions; information readily available to them. I think Jimmy Wales position is quite a bit more liberal than mine, along the lines of so long as you attribute information to a source it's OK. I beg to differ, as a usually reliable source may not be reliable in treatment of a subject they are prejudiced about. Fred Talk 03:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a person who only occasionally practices in a country might not be required to register as a European lawyer, but the question of how he is permitted to practice at all remains unclear. Surely there is some basis in law based on his "admittance to the bar" whatever that means in Italy. Fred Talk 05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

we cannot at this time show that he is licened in Italy. We have not found anything not sourced from Di Stefano about anything being overturned (and a number of indepentent claims that the 1986 conviction hasn't been). "Italian attorney" no evidence "in good standing" since we can't find any professional asocation that talks about him as a memeber we don't know that. "with no outstanding fraud convictions" as I'm sure you are aware under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 sentaces of over 2.5 years never become spent.Geni 14:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Best to leave the debate for the mediation process. Avruch ^T 14:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval

Let's limit this case to the NZ banning or it will become a mess. Let's determine if the short draft is a BLP vio or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

geni

I support the longer version of the draft (minus the bit about the football club) since it provides enough context for the complete story to be told.Geni 15:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Avruch

The specific issue that prompted this mediation, I think (or at least the issue that has been the point of contention recently) is the inclusion or exclusion of the New Zealand information. SqueakBox is the primary person opposing inclusion at this point, on grounds that he is generally against having an article that isn't "balanced" in his view.

But while that is the most recent problem we've encountered, the background is that we've been arguing about the philosophy of inclusion and exclusion of negative sourced information on this article for quite awhile. SqueakBox believes that balance requires us to include roughly equal portions of positive information and negative information, and if we don't balance out the subjectively negative information then the article is in violation of BLP. He is alone in his view on this article - no one has spoken up to support his particular interpretation of BLP or NPOV. Additionally, we've had an RfC and I think a mention or two on BLP/N and there have been no other echoes of his position. Despite this seemingly clear consensus, SqueakBox on one side and as many as 10 editors on the other side (including myself) have been reverting eachother over this philosophical difference for quite a long time.

Fred Bauder has supported similar positions in the past - i.e. removing sourced information, or including information that can perhaps be inferred but is unsourced - in the belief that to do so is fair to the subject. In the last six months to a year or so his editing has been sporadic, so he has not been deeply involved in discussions in some time. I'll note that the European lawyer bit he mentions was removed from the article a long time ago, and he has since held his objection (and no one else has offered theirs).

By now, we're mostly talking past eachother - geni, Naval, myself, JoshuaZ and others describe to SqueakBox our objections to his opinion and his editing of the article, and SqueakBox repeats his personal interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Very little progress is made - the article often reads the way the consensus believes it ought to, but after some time passes its normal to see SqueakBox test the waters by removing content he objects to. I hope the mediation results in an end to this conduct, and a definitive agreement on the structure of the article and policy interpretation relative to its contents. Avruch ^T 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox

I also hold a conservative view on any material in wikipedia but especially any articles which involve BLP, which needs a "high degree of sensitivity" (BLP opening)and including this NZ press story from years ago is very insensitive. Its inclusion clearly fails a conservative approach, as does the US visa issue, neither of these pieces have been written either sensitively or conservatively, which is fine for a commercial newspaper but not for a charitable encyclopedia. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper, it is not our job to be sensationalist or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" (opening of BLP).

We are the primary vehicle for promoting this old history concerning allegations concerning the private life of Di Stefano, all, this material is clearly BLP material and therefore must be removed. The BLP continues "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." These tales clearly have an immense possibility to damage GDS's reputation and we are the primary vehicle doing this. Claims of Google this and Google that assume that people use Google to search for information about people whereas I would argue that people wanting biographical information about GDS are likely to come straight to wikipedia. While papers do publish things like "x couldn't enter country Y" they do not publish stories of "x now is able to enter country y", and this is an issue that needs addressing on a wider level. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to head next

Soon I'll read over everyone's statements in detail and see if I can think of a preliminary compromise. If not I'll at least try to get mediation rolling. Sorry I'm slacking on this. Wizardman 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, we haven't forgotten or resolved our disagreements, methinks. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, I think I have a good starting point. For now, let's just concentrate on the New Zealand information, so that we don't start moving in different directions. It seems like there's people that support the short version (short draft), long version (draft), and no version. Wouldn't the short version technically be a compromise in this case? I doubt it, otherwise this wouldn't be at rfm right now. So, let's say that the current version up is the proposed idea. What are your objections to this and why? I'll go from there. Wizardman 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I got a better idea. To those who support the longer version of the New Zealand draft: May I ask why it would be more beneficial to understanding Mr. Stefano to include it? (ignoring source issues and taking blp issues into account). Wizardman 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It discusses the legal history of an individual who is a) very legally controversial and b) a legal figure. Moreover, given Stefano's own description that his past legal troubles motivate his current work they are relevant by his own description. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Any news on what might be happening with this? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just waiting on replies from the parties. Wizardman 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)