Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:46, 26 January 2008

14:40, Friday 24 January 2025

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Help requested to mediate deletion of article Maurizio Giuliano

Dear Chair,

The above article has been the subject of changes and disputes, and finally it has been deleted. I was involved in editing the article, and I honestly can disclose the fact that I know the subject of the article. But I honestly don't feel that I am biased in favour of the article - though as a lawyer, I trust you can better see whether I am indeed objective as I claim to be.

To the best of my perception, most if not all the changes, and the deletion itself, saw the involvement of a specific user, whom I shall not mention out of courtesy. I was surprised by the objections and changes made by the user, but did not object, and instead worked with him to solve the issue and improve my own objectivity. We had some useful correspondence and I felt the issue was being addressed informally.

PROBLEM: Now however, the article has been deleted. And I can see on the deletion discussion, that there was no consensus at all. One specific user pushed for the deletion, and a decision was taken to delete, despite many votes to keep. The discussion seems to me very biased against the subject of the article, and I note the following:

• The objector stated that his status as Guinness record holder is not proven. The subject IS in the Guinness Book of World Records, 2006 edition, page 126 on the UK edition. I can send a copy of the scanned page by email or upload it as may be requested. I think this already makes him notable. (The objector pointed out that some online media cited him as being 23 when he broke the record. He was instead 28, and this is reflected correctly in the Guinness Book and in other media. Some media just got it wrong. I don't see why this should be relevant).

• Regarding his books, the subject published two books. The objector claimed that these are self-published sources. That is true. But there is also plenty of third-party materials about his books, which you can find online. So, he published two books which have been reviewed by others - he is an author. I think this is enough for inclusion.

• Finally, the strangest thing: the objector disputes his notability as a UN official ! The issue here is that his status as a UN official was not even mentioned in the article - certainly not until I last saw it ! So, why did this become a topic for discussion ? This makes me almost suspect that there may be a 'personal' element.

• Regarding other articles where he is cited... The same user has also deleted his name from several articles. One of them is the one on the Centre for Social Studies (CESOC), where there was a sentence stating that the Centre's published authors included him. How can this be disputed ? There is a book with ISBN etc. available on Amazon, clearly indicating that he is the author and the Centre is the publisher. This should be sufficient proof of the fact that he is one of the Centre's published authors.

I hope you can resolve the dispute, and my ideal solution would be: - The article is reinstated, and you can make any changes to it you deem appropriate. - If there is anything substantial I object to or if I want to add new info, I shall contact you (or someone you might designate) instead of making changes directly. - The one user who keeps objecting to the article should be asked to refrain from making changes directly, and instead go via you (or someone you might designate).

Thanks in advance.

PS: Please note that in addition to the debate on the articles for deletion page, there is further debate available on Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7 and this shows additional lack of consensus in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--CCorward

This issues has now been discussed twice - first at the request for deletion, then at the review of the deletion. It doesn't look like you were involved in either of those stages, and so you might want to request another deletion review. I would recommend however, that instead you discuss the matter calmly with the deleting admin and ask what additional material they feel would be necessary to create a policy compliant article. I am not going to review the substance of the issue - I have no more authority than anyone else to determine what content should be included in Misplaced Pages. It seems to me the best approach for you would be to explain that you would like to create an article that meets the inclusion requirements of Misplaced Pages, and that you would appreciate the deleting admin's guidance on how to further reference the article in order to comply with those requirements. Given that some users thought the article should have been retained, it suggests that there is not that long a way to go.

If you wanted to request formal mediation, you could make a request a WP:RFM but I think you would need to explore other avenues firsts - such as discussion with the deleting admin. Ultimately there are specific avenues available to reviewing deletion decisions (such as deletion review) and mediation is not something usually sought in these matters. WjBscribe 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Chair, Thanks a lot. I shall indeed seek the help of the deleting admin, and any help you can provide in letting me know how to do this would be helpful. (Sorry I am not so familiar with[REDACTED] yet). I dont even know how to access the deleted article.

Still, even assuming the article may be reinstated, I feel that my request for mediation concerns another issue, and I am sorry this was not clear enough in my oroginal message. The request does not essentially concern the article itself or the subject of the article, but rather, the fact that one specific user seems almost 'obsessed' about the subject, as if he had personal animosity against him. If my claim is proven or at least deemed reasonable, i.e. that he is obsessed and has acted out of obsession rather than based on[REDACTED] policy, then I believe that the user should be kindly requested to stay away from the discussion on deletion and (if reinstated) from the article, unless he can behave objectively and not in an obsessed manner. My claim that he is obsessed about the subject is substantiated, I believe, by several examples, e.g.:

• As one of the criteria for deletion, the user disputes the subject's notability as a UN official. This is clearly irrelevant, since his status as a UN official was not even mentioned in the article, which only mentioned his status as author and Guinness record holder. This suggests, in my opinion, that the user did his own research outside the article, and that he has some personal anomosity against the subject.
• The user claimed that the subject's books are not sufficiently important, as there are no third-party reviews. This is blatantly false, and in fact, the user had earlier helped - at the time we were talking - to improve the references to such reviews.
• In the article on the Centre for Social Studies (CESOC), a think-tank and publisher, where the subject was mentioned as one of the authors of the institution, the user deleted his name (but not those of others !) citing "unsourced matter". This is ridiculous, since there is a book, duly included in the bibliography section of the subject's article, where he is the author and CESOC is the publisher. Again, I think this appears symptomatic of an obsession with the subject, which is not a manifestation of proper[REDACTED] policy.
• The article on Aung San Suu Kyi contained a reference to the subject, referenced to online sources, as someone who was expelled from Burma after meeting her. The user removed his name (but had never touched the rest of the article !) stating that the online sources only referred to him having photos of Aung San Suu Kyi and not meeting her - which is silly, as this clearly meant photos of the subject with Aung San Suu Kyi in the context, which means that they met. Again, I feel the user has basically done whatever he could, to eliminate the subject from wikipedia, and for this purpose went specifically to all articles where he was mentioned.
• In previous changes to the subject's article, the user had cited as unsourced facts almost every line. Without going into detail, I foudn that quite obsessive.

So, could I request mediation on this ? If you agree that there is a prima facie case of unproper behaviour by that user, would it be possible for you to ask the user to either stay away from discussion on the matter (especially discussion on reinstating the article), or at least to behave objectively ?

Cheers,

CCorward —Preceding comment was added at 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit

I have suggested a compromise / learning tool for Archtransit here. As the 'crat involved in this case, I would appreciate your input.

Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look - but its probably better not to see my involvement here as being "as a crat". I'm rather too involved to be looked to for a neutral opinion. I nominated Archtransit for adminship so have a certain vested interest both in him and in salvaging some of my own reputation :-)... WjBscribe 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have plenty of reputation to spare and I certainly don't think less of you because of this. Jehochman 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Echo Jehochman - you come out clean in this, IMHO. 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

With the 'crat comment I simply meant that you've proven yourself over a long time to have excellent judgment and you may have seen a situation like this before, whereas I certainly have not. Just thought you might have a perspective on it that others (myself included) had not.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Any move on usurptions for my name name change? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just about to take a look at renames. WjBscribe 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile in reality...

What do you mean "his stress playing a later role"? Read the link still in the text Where he talks about having filmed the role as Dylan while in London filming Batman.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, not a later role - and earlier/concurrent one. Still not sure its very relevant. WjBscribe 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article implies he was stressed by the role. That isn't completely the case.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

- you don't seem to have noticed yet that I agree with you... WjBscribe 10:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly you're the only one allowed to be in touch with reality?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RFM - Jewish lobby

Thanks for taking this on, much appreciated. Jayjg 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you acting taking this case or are you just accepting it on behalf of the committee? I got the impression it was the latter. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request comment, re John Howard RfM

I request your advice regarding the John Howard RfM, at on the talk page subject titled: How long does this go on?. My impression is that an editor may want to abstain from the RfM, feeling that a compromise can't be reached. Are there any advantages for an editor to join the RfM in this situation? Thanks, Lester 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

You have a new message. Rudget. 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you having a bad internet connection? 90.194.244.64 (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

whisper number article

can i get your help or advice on this article? why is it that every change i make is reverted, yet every change made by 24.182.143.16, although not within the rules of wiki editing, are accepted? My last change deleted information, and it was seen as 'unconstructive'. Yet the past four changes made by this 24.182.143.16 (including opinion and non sourced comments) were accepted. I've asked others for help (including an original editor UncleG) and yet no one is making any other changes except those I input. I tried to start a mediation but it said the article did not exist. Any help would be appreciated. 69.69.74.68 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) aka whisper 123, now Whisper1234 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page for two days due to edit warring there.-- Flyguy649 05:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi WJBscribe. Could you kindly stop reverting the article to a version which actually has no user consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus)? Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)