Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Saddam Hussein - Documents sent to SqueakBox

Some months ago, someone posting as "MSDS" said that GDS sent Squeaxbox "documents from the US District Court and others" to Squeakbox which apparently proved that GDS acted for Saddam Hussein. Did you receive them, Squeakbox? And will you publish them? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

see link

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:wOfR-3w-D_8J:www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/news/ourNews/prelimMotion.doc+giovanni+di+stefano%2Bsaddam%2Bus+district+court&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=it&client=firefox-a

MSDS first son of GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.155.76 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This other document also refers to GDS as a defendant of Hussein, and lists the names of the rest of defendants for Saddam's case [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I probably did receive them, but have looked through my emails and cannot find them. My emails go back to last November. What do you mean by publish? David. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was Michelle - MSDS - GDS's son who suggested that documents would be 'published' - I assume he meant made available by a link such as that which he has put above. However the 'evidence' that he acted for Hussein is still a document from GDS's own website purporting to be a 'motion' lodged in the USA in the District of Columbia Court asking for them to make an order allowing GDS access to Hussein, which even says in it " Mr. Di Stefano is not an agent of Defendant Saddam Hussein for service of process and has no authority from Mr. Hussein to accept service on his behalf of this complaint.". Even if this were lodged then I do not think this is evidence of any link between Hussein and Stefano other than emanating from Stefano. In a nutshell, I could have lodged that document and claimed to be representing him. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

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 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether they have been written about insensitively, because it was mere reportage, without opinion that you have removed. There is no judgement or subjectivity involved. Unless of course you think that anything the subject of an article doesn't like should be removed in the cause of 'sensitivity'? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

David, I think you may want to go HERE, sign into the "agreement" (i.e. parties involved), and then find your way HERE. I am new at this sort of thing, but I think that there is a procedure in place at the moment which requires these three steps. Hag2 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, been away for two weeks - I did see the request for mediation - I don't think I need to sign in to the agreement because I was not a named party. If every person who has edited this article gets involved the mediation process will become unweildy. As far as I can see, it's still awaiting mediation, isn't it? And doesn't the mediation relate solely to the consideration of BLP issues on this article? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The mediation is solely for the introduction of the New Zealand data into the article: it either stays or goes. There has been some discussion (and I see you have found the section) that the mediation process could be broadened to encompass other areas; however I believe the consensus at the moment is to restrict the process solely to the New Zealand material. As I understand the procedure, signing the agreement merely means that a signer will be bound by the decision of the mediator. I suppose this means that if the mediator decides to deny insertion (of the material) and if I then ignore his decision, then I will be bound, gagged, and tarred and finally covered in feathers. Hag2 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is probably better to restrict the scope of the mediation lest this ends up like the Sunday Bloody Sunday Enquiry :). However I would imagine anyone who has the time to keep up with the many talk pages associated with this article would respect the decision of the mediator. And the decision would give a useful pointer to future edits. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If we restrict the mediation to NZ it will bee a complete waste of time, what needs mediating is the blp vios and the solution is to stop inserting this material. Any failure to address the issue will likely result in the case going to arbcom, if they accept it, which they may well not. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalists are people too. How do you claim you uncited wholey inaccurate description of their work fits with BLP?Geni 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

european lawyer again

About this, it was taken out after this April 2008 archived discussion and this other July 2008 archived discussion (PD: now archived here and here --Enric Naval (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)), including the statements by the Law Society that he is not registered as an European Lawyer. We use "lawyer" because sources refer to him as a lawyer. The reason it's confusing is because there is no source explaining clearly what role he plays exactly on the UK trials that he has been at.

He claimed himself on July 2004 that he is neither a barrister nor a solicitor and does not profess to be one [2]. Notice that he was questioned on January 2004 about his qualifications[3] and that all quotes from the Law Society are from 2004 or later, and later on that same month there is also this article "Mr di Stefano insisted he can practise in the UK under EC Directive 77/249, but the Law Society contested this claim."[4]. The Law Society statement about him not being registered as an European Lawyer is from 2004. From the sources, it would seem that he acted as an european lawyer until 2004, when he was challenged, and the Law Society then refused him the status that he had been using; I found no source explaining the whole thing.

Anyways, the Law Society has stated very clearly that he is not a European Lawyer, so adding a wikilink would be making an incorrect statement. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No one has been confused by leaving out the European lawyer bit. In fact, to the average reader, I think describing him as an Italian lawyer is much less confusing - especially since there is no evidence to suggest that he meets the definition of a "European lawyer." We've been over this a number of times, and the consensus (barring Fred's objection) seems to clearly be that the EL bit of the lede should stay out. Avruch ^T 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So how does he practice law in England? The judges in any court he appears have right to demand proof of his status at any time. Does he simply appear at press conferences? Fred Talk 09:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Has he, in fact, appeared in any court in England and Wales lately or had to produce proof of his status? Fred Talk 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In 2004 one judge demanded proof, but other judge said "He has been conducting this appeal. That’s the position, isn’t it? We shall consider what, if anything, needs to be done."[5]. On that same year the Law Society's public relations officer stated "Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer" [6]. You can see more quotes at Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano/Archive_3#list_of_quotes where the Law Society is cited as saying that they couldn't verify either his status as italian lawyer. What is confusing is to say that he is an European Lawyer, when there are multiple sources citing the most reliable source on the field clearly stating that he is not one. From what the sources say, it would appear that he had been acting as an european lawyer even althought he wasn't really one because no one had challenged his status until then, altought no sources say exactly this. So, don't re-add the wikilink until you get sources proving that he is acting as an actual registered european lawyer. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred, you wrote: "So how does he practice law in England?" It is my understanding that Di Stefano acts as a McKenzie Friend (before the UK courts). Or, in other words, he hires the law firm of Paul Martin & Co. to act on behalf of the client, performs any necessary research, advises Paul Martin & Co., perhaps even pays expenses, but does not practice law. Hag2 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis, let's try to figure out what is going on. This article in the Independent may hold valuable clues. Fred Talk 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If he does act as a "McKenzie friend", we need an article on it and a link to it. Fred Talk 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

www.avvocati.it

What is this site: http://www.avvocati.it/ricerca/avv_ricerca_exe.php3 (Type "GIOVANNI DI STEFANO" in the search box and his information will come up.) Is this an official site or simply a site he has put up? Fred Talk 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also check http://www.ecba.org/contactslist/contacts-search-country.php (A little confusing, but search Italy). What are the requirements for listing? This is the Criminal Defence Lawyers in Europe website and contains a prominent disclaimer "DISCLAIMER

The contact details on the website are provided as information only and should not be regarded as any form of recommendation by the ECBA. The ECBA recommends that anyone who requires the assistance of a lawyer makes their own independent checks on the quality and reputation of their legal advisor. The accuracy of the contact details of this website are the sole responsibility of those individuals and the ECBA takes no responsibility for any matters that may arise due to any inaccuracies. The individual or organisation must ensure that the provision of these details on the ECBA website does not contravene any national legislation, guidance or professional regulations and the ECBA takes no responsibility for any such breaches." Fred Talk 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For advoccati.it, it's owned by a company called "SedLex Informatica srl". They have a legal notice page, I google-translated the relevant part:

“ SedLex Informatica srl can not in any way be held responsible for the content of sites listed.

We decline, therefore, all responsibility for any inaccuracies REPORT ON THE DATA PROVIDED AND RESULTS OBTAINED.

This site does not constitute the news, did not, however, a recurrent and is updated through the availability of the material.[7]

”

The details are provided by the people themselves, apparently with no kind of check against any official registry of lawyers "- Sign up for free in Avvocati.it database and creating a card of the Studio with all claims made in the form (components, head of secretariat, addresses, articles and publications, qualifications, types of customers, membership associations, commodities treated)."[8]

The ECBA website was discussed at Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano/Archive_2#Article_in_The_Independent --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred, much of this was addressed at length during times where you were not editing regularly. It may make sense for you to read through the archives to catch up on what we've already determined about GdS' status as a lawyer in Italy, the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. Avruch ^T

Have you evidence that he is a licensed lawyer in Italy? Fred Talk 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we found evidence that he was registered with regulatory bodies in Italy, but the "Italian lawyer" bit of the article stays because he is recognized as, at least, a trained lawyer and of Italian nationality. Avruch ^T 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you think you have the final word. What is the basis of that power? Fred Talk 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "has stayed." If you have a basis to object to describing him as an Italian lawyer, feel free. I don't have the final word on anything, but I do think the fact that we have discussed and dealt with these issues in depth previously means something and that some due diligence on your part is called for before bringing them up again. Avruch ^T 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I know better. I am taking a new look at this. Sometimes going away for a while helps with that. Fred Talk 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the articles talking about his cases always say that he is a lawyer. It's true that the Law Society and the Independent journalist couldn't find him registered as an official italian lawyer. However, the definition of lawyer changes from country to country, and I'm not sure of what do you need to do on Italy to be called an advoccato. Personally, I'm not comfortable with removing the lawyer bit unless there is a direct declaration from the Italian Lawyer registry about his lawyer status. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of introductory language which directly addresses the uncertainty which exists regarding his status. I would of course include a link to European lawyer, as I regard that as vital to understanding by the reader of the issues involved, perhaps along the line that whether he is a European lawyer is uncertain. I am particularly disturbed by lack of evidence of actual recent court appearances and lack of information regarding any co-counsel. I think there are some new rules in place regarding practice in England and Wales by European lawyers and I'm not sure he has satisfied them. Would it be out of place for us to inquire of the Law Society? Fred Talk 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can answer your question fred, I AM NOT REPEAT NOT registered with the Law Society of England and Wales because the conclusion of the van Hoog decision by Mr Justice Jackson was such that under Directive 77/249 you need ONLY register if nyou INTEND to practise FULL time in a EU Country..if you practise 'from time to time' NO REGISTRATION is necessary and as such since there was an appeal which the Gov of HMP Belmarsh lost, with costs to me, it was left at that....I have NOT repeat NOT appeared in Court in the UK since 2005 May and although I have many ongoing appeal cases, admin court cases, parole reviews, NO TRIALS, my sole role now (only in the UK) is limited to written submissions as for eg. in the case of Biggs where I successfully argued (by written submission) that the old law applies regarding his parole. I have NEVER aòppeared as a Mackenzie friend ever. If I wanted to practise in the UK other than 'from time to time' I would be compelled to register with The Law Society or The Bar Council and be compelled into adhering to the tax system in the UK as opposed to my fiscal residence. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO gds1955@tiscali.it or gdistefano1955@fastwebnet.it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.239.133 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

About that ruling in 2002, it said "A person seeking to provide any services may be requested to verify his status as an EEC lawyer by a competent authority (in this case the Law Society) (art. 12) Where such a request has been made (which in this case it has not) the EEC lawyer shall not, except to the extent (if any) allowed by the competent authority, be entitled to provide services until he has verified his status to the satisfaction of that authority (art. 13)"[9]. In the "The further challenges to GDS which are foreshadowed - five" section it says that the defendant had failed to make a request to the Law Society on time, and that any request at that point would not affect the outcome of the case. That left open the possibility that someone asked the Law Society to verify your status (apparently, the prison governor decided not to push the issue). I quote "The Law Society may require GDS to verify his status at anytime, but it would not be a lawful exercise of discretion were they to do so for GDS to be then denied access to visit the Claimant in prison.". The judge didn't verify your status, didn't ask the Law Society to verify your status, and implied that it would be improper of the Law Society to ask about your status due to what they intended to prevent you from doing.

The point here is that this ruling is from 2002, and that around January 2004 an actual request to verify your status was done to the Law Society [10](this is discussed on the "european lawyer again" section above). This request was not bound by the 2002 ruling, and, as I read the case, it was explicitily allowed, the request that were disallowed were the ones intended specifically to preventing you from visiting persons who asked your legal help. Then on 2004 the competent authority (Law Society) said that they couldn't verify your lawyer status on Italy. I quote ""Giovanni di Stefano is not a solicitor, or a registered foreign lawyer, or a registered European lawyer," says Law Society press and public relations officer Geoffrey Negus."[11]. As far as I know, that means that you can't act as an European lawyer on the UK, neither full-time nor partial time, whether you like it or not. I'm sorry, but it doesn't really look to me like a question of whether you feel like registering or not. To paraphrase the quote I made above of the court case, it looks like you are plain out not "entitled to provide services until [you have] verified [your] status to the satisfaction of that authority [the Law Society]", and, looking at the Law Society's statements, you are "[not] allowed by the competent authority [to any extent]". I'm sorry, but this is the only possible interpretation that I can make out of the sources.

@Fred, I would write: "acted as an European lawyer until 2004, when the Law Society stated that he wasn't a registered European lawyer". I'm not sure is this counts as WP:SYNTHesis of sources. Another possible wording would be "acted as an European lawyer until 2004, when the Law Society couldn't verify his status as a registered lawyer on Italy", or simply, "acted as an European lawyer until 2004" (without giving any explanation of why until 2004). Maaaaybe make a longer explanation on the body of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to, we could include a brief paragraph in the article (but not the lead) about his status as a lawyer. I'm not sure how useful that would be, though. The fact is that his work is an advocate in the area of law, and he's frequently described as a lawyer. I think we can describe him as a lawyer without using specifically defined terms (such as European lawyer). GdS answer above simply does not represent the whole truth. Most of us, if not all, have read the decision he references in detail and it clearly does not declare what he says it does. Even if it did, it would not necessarily be relevant to his current status given the other developments since. If we don't know the answer, and no sources provide us with a definitive take on the matter, then we should just leave it alone rather than risk being completely wrong. Avruch ^T 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been a rather unpleasant learning experience. We need to craft an article which does not mislead. Fred Talk 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well a most interesting thesis on Directive 77/249 but as usual a load of nonsense. Fortunately, the law is applied and not interpreted. As stated and confirmed by the Van Hoog decision well reported in the event I elect to practise full time in the UK (and comply with its tax system) I am duty bound to register which I have NOT as I have NO desire to practise and/or live and pay tax in the UK. If I so elect to practise 'from time to time' I require NO registration from the Regulatory bodies and of course the said decision is reciprocal. Many French, German, English lawyers practise in Italy 'from time to time' so they are not required to register. Anyway, as I do 'practise from time to time' in the UK it seems that all the supposed scholars of jurisprudence above providing lengthy essays on Directive 77/249 can just carry out making hypothetical submissions whilst I carry on my work without interference from anyone as the facts show..... GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the decision mentions nothing full time, registration or taxes.

Anyways, I'm happy that you can work without interference, but this is about sourcing stuff on the article. The article needs to comply with WP:V and WP:RS, which would mean that we have to use what the decision says. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the decision and if you know the law as those who represented me do and more important the decision of the Mr Justice Jackson and the FACT that I do practise 'from time to time ONLY' in the UK without any interference from anyone and all these stupid stories and your interpretations of what is european jurisprudence just make Wikipedia and you look actually silly. You chose to believe silly newspaper stories that are subject to defamation proceedings. Yet I continue my work without interference from anyone because there can be no interference as I ONLY practise 'from time to time' and not full time and mercifully I do not have a UK tax base which is what would be a pre-requisite if I sought registration in the UK. Be it known however, that IF I wanted to practise in the UK FULL TIME and reside in the UK I would register with the Law Society or The Bar Council WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM and with FULL compliance. So as you have all been made to look silly with some quite high fantastical allegations the facts I am afraid are somewhat different. Now as there is an ongoing criminal action against a number of you and Wikipedia (as of 1 October 2008 added to the list to the Italian Public Prosecutor also ENRIC NAVAL- who to his credit has identified himself and confirmed his contact details to which I am personally obliged showing him to be a person of courage at least unlike some) I shall only add my comments to the talk page as a matter of evidence and in compliance with my ongoing duty at pointing out erroneous facts. The GUP will decide who, if any, will stand trial. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Thanks for your input and for calling me a person of courage, mister Giovanni. You should provide some published wP:RS reliable source on you practising on the UK after 2004 (or after May 2005, if that's the last time)....Also, please, since you already live and pay taxes on Italy (if I'm not mistaken), you should consider registering yourself as lawyer on Italy, if else because this way the Law Society would no longer put troubles to you practising, and we could stop arguing about the lead --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric: registeration of lawyers in ITALY is ONLY compulsary IF one intends to practise as a lawyer and nothing else other than a lawyer. The 1933 Act permits 'registered' lawyers to work solely as lawyers they cannot for example be company directors, be on the board of certain companies, have ANY other profession other than a lawyer and then in the area of criminal law can ONLY defend either those accused of crime or those who are 'informers' you cannot do both. It is for this reason that in Italy many many famous lawyers do not register so that they are free to have multiple professions and be on board of directors of companies. The only drawback is that if one is not registered in Italy you cannot accept 'legally aided' cases namely where the State pays the miserable fee. But that is all. If ever I decided that all I want to be is a lawyer and work full time in the UK I would CERTAINLY register without problems. The Law Society have no powers to block me working 'from time to time' providing I am not permenantly in the UK. It is why in most cases I provide and make written submissions to the Courts (as in Biggs, Charles Bronson, and many many other criminal cases) without any problem. What EU lawyers still cannot do even those registered are conveyance i.e. transfer of land. You say if I register the Law Society would no longer trouble me but they do not anyway for the reasons explained above. Can I add re this legal threat nonsence. AVRUCH and co, who although my security personnel have identified refuses to post as an identified person, seeks to ban my answers because of legal threats. There is no threat. There exists a serious criminal complaint against Wikipedia, well reported including comments from Jimmy Wales and Mr Gooding, now that is not a threat. It is a fact. If I am to be banned and have curtailed the right of reply because I have excercised my legal right to sue someone, that says more about the likes of AVRUCH than me. At least you and others have had the courage of your convictions to post as identified people. You may be right or wrong, you may believe the rubbish you have read, that is not a crime to believe falshoods, but at least you do so in your name and you stand to be counted. I once paid the fine of Anastasjovic a journalist from Belgrade who when I sued he was sentenced to jail or a fine and as he had no money it was jail and I paid his fine because he had the courage to say he believed what he had read about me. I hope you understand. You can always email me whatever you wish as have Fred Bauder and Squeeqbox and others.I am in Barcelona soon. I will send you e-mail when there and you can meet me if you wish and ask whatever you want. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: The "no legal threats" policy is not just saying "don't make a legal threat". It means, "if there exists any legal motions by you over Wikipedia, you cannot edit". It doesn't mean that, once you begin suing, that it's no longer a threat; the policy still applies. It was made not to deny you your rights, but to protect discourse on the site. It is to prevent people from using spurious legal threats to get their way, and it protects the community from having to step around a lawsuit in progress. So, if there is any legal proceeding in process by you against a Wikipedian, that still applies under the "no legal threats" policy, even if it's gone past the "threat" level. I suggest you remove the comment above, lest it be construed as a violation of the WP:NLT policy. And again, if there is a case outstanding by you against Wikipedia or one of its users, please let us know, you will probably be blocked for the duration of the proceedings. --Golbez (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

TO GOLBEZ: It hardly seems an 'equality of arms' that only ONE party is banned because of the existance of legal action against Wikipedia and a number of its editors. If the policy to ban applies to ALL that is one matter but if it only applies to the person who is suing or who has registered a criminal complaint, me, then again nthat says more about the weaknesses and unfairness of Wikipedia and those named than me. That is the point. The article should have been blocked, if your policy is to be fair, from the moment a lawsuit is launched and all I am doing is to point out the complete innacuracies of the statements made about me which if anyone reads the article is heavilly one sided all negative. It is my ongoing duty to point out these even during the legal process against Wikipedia because doing so and Wikipedia doing nothing about it and in fact even blocking me from pointing out innacuracies violates the 'audi altrem partem' principles and enhances the damages I would be awarded in the event the GUP (Judge) decides in my favour. At this stage all that has occured is that I have filed a criminal complaint, the Investigative Judge (GIP) has found a prima facia case of defamation and has sent the case for trial as is his obligation under Italian Law. Wikipedia, those editors whom I have been able to identify will be notified in due course in the language of their nationality and be afforded an opportunity (which you seek to deny me) to provide a defence. The GUP will then decide what damages have been caused and the amount and issue the necessary order which since defamation is a criminal offence jail time is obligatory. See my diary regarding Telecom Serbia defamation case which one journalist received 2 and a half years jail a fact which you have failed to report yet it would appear to be equally as important as the absurd and innacurate events of NZ. Best regards GIOVANNI DI STEFANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.154.145 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mister GDS, if you think that something crucial is lacking from the article, then you should tell us directly so we can take a look at it. I don't follow your blog postings, and I neither follow nor have easy acess to italian news sources. I was aware of that case (see the talk page of the mediation case, the section "list of issues on dispute") as I had stumbled upon it while trying to source the NZ thing, (notice that I thought that Manfredi was a politician and not a journalist, so I wasn't sure if it was the same lawsuit, I guess I should have asked you). Notice that for the NZ thing I could find loads of more sources than for that lawsuit, so I wasn't sure if that was notable enough, not to mention that I had trouble making out the details of the case (I didn't find what the exact defamation was until I found the italian parlament record on the 1st of October). If you want, I can scrape together the sources that I have, and write a paragraph detailing the case under "personal legal history". If you could publish on your website the court decision closing the case then I would be grateful, as I couldn't find any source detailing how or when the lawsuit ended.

I'm busy on RL today, so I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mister Giovanni, you are right in that you don't need to be registered on Italy in order to be an Europan Lawyer, it seems that it's sufficient to be qualified as a lawyer on a EU state (sorry if I didn't write that correctly). From your previous post (the one that got deleted for possible copyright problems with part of the text) "The host state is required to give effect to a qualification held in another member state (in this case that of an Italian Avvocato)". Now, from the document of the case [12], it seems that once the qualifications of an European Lawyer on the UK are challenged, that European Lawyer would only be allowed to practice on the UK to the extent that the Law Society allows them. Now, the BBC reported that the Law Society is somehow convinced that you have "no legal qualifications whatsoever" [13]. Honestly, seeing this, if you want the article to unambiguosly say that you are practicing as an European Lawyer, in order to comply with the WP:V verifiability policy of wikipedia you really should offer some proof that the Law Society allows you to practice on the UK at all. (proof that can be verified by editors at wikipedia, of course). Otherwise, we can't really add that to the article. As I have repeated you several times, you can use the WP:OTRS system to submit any documents privately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, 85.18.136.70, you have been banned (along with another member of your family) from editing Wikipedia for violating the no legal threats policy. You're free to e-mail those editors for whom you have contact information, but you are not entitled to continue to post your opinion here. Avruch ^T 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, just an observation on my part.... It hardly seems fair to deny a person the opportunity to defend himself as long as he remains civil. I believe that 85.18.136.70 may know Wikipedia's position on civility by now. I disagree with Jéské Couriano's decision to place this conversation back into semi-protection. Hag2 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The semi is only intended to be temporary, and if Avruch doesn't discuss a rangeblock with a knowledgeable user, I will remove the semi in 24 hours. NO talkpage deserves to be locked out to IPs permanently. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CIVIL is the policy at issue here - its WP:NLT. The clear requirement of NLT is that violators are barred from editing Wikipedia until the threat is withdrawn. Not only has di Stefano not withdrawn the threat, he's repeated it numerous times. The simple conclusion is that his bar from editing is likely to be permanent, and his use of an IP instead of an account should not prevent us from enforcing our policies. Avruch ^T 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this on my talk page, unprotecting:

Hi Jeske, I'm told that a rangeblock instead of the semiprotection is not going to work because he edits from multiple huge ranges. Ryan Postlethwaite recommends that new IP edits be reverted on sight instead of the semi... I'm not sure about that - personally I'd rather not have to deal with repetitive legal threats until the case, if there is one, resolves itself. Up to you. Thanks, Avruch ^T 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the banning of Di Stefano: I'm not sure of his current status, but I think it is more useful, both with respect to refining the article and resolution of the criminal complaint, to continue to communicate on this talk page. We finally got an explanation of why he is not "registered as an avvocati" in Italy. It doesn't make much sense to an American, but who knows if it is not a reasonable common sense explanation of the Italian situation. Fred Talk 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

His explanation makes sense, and I remember reading previously that a registered lawyer on Italy can't be a director of a company. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem really as one of language. Why should Wikipedia call him a "lawyer" when Italy uses the word "avvocato" to mean something more peculiar and indigenous to Italy's interpretation of law, and lawyering than the rest of the world community? If Wikipedia printed: "Giovanni Di Stefano is an Italian avvocato who—" I see no problem with this. However this then brings in the final part of the statement: "—practises occasionally in the United Kingdom." The word "practises" implies that he is both qualified and accredited within the UK. Since the word "practices" is so loaded by definition, perhaps another word (or phrase) would be sufficient e.g. "...acts on behalf of clients." Thus, I would say: if Wikipedia printed Giovanni Di Stefano is an Italian avvocato who acts on behalf of clients in the United Kingdom a reader is then going to say Well, what is an avvocato and what does he do? This would allow Wikipedia an opportunity to write an entire lengthy article on avvocati (definition, qualification, accreditation, comparison, contrast) and acceptance within a world community. Or, in other words, it would permit a reader of everything related to avvocati to draw his own conclusions about what it is exactly that Giovanni Di Stefano does. Presumably an article on avvocati would cover the issues of reciprocal agreements between European courts of law. Hag2 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We call him a lawyer because the sources call him a lawyer. Also, there is no definitive proof that he is not actually qualified as a lawyer under some meaning of the term, as in "having a law degree", and no source has actual proof that he doesn't have an actual degree somewhere (I think that having a law degree and two years of practice on a law firm would be enough to qualify him as a lawyer on the UK, I'm not sure). Notice that the Law Society has said that he hadn't legal qualifications as far as the Law Society is concerned[14], not that he didn't actually have qualifications anywhere. He has also actually acted as a lawyer in several cases on the UK, independently of whether he was qualified or not, so you can't say that he hasn't actually worked as a lawyer. "Lawyer" has too wide of a meaning to simply remove it with the current sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He seems to know enough about the law to be described as a lawyer, even if he doesn't have a law degree, and isn't a solicitor or Italian avvocato. His conduct is evidence that he is a lawyer, but there is no evidence that he is an avvocato. I am beginning to question however whether he is really Italian. After all, he appears to have spent much of his early life in the north of England, so who is to say he was not born there? Not sure it matters greatly, but perhaps if we are going to describe him as an Italian lawyer we should be clear about whether he is Italian also. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to doubt that. Of the sources that I have seen mentioning his origins, all agree that he was born in Italy and raised on England. In this article in Corriere della Sera the journalist states that GDS is a native of Petrella Tifernina, and GDS shows to the journalist his italian passport. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That is probably because it is considered non-controversial, and not easily verifiable. But I would be surprised if any of the sources obtained their information from anywhere except the subject. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In at least one case they got info from other sources. They quote his father on a 2003 biographical article on him, and it looks obvious that they have spoken to people on Campobasso [15] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Enric, for that information. I just think we ought to be careful of any BLP info coming solely from the subject (mind you, the wp policy on sources is a little shaky anyway).DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

<== If you access Archive 1 and then access the subsection titled "European lawyer" (before the break), you find a very interesting exchange between Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Tam (see inside the collapsed box):

71. If your Lordship then goes on to page 61, your Lordship will see the letter written to the Central Criminal Court. In the second paragraph of that the letter is said to enclose the documentation referred to therein, including the Power of Attorney and the Certificate that he has as to his good standing as an avvocato in Italy. Then in the fourth paragraph, the identification card which describes him as an avvocato.

72. Now, it appears that the certificates on 64, 65 and 66 are the certificates referred to, but as your Lordship will recall I think a concession was made last week that those certificates are in fact of good character in terms of criminal convictions and charges and do not relate to his status as an avvocato. And then the identification card on 67 itself describes him as “avvocato". One does not know which of the two ambiguous meanings that might have.

73. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Would you tell me what the second meaning is? You say it means "lawyer" in general.

74. MR TAM: Yes, either "lawyer" in general or the specific Italian qualified professional designation of "avvocato".

— Case transcript provided by MSDS (Michelle Di Stefano)

As I interpret this exchange: Mr. Tam says, "One does not know which of the two ambiguous meanings that might have" and then further elaborates, "Yes, either "lawyer" in general or the specific Italian qualified professional designation of "avvocato".

Unfortunately, the exchange appears as if their discussion has been cut short; there seems to be more beyond para 74....

I believe Avruch requested the full transcript—or, at least, the missing parts between 74 and 90. For some reason, MSDS has never acknowledged Avruch's request. I believe some of our confusion could be answered within those missing paragraphs because Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Tam may have gone into greater detail on the subject of "the second meaning". That detail may have direct bearing on the Law Society's position by 2004. Hag2 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See the history for some form of copy-and-paste of some material somehow related to this...I blanked it because it's likely crown-copyrighted and also irrelevant and adds to the tension. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

a) I am guessing that the second meaning is similar to our word 'advocate' just one who represents - or represents the position of another. This would encompass his filing court documents on behalf of people he has never met, I suppose (Dr Crippen, for a non-controversial example!)

b) The source for the transcript is MSDS - Di Stefano or his son. Is there an independently available transcript? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked that I WON the hearing WITH COSTS!!!! And as for you Mr Farmborough, you are supposed to be a 'lawyer' yourself so if you want the full transcripts as you would surely know you can go to www.casetrack.com subscribe to it like of of us real lawyers do and obtain all the hearing transcripts from the search engine but please dont forget that I WON both the hearing and the application to appeal WITH COSTS. Best and kindest regards GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.155.143 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When I worked as a lawyer, I worked in non-contentious areas, so didn't need to look up law reports. However I a not working as a lawyer now so I no longer have access to the subscription services. I was wondering if there was a free source of this information as there really should be. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Send me your email and I will send you the whole transcripts with the greatest of pleasure. Just for the record my son has copied the relevant parts of the transcript verbatim but you are welcome to put it all in remembering always that I WON both the hearing and appeal WITH COSTS and I hope that those that are not in malfides will understand what that means: (a) I have no criminal record as is evident even on the concessions made by Mr Tam in the transcripts you cite and (b) I am what I am an Italian avvocato lawyer BUT I AM NOT repeat NOT registered in the UK and will NOT register as there is NO requirement for me to do so under the directive and Mr Farmborough I am an Italian citizen, born in Italy and PROUD to be Italian so please cease kindly and desiost with greater kindness at making silly assertions as it does not befit a man who purportedly went to a British public School. You can email me at gds1955@tiscali.it or gdistefano1955@fastwebnet.it or call me even 00393394578140. I am in Iraq today but back in Italy tomorrow. As you see I have NOTHING to hide. Best regards GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.155.143 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

David, you probably want to read also this and this from 2006 on Irish Independent. Also reported at the The Irish Times [16]. GDS was prevented from visiting Holland on prison and from being his legal representative on a "miscarriage of justice claim before the Court of Criminal Appeal" because of failing to present qualifications as a lawyer on an Irish court request (notice that this was out of the UK so it has nothing to do with the Law Society). I think that GDS sued Justice John Murray for difamation[17][18] over this matter, but I'm not sure how it ended. The first article appears to make a reference to the Hoogstraten case: "Mr Justice Quirke said he was "not concerned" about what happened in another court". It doesn't seem that GDS can work as lawyer on Ireland since 2006, at least until he can satisfy the requeriments of Murray. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

able to re-enter US, the sequel

Well, GDS has sent me a scan of an italian passport page with two different sealed admission entries from 2007. Seal is from Homeland Security/US Customs and borders protection. When I take a coffee with him on Barcelona at some point on the future I'll see if I can check on the actual passport, just so people won't bitch about "it's only a scan".

Both entries appear to be 90-day WT/WB waivers, which don't require an actual visa [19]), so it would be a moot point to argue whether he finally managed to obtain a waiver for a visa, since he can actually enter without a visa, and clearing this point wouldn't add anything to the article. This won't have been recorded on any newspaper article, so the only possible way of verification is checking directly the visa or the passport, which I have done. I suppose that there is no problem on removing the "fact" and "dubious" tag for now, pending a bullet-proof i-saw-it-with-my-own-eyes-touched-it-with-my-hands-smelled-the-ink-on-the-paper verification, right? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That all depends on whether or not you are willing to discount Russell Miller's, A Law Unto himself, paragraph 14 (Quote=>"An appeal against the 1986 conviction was turned down very robustly. Lord Justice Stephen Brown observed that the trial revealed 'a very deep and wide measure of fraudulent behaviour' and that Giovanni was 'a man who was undoubtedly seeking to operate a financial fraud wherever he was able to induce people to succumb to representations skilfully made in the form of bogus financial documents'.") The scan would baffle me too. Yet I guess it really does not matter, does it? As I understand: Wikipedia is not a policing organization; Wikipedia merely requires verification, not truth. The scan verifies the claim that GDS reentered the U.S. on two separate occasions. Maybe when he comes the next time, he and I will dine together in Georgetown's, Blues Alley. Hag2 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, who knows, maybe you will :) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "I saw it" verification is that its unclear what you're seeing. That he can enter without a visa doesn't counter the claim that he's ineligible to receive one - it doesn't even necessarily mean entering with a 90-day waiver is technically legal (I'm not saying it isn't, just that receiving a non-visa permission of entry could be a bureaucratic loophole). It may be accurate enough to say he's entered the country since, but that leaves a number of unanswered questions. Since we won't be sourcing his actual passport or the scan in the article, how does the {{fact}} tag get replaced with a reference? Avruch ^T 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the legality of WT/WB (why is this a red link?) Visa Waiver Program. I suppose that the WT/WB loophole was done on purpose to allow people to visit US for a short period of time (maximum 90 days) even if they can't apply for a visa that would allow them to stay longer periods of time. It seems that "can't apply for visa" and "can re-enter US" are compatible claims.

About the {{fact}} tag, sentences get referenced when the information is likely to be challenged. Now, the information "he was able to visit the US again" was challenged on the basis that the court decision on 1995 said that he couldn't appeal the visa denial, it was all based on a logical argument (I was one of the editors making the argument), it wasn't actually based on a source saying "no, he can't enter the US at all anymore". And now ut has been verified that a) you can actually visit using a program that doesn't need a visa, so the point is moot b) he has US entries on the passport after 1995 using that program. We can use a page explaining WT/WB as a reference. Now, I'm asking, is the information of "he has been able to re-enter US" still being challenged? And what sources or arguments are being made for the challenging? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase "has since been able to re-enter the US" or something similar is intended to act as a counter, effectively saying that the problems underlying his initial deportation had been resolved. I would challenge an unqualified phrase on that basis. Perhaps something more accurate would be "has since been able to briefly enter the United States through a waiver program that does not require a visa." There, again, we're essentially asking the reader to take that as given since we can provide no reference to back it up. Avruch ^T 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except for the "briefly" qualifier. It gives the idea of only a few days, but he gets 90 days, 3 full months. How about "for limited periods of time"?

About not having a reference, I can't do anything about it. I'll try to get GDS to send the scan throught OTRS, but I can't promise anything. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that should be enough. Given Di Stefano's history a scanned picture by him simply isn't a reasonably trustworthy source. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* JoshuaZ, would you agree to change the sentence for now with Avruch's wording until I have the opportunity to see the passport myself? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For now yes. But I'd much rather prefer actual documentation from the United States government. Anything that is from Di Stefano himself has nearly hopeless chain-of-custody issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'll see when I can finally meet with GDS --Enric Naval (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

<=*yuuch* Well, I do not like the idea of kowtowing to the wishes of an article's Subject when those wishes are highly controversial. Changing the language of the phrase, changes the implications of the entire paragraph. Moreover, some of the existing paragraph is written poorly. Thus, the overall meaning of the paragraph now implies that the United States held a position on GDS's inadmissibility in 1995 which was bypassed by a WT/WB. A great number of people could misinterpret this or at least be confused exactly where the United States stands upon this issue. I know I am.

If it is acceptable by other editors to allow an alteration of the phrase though Di Stefano into the proposed phrase has since been able to briefly, then I submit that the language of the final sentence needs to be amended to read: "Di Stefano on the other hand has alledged that he has since been able to enter the United States for limited periods of time through the Visa Waiver Program, which does not require a visa—unfortunately though, this is a claim which has not been verified by a reliable, unbaised source." [author's note: which is also very terrible writing.] Furthermore, the phrase "waiver of inadmissibility" (within the paragraph) needs to be corrected to the proper language: "waiver of Grounds of Inadmissiblity".

Lastly, it baffles me greatly why there is a continuous use of the preposition on for the clear and distinct meaning of in.

No. I do not like the writing of this paragraph, nor the implications suggested by the alteration of the language specific to it.

My vote would be to revert the entire paragraph to the time before the phrase though Di Stefano was ever introduced. Hag2 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(I fixed some of the minor issues, please check the sentence again. I only removed "though" because of stylistic issues, I didn't notice any change on the meaning so I restored it just in case)

I won't use "allegued" when he has shown a document with an official seal. I'll wait to see the passport itself just in case. We can add a {{verify}} {{Verify source}} tag if you want.

We don't know what is the "stance of USA" on this, and I doubt we can even speak of such a thing. That "stance" is done by several somewhat-connected agencies. As in any big bureaucracy, you can have an agency denying a certain paper and a different one granting it. At most "the stance of the Office X", and only if they made some sort of official declaration somewhere. The problem here would be that we don't know why that agency gave him a WT/WB, but we are not here to police the actions of US agencies, we are just reporting facts, and that they gave him a WT/WB is a fact. It also depends on what bureaucrat handles your request, similar to trials giving one result or other depending on what judge handles it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stance implies knowledge of a present status - all we have is historical information, nothing that gives us a running status. We shouldn't go beyond "this happened at this time" or "this agency said this on such and such date." Avruch ^T 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems clear to me that 53 F.3d 338 said Di Stefano was not entitled to a waiver. The District Director, Benedict J. FERRO, denied Di Stefano's application for a waiver....blah blah blah [see 53 F.3d 338] All this says to me that Di Stefano's WT/WB is fanciful nonsense, and that I want to see Giovanni Di Stefano walking across a lobby in La Guardia into the open arms of my fishing buddies before I will accept his WT/WB argument as valid. Hag2 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Myself, I can't afford travelling to the US to receive him on La Guardia, so I'll have to wait to see his passport :) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Eric Naval (and everyone else too)! I'm still waiting for GDS to walk through the security detectors at LaGuardia into my open arms. I leave for the Caribbean on the 27th, and my fishing buddies are growing weary too. Have you been able to verify GDS's documents up close and personal, and do you have an ETA for him into LaGuardia? Or are we still in a position of accepting GDS's suspect photocopies (and claim) that he "has been able to enter the United States since then for limited periods of time"? DB Hag2 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been busy with some trials at Irak. I'll just add the {{verify source}} until he can meet with one of us. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could all of you please stay on topic? We are discussing the wording of one sentence on the article, not the unsourced legal opinions on the actions of the subject of the article. Also, if you are going to continue the discussion somewhere else, at least gets your facts straight and cite a reliable source for your statements like the official WT/WB website with the full requirements, instead of making guesses on what the program requires.

I really don't give a flying rats ass about whether you trust me or not nor should anyone else. I'm not producing documents that I claim to say something about you. You are. Hag2 gave a very excellent synopsis of why we shouldn't trust documents from you. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC) You see that is why YOU are sent for trial in Italy because of the manner in which you respond. You seem to think you can defame people yet when information about you is 'suggested' then it touches a raw nerve. That is why you and others are sent for trial by the GIP. And before you ask YES if the price is right I might defend you. GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.236.88 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) I'm perfectly happy with having your remark stay here if it suits you. Saying one doesn't trust you is hardly defamatory but maybe in Di Stefano's world it is. Also, the legal threats are getting quite tiresome since you still haven't served me with any papers. So stop blustering already. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC) You will receive all in good time direct from the Italian Courts and translated into English. Having researched you also there are hardly many complimentary articles on you but one wonders if they are accurate? GDS I thought that you were only eligible for the Visa Waiver Program if you made a declaration that you have never been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Could GDS sign such a declaration? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Actually Mr Farmborough the Visa waiver programe states NOT if you have been CONVICTED but if you have ever been CHARGED and unlike you I actually have answered the question properly and honestly thus my entry. You diletante legal knowledge is also becoming tiresome and one wonders what you were taught at St Pauls School that you claim you attended. I note you have failed to contact me as at least other editors have but your identity is known anyway. GDS So are you saying that you answered saying that you had been charged with a crime of moral turpitude and they still let you in under the Visa Waiver program? And weren't you banned from editing Wikipedia as well? I thought that was why we had all the edits from MSDS.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Anyone that has been CHARGED (not talking about conviction) with ANY crime is subject to refusal of entry by the Homeland Security. If you answer the question honestly the Homeland Security have a discretion. If you lie and they find out there is no discretion but mandatory refusal of entry. Moral of the tale don't lie and you may get what you want. Oh how you would like that anyone who respomds is banned wouldn't you? GThat way it allows you to defame people without the benefit of reply. Some lawyer you must have been!! GDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.236.88 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

picture?

Hi. I'm new around here. Why isn't there a picture of di Stefano? His diary has a bunch of them. I specially like the one on the Stand up to Bullies article. The expression on his face surely expresses his contempt for Wikipedia. Why doesn't someone upload it? I would if I knew how to deal with the copyright issues. ThsQ (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across any images that are usable from a copyright perspective. They need to be free (as in freely reusable copyright terms), the policy is located at WP:NFCC. Avruch ^T 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Copyright issues are the problem. The copyright to that picture probably belongs to Mr Di Stefano himself, or to the photographer who is very likely someone in his employ. You could try asking him if he is willing to help Wikipedia by releasing it under our licensing conditions but don't hold your breath! Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the info. Since no one has found anything that must mean that every photo I see of di S is protected? Has anyone ever asked him to participate in this article rather than growl about it? Me? I doubt that I would carry much weight, a newcomer? I have yet to understand how he thinks that it is defammatory. It's controversial yes but libelous, slanderous, and defammatory, how? It seems to me that the editors would benefit by working WITH di S. [side comment: Copyrights? Very interesting. I wonder if di S has copyright permission for all those demeaning, sexist images of women on his diary? I scrolled through 100 pages of that diary two days ago. Fascinating insight into the man's personality.] ThsQ (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was an awesome WP:COATRACK. Starts with asking for a photography of him and finishes questioning the copyright and the good taste of photographies on his website :P Please don't do that again. Now, seriously, back on topic, wikipedia editors are very anal about copyright, erm, I mean wikipedia is invaded by tree-hugging Richard Stallman-adorers comunist hippies, hum, I mean, wikipedia has a high standard for copyrights. So, there is some convoluted rule about using fair use photographies for living persons at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UULP. Myself, I can't understand what the heck it means. (Amazingly enough, a proposal for removing all fair use images of living people was rejected).

When I meet him on Barcelona I'll bring a camera and I'll see if I can get him to allow me to photograph him. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am a bad boy. Di S takes a good picture too. He could release a few of those to you. I liked the one of him as a little boy, but I could not find it. I will continue to look. I found this [20] however. Any thoughts? ThsQ (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, is that him when he was a lot younger? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the question! What is your best guess? I think the answer to this question is greatly important but I will not give a clue until I get a bunch of feedback. My guess is, the probability is greater than 50/50, oooooh maybe 70/30. :o --ThsQ (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The two people in the images don't look at all alike to me (the left one is clearly him). I'm not sure why this is relevant, though. Unless you know the provenance of the image (you found it somewhere that said explicitly that it was freely reusable, or you took it yourself) we can't use it anywhere on Wikipedia. Avruch ^T 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No no. I do not want to use either image anywhere. I do not want to use either image in Wikipedia. Yes, I do know the provenance for both. You guess absolutely 100/0 [diS v.Question Mark], yes? ThsQ (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

YOU can use ANY foto taken from our firm's website of me providing it is ME! The one I have just seen the left is me taken in Dundee FC from my interview with Esquire magazine the one on the right is lord knows who but it 'ain't me' so go ahead and put up whatever picture you so desire as it changes nothing and adds to less. If you want written permission Enric can email me or gdistefano1955@fastwebnet.it and you can have it. GIOVANNI DI STEFANO—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.219.126 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm, How ya doin', Mr. Di S? How is it that you refuse to perform a simple CREATE AN ACCOUNT? Is this your way of a protest? Would you accept the voice of 87.3.219.126 identifying himself as you? Would you accept my word that I am Sir Charles Litton , living a life of leisure as 99.34.262.81? (:p) In all fairness...that happy, smiling gentleman on the right? His name is "Giovanni diStefano too", and he practices law just as you...and sometimes in Iraq and Iran too! Small world, eh? I am afraid though that I do not have his IP. Why not take the time and upload whatever image you so desire? I think You Must Stand Up to Bullies is quite revealing, it says so much in so little and you have a such gift when it comes to illustrating your diary with such skimpy little things. :o ThsQ (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ThsQ, please try very hard to avoid being directly provocative of the subject of any BLP article - but particularly this one, if you don't mind. Di Stefano is banned from Wikipedia for legal threats, although some of his posts to this talkpage are tolerated because they can be useful in crafting the article. Avruch ^T 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, you misunderstand me. I do not wish to provoke Mr. DiS. I believe he is capable of a smile, and of having a jolly good time. I understand all the hardness that has come before me. I believe that it is time to step back, and say, hey, is this for real? Mr. DiS has yet to explain in specific how Wikipedia has done him wrong. I really do not see the world overly concerned by Mr. DiS, do you? ThsQ (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, giving permission to use an image only on the article is no longer possible[21][22]. The image has to be licensed under one of these three licenses: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, or CC Attribution 3.0 or GFDL. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Or public domain of course. Avruch ^T 18:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I now see that we have a picture of Giovanni Di Stefano. In all fairness, I suppose I should identify the other "Giovanni diStefano". You will immediately note the difference in typographical spelling of his name if you are a keen observer of trivia. You will find all relevant biographical information here [23]. I found it odd that Giovanni diStefano had a legal background in Middle Eastern law, as well as a similar spelling for his name (overlooking the obvious missing space between di and Stefano). Since diStefano's picture at the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research is from 1996 (or 12 years ago), I figgered probably toooo much, eh????? Ho ho. Sorry, Mr. DiS, I may or may not owe you an apology. :o Theolious Quissenberry aka ThsQ (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No apology is required. I am used to rubbish written/said about me. I just move forward and get on with what I have to do whether it be in Iraq, UK, Italy, Singapore or wherever. There is also another GDS who is a professor of law at a University in switzerland somewhere. Best regards G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.154.245 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

said-fellow at the University of Lausanne is Giovanni diStefan-oh !...ThsQ (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC) aka Rubbish Regards Theo :)

Well he definately ain't me. There is only ONE real GDS. Best regards G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.221.168 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal career section

I see that the legal career section as undergone a great deal of expansion. A couple of things I'd like to mention, as a result. Firstly... The legal career section now dominates the article. This is of debatable desirability - while his legal career is certainly the primary point of notability, the article itself is biographical. I'd like to see it balanced by more biographical detail (the section on his early life is nothing other than sad at the moment).

Still in the legal career section, I notice he is referred to multiple times as Giovanni. It was not my impression that referring to the subject of an article by his first name was standard style - is there a reason its being done in this case? Additionally, the Hoogstraten bit (where its stated that the judge ruled he could not be denied access to his client) should include the basis for the ruling it mentions - the judge did not decide on the merits of the challenge to di Stefano's status, his ruling was intended to forestall the challenge until it would not unduly impact Hoogstraten.

Lastly... I think we would all appreciate it, and the article would certainly benefit, if closer attention was paid to content as its added by those who are adding it. This edit shows that we've lately done an appalling job at keeping the article in good order, and just skimming through the legal career section I've noticed errors remaining. Avruch ^T 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

well I've eased myself gently in here with a few small grammar type fixes (I think writing 'on January' is quite common as a non-native english sort of grammar thing?) - I'd echo av's points really, and say that we probably want to look at tightening up the article a bit - I'll think further and comment here... Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

errrr, those spelling errors are all my fault, mio espelling in inglish is not gud becós yo Espanish. Thanks for the good corrections. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

personal life stuff

I have added some summary details to his personal life stuff. In early life I couldn't find much. He got a scholarship for a famous school and his father explains that he made some assorted works at places.[24]. All of his biographies jump straight to the 1986 trial. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Enric. I'm not sure that I am willing to accept as "reliable information" a mystifying translation of a 1995 Italian biography of Di Stefano . The translations for Renzo Cianfanelli and Maria Margherita do not really read well. It seems to me that English-speaking readers in an English-version of Wikipedia would prefer an English translation, one which conformed to English, rather than gibberish. Additionally, the information gleaned from both Italian sources opens the door to Di Stefano's Serbian background. On that score, I feel that the opinions of the editors of Verme Weekly should be allowed to be aired in contrast to some of the commentary provided by the two Italian sources. Verme claims of itself: "Since it was founded in October 1990 as a privately-owned and independent weekly, VREME has established itself as the most respected and most trusted newsmagazine of ex-Yugoslavia. Our staff includes some of Yugoslavia's most experienced and knowledgeable journalists who have been widely quoted in media such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, The Guardian, Frankfurter Rundschau, Spiegel, Time, Le Monde..."

Verme's translations read well also. The picture though that Verme paints is less-than-complimentary.

If Serbian background is presented, BLP issues are bound to get ugly again. I doubt that there is any benefit to providing either the Italian-version or the Verme-version of Di Stefano's involvement in Serbia unless we can get to a truer understanding of whose truth is Truth.

I think that we need to resolve the issue of Di Stefano's entry into the United States before we fall completely overboard. -- Dixie Hag2 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(I forgot to reply yesterday) I'm trying to expand the non-controversial stuff so that the controversial one won't occupy so much proportional space. The italian sources mention that he went to Serbia and did some stuff, however they don't enter into much detail, so they should not be much controversial, and can be expanded later with serbian sources, so I'd rather work around that for now. I'm going first for the missing or imcomplete info before going into the really controversial stuff.

The italian sources are the only ones mentioning certain details, and they are useful to confirm that certain stuff mentioned in passing on english sources really happened and to double-check the details, so I need to use them. I'm sorry with the translation problems, I'm spanish so I can make some sense of the italian text. Just add the serbian ones when you go to expand and correct the facts. (continues on my talkpage) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

wellingborough

I'm not sure about the 'got a scholarship to wellingborough' bit - it doesn't really say that in the english language source, and the italian source seems (to me - whose italian is rubbish!) to say that he got a scholarship before heading to Cambridge - which is a little bit of an embellishment, no? - any more info on this? Privatemusings (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

just found the 'translation' link (doh!) - and yeah - it does seem to be saying what I thought. Seems to me that it's possible this could be an example of a rather flowery turn of phrase (perhaps a gift for inaccurate precis, as someone said of someone else?!) - hence I wondered if there are any more sources? Privatemusings (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

he probably used a scholarship, because he was from a poor inmigrant family. That school has its own scholarship program, btw. He probably later entered Cambridge, but it seems that he didn't get any title there. He says that he graduated on Los Angeles, but I'm sure of the name of the school. I'll probably revisit the sources and rework it a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He attended Wellingborough Grammar School in 1972, you didn't need a scholarship to get in there. He was in the Lower 6th form in 1972 see page 33 of pdf document here... http://homepage.mac.com/davidtall/wgs/magazines/77-1972.pdf There is a photo here too... Photo Back row 5th from left http://www.grahamtall.co.uk/wgs1955/panoramic_photograph_1971.htm 88.110.46.112 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Coolio - I've replaced the 'scholarship' bit with 'went on to study' for now... Privatemusings (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states that he attended Wellingborough School (which is a private school) this is NOT supported by the references. He actually attended Wellingborough Grammar School which is entirely different and is supported by the references given above. Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

eep, I didn't notice that the Times article only says that he studied "at Wellingborough". Check the fix I made. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

general feedback

I mentioned above that I think we could probably 'tighten up' this article a bit - I thought I'd flag up here that I'm planning to try and re-work the existing material into a less 'bitty' article, with better flow / readability etc. I think we need to merge some of the paragraphs, probably create a 3 para lead, and I'll show you what I mean by being 'bold' and doing it! - I won't change any of the material information, just how it's presented at this stage :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Errr, better not. I'd rather make small incremental changes. Please, just explain on the talk page what you would do. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

well I've made a start and tried to improve the 'biography' section - you can see what I've done here. I don't think I've changed anything material except replacing the 'scholarship' bit with 'went on to study' - which is a material change (per above). Feel free to revert if you'd rather I discuss the rationale for each small change as we go, and obviously all feedback is most welcome :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make major changes, I'd suggest creating a userspace version of the article and making them there. I'd rather not see renewed edit warring here if you don't mind. Avruch ^T 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

nothing major planned at all from this end! - Have a look at what I've done with the 'biography' para, and imagine that done for the rest of the article - that's what I'm thinking.... whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon that edits that look inocent to oneself can spawn edit wars + full protection. But, yeah, those small changes are good, just make them once at a time. The paragraphs were broken so it was easier to expand, so I might break them again if I add more stuff there. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GFDL

I'm holding off on merging and tightening up the 'notable cases' bit - partly to allow a greater opportunity for discussion - but in the meanwhile, could we sort out how to make this article GFDL compliant? I'm afraid we're failing to attribute significant contributors to this article, who edited prior to Dec 29th 2007 (there are many!) Privatemusings (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many editors edited the page between 2005 and the time Fred deleted the page in Dec of 07, but it also isn't clear how much of the current content was on the page at that point. Best course is to ask Fred to take a look. Avruch ^T 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that this article will become GFDL compliant any time soon. There are too many controversial elements to it. I believe that we need to focus all attention on the single issue of GDS's claim that he can enter the U.S.. Until that issue is resolved satisfactorily, the greater issue of how to handle his BLP must be guided by all existing policy. Privatemusings, you wrote: "I'm afraid we're failing to attribute significant contributors to this article, who edited prior to Dec 29th 2007." What do you mean by the expression failing to attribute significant contributors? The article's history speaks for itself. Or do you mean to imply that there is a multitude of information in the public domain which has not be provided by the editors for the readers? I am afraid that I do not understand your expression. Hag2 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He means that text was added, the article was deleted, and the text was returned but the history not restored in full. Avruch ^T 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The whole point is that the article's history does not speak for itself. If you display the history it looks as if the article was created by Fred Bauder in December 2007, whereas that edit was actually a restoration of previously deleted material written by other editors before that date. Without attribution in the article history to the original authors this article breaches GFDL. This is nothing to do with "GDS's claim that he can enter the U.S." or any other content issues - it's to do with making sure that we comply with the legal requirements of our copyright licensing. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on just the US issues is probably a mistake. Some of the mid to late 90s stuff is fairly significant.Geni 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone with access to the history should copy over the history of names and times of edits, make a single edit to the article where they are cut and pasted in with an edit summary indicating that and then take them out. That will make it about as close to compliant as we can reasonably get. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I noticed that his current legal residence was noted as Iceland, and a commented note said it was referenced to an e-mail received from di Stefano. Nothing in this article should be referenced to e-mail, whether from di Stefano or the Pope. Avruch ^T 15:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More care in writing would also be appreciated - note that words misspelled are underlined in red (unless that is a gadget, in which case everyone should turn it on! ;-) ) Avruch ^T 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

meh, I guess that I'll have to wait until some newspaper reports it, or until he says so on his website.

the underlining of mispelled words is done by Firefox's spell checker. However, Opera won't have that function until version 10[25]. Expect my spelling to improve when Opera 10 is finally released :) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's inaccurate, IP 85.18.136.70 (in Rome) ?

The paragraph reads:

On 15 January 2004 The Guardian reported^[29] that Di Stefano's legal status was under investigation by the British police and the Law Society.^[12] Following that investigation no public action was taken against him.^{[nb 3]} The Law Society declared on 2004 that he was not registered as an European lawyer,^[54] and that they were unable to verify either his legal qualifications or his status as a foreign lawyer despite going to considerable lengths, and despite asking Di Stefano himself for the information.^[29] Di Stefano claims that he doesn't need to register with neither the Law Society nor any Italian bar association in order to practice.^[29]

I understand the difference between a "public action" and "no action". Additionally, the details regarding the Law Society are accurate as far as my interpretation of the facts which have been presented so far. Hag2 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed "public" since it seemed at best unnecessary. If there were any other action we wouldn't know about it and the source can be reasonably read as applying in general to any action against him. I restored the other material as well sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Josh, I believe your revision is quite satisfactory. (I did, however, make several, very minor, grammatical alterations. See the edit summary for details.)--Hag2 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles confirmation

The following sentence lacks verification:

"Di Stefano lived in England until 1989. He then proceeded to live in several locations: Los Angeles between 1989 and 1992^{[citation needed]};"

however, the following sentence seems to confirm that Di Stefano was somewhere within the USA around...:

"Around 1992, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service deported him from the United States due to a fraud conviction in the UK in 1986."

I do not recall in reading articles on the MGM details whether or not Di Stefano lived anywhere in the USA. If someone could find a reliable article for this issue, it would be helpful to clarify what currently appears to need clarification as well as references for both sentences. —Dixie Brown (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Difficult. On one hand the Sandhurst Assets thing means he must have spent some time in the UK but US also posible.Geni 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

European Commission Of Human Rights appeal

Looks like he made an appeal to the European Commission Of Human Rights in 1989:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ij8FVLbRQ_4C&pg=PA182&dq=%22john+Di+Stefano%22+fraud&lr=#PPA182,M1

Anyone got any further details?Geni 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure this is GDS? Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends what do you think the odds are of there being another John Di Stefano (we know he was still going by the name of john in 89) around born in 1955 and convicted of fraud in 1986?Geni 16:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not what I or any of us think, nor the use of reasonable logic that matters; we are constrained by what we ca reliably reference; if we could reliably reference that GDS is this person we could certainly use this in the article, otherwise I fear we cannot even though it puts him in a decent light as the victim of a travesty of justice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See sources:

Quotes from sources

"(...) it emerged that Mr di Stefano had in 1986 been convicted and jailed in Britain for five years on fraud charges worth $75 million." "He denied the conviction, saying the 'John di Stefano' convicted of bank fraud was his cousin. But a fingerprint check proved this was a lie." NZ Herald "He was convicted of serious fraud offences on March 18, 1986 following a 78-day trial at the Old Bailey in London" "Giovanni Di Stefano was using the name John at the time, and later when challenged on his criminal past he variously either admitted the conviction or said that the convictions were overturned on appeal or that the offences were committed by 'one of his cousins' called John." "Court records, however, show that the John Di Stefano convicted in 1986 had the same birthdate and birthplace - 1955 in Campobasso, Italy - as Giovanni Di Stefano, director of Dundee FC, admits in the latest edition of Marquis Who’s Who."Scotsman "In sentencing Mr Di Stefano to five years' jail in 1986, after a 15-week trial in London, Judge Anthony Lewison described Mr Di Stefano, then known as John Di Stefano (...)"Sydney Morning Herald "In 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud. He says this was quashed on the second appeal and a sense of injustice remains, making each victory against the system a sweet revenge."BBC "In 1978, Giovanni moved to Cambridge (...) As a result, he found himself at the Old Bailey in 1986, and after a 78-day trial he was jailed for five years for conspiracy to obtain property by deception and fraudulent trading. (...) what he did after he left prison in 1988"Sunday Times "(...) il tribunale criminale londinese che nel 1986 gli diede cinque anni per bancarotta fraudolenta."Corriere della Sera

so, the book gives the same conviction date as sources (March 18, 1986, in page 187), same place of residence (Cambridge), same name (John Di Stefano at that time), same year of birth (1955), both are Italian inmigrants in England, both have been settled for years in England with their families (the book says 20 years, GDS and his mother moved to the UK when he was 6 or 7 years old to reunite with his father, so he had been living in the UK with his parents for 22-23 years, from 1961-1962 to 1984), both were still Italian citizens, both didn't have a problem understanding English, both had several fraud charges (the book says he was charged with 11 fraud charges but not how many were convicted, the newspaper articles say he was convicted of 5). The only difference is that book gives four months for the length of the trial (from 13 November 1985 to 19 March 1986) while sources all give 78 days.

So, it has been reported independently by several RS in different countries that it's the same person, and the NZ Herald reported that the New Zealand police verified his identity by fingerprint check with the UK police.

(so, hum, Geni, what change to the article are you proposing? Since this page is to discuss changes to the article and not to chat about GDS... :P Myself, I would just add that he also appealed to the European Commission of Human Rights alleging that his arrest violated the European Convention on Human Rights, btw I'm not sure if this is the same rejected "first appeal" that the The Scotman found about) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the appeal and some of the pre 1986 stuff since that is the big gap in the bio. Need to check what the result of the appeal actualy was though.Geni 17:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should add the material without knowing what the result was; this kind of half-finished information has been a bane of this article for ages. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Um no it hasn't.Geni 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes it has, and the source of many discussions on this very page, basically accusations that were not substantiated but were then reported here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so you've just prefered to ignore the sources. In any case we know the result in this case it's in the french version declare la requete Irrecevable declared the application inadmissible. In other words the court declined to hear the appeal.Geni 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

or in full

la commission constate, d’une part, que les motifs donnes par les autorites pour refuser la mise en liberte etaient pertinents et suffisaient a justifier le maintien du requerant en detention et, d’autre part, que la duree de la detention avant le proces n’etait pas deraisonnable vu la complexite des accusations d’escroquerie en cause. La commission en conclut des lors qu’il n’y a pas apparence de violation de l’article 5 par. 3 de la convention.

18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

French and indeed any foreign language sources are fine but assuming this is GDS is not fine, its original research, it may be a logical conclusion but its not common sense. All I have ever done is taken a cautious approach with blp in the forefront of my mind, and thank goodness I have acted as I have. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. The document not only says it's him but provides large amounts of supporting evidence that it is him. Beliveing an an EU document is about who it claims it is about is not OR. Desribeing the british legal system as a travesty of justice without any justification cannot be considered a cautious approach.Geni 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I never descriebed the UK legal system as a travesty of justice nor would I, its one of the best in the world apart from the libel laws, IMHO, I merely said a travesty of justice may have taken place, we know these kinds of things happen, eg Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. Did I miss seeing Giovanni's name on the document? The word John only appears in the article in connection with other people. We are either certian they are the same person and we put his alternate name in bold in the opening or we don't mention this on the assumption that its about someone else. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The point at which it was remotely credible to claim that they were different people has long since passed. If you think otherwise you clearly haven't been paying attention over the last year or so and I ask that you don't waste electrons by argueing further.Geni 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, in that book "John Di Stefano" is referred to as "the applicant". I asked for outside comment at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#how_much_proof_to_show_that_it.27s_the_same_person. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) It does appear beyond any reasonable doubt that the subject of the source in question is indeed one and the same with the subject of this article. We can request that sources, in the future, include this language: "Hello, Wikipedia editors, yes, this source is regarding the article you have on John Doe." In the meantime, we'll have to make do with our horse sense. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I will reiterate my belief that if we are going to claim he is John Di Stefano we need to be able to satisfactorily do so in the opening, not the least in order to not confuse the hell out of our readers, and to reference this claim in a manner satisfactory to the opening; one of you folk who want this included should do so as I am not going to do so myself but without that I fail to see how we could possibly include this material simply because our readers wouldn't understand why we are doing so without explicitly stating that (we think) he is John di Stefano. I counsel that we don't include this material or the claim thathe is John di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"in the opening", you mean the lead, right? The "John Di Stefano" name thing probably belongs to the Biography section and not to the lead. To prevent confusions with the title of the appeal we can add a note saying "at that time he was known as John Di Stefano" (since we have sources for him using that name about that time, and for that name being the one that appears in the convictions). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• A couple of points:

1. 78 days is totally compatible with four months - courts don't sit at weekends and on public holidays.
2. We do know the outcome of the petition - the court declined to hear it: "La commission déclare la requête irrecevable".

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the BLP/N thread was closed as "Resolved. consensus appears to be achieved on the Talk page", I have added the source as I suggested here, with an addition to the biography section about the name "John".[26] --Enric Naval (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)