Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 8

Erroneous move to "legal counsellor"
has attempted to change the disambiguation from "fraudster" to "legal counsellor" - I've reverted. There's no basis for such a move; Di Stefano specifically claimed to be a lawyer (avvocato), as the City of London Police's press release makes clear. He doesn't seem to have ever called himself a "legal counsellor". I note that a Google search for "giovanni di stefano" "legal counsellor" returns zero results. On the other hand there are lots of results for "giovanni di stefano" "fraudster". TDA misses the point that Di Stefano's legal work was itself the fraud. He did not commit fraud in the course of being a lawyer. The fraud was claiming to be a lawyer in the first place. Referring to him in the article title as a "legal counsellor" or "lawyer" effectively endorses the very same claim of which Judge McCreath said yesterday, "You have never been a lawyer other than in your own deceitful representation of yourself." Di Stefano lied about his status; there's no rational reason why Wikipedia should perpetuate the lie. And as an aside, I wish Wikipediocracy would keep out of this. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Legal Counsellor is patently incorrect. Although im not convinced 'fraudster' is the correct term, representing this man as anything other than that is erroneous and misleading...both of which appear to be the hallmarks of this particular individual DietJustice (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's mindbogglingly stupid to call Di Stefano by a title that he never claimed for himself, especially when it's barely 12 hours since a judge said explicitly that similar claims were completely false. Whatever happened to the idea that this is a source-based encyclopedia? Prioryman (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be charitable and assume this is a joke. Ha ha, very good. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Prioryman, keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. I saw that AN discussion in my watchlist and found the tone incredibly disgusting and vindictive so I began to look into the situation. Only after seeing the AN discussion did I see that this was at WO. This article suffers from the same problem of many bios on such people, where a certain group of editors who have some latent hostility towards the subject for whatever reason think that "verifiability" means they can freely turn these articles into hit pieces. I am open to alternative terms, but "fraudster" is out of the question as it puts an overly negative spin on his notability. His notability is clearly a result of his advocacy on the behalf of notorious individuals, otherwise few would really care about him. That advocacy takes the form of him serving as legal counsel to those individuals. It may have been done fraudulently, but he did serve as their legal counsel and is mostly known for that fact, not the inherent fraud.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your move violates WP:BLP's cast-iron requirement that information in BLPs should be reliably sourced. There are zero sources for "legal counsellor" - that's something that you have simply plucked out of thin air with no sourcing whatsoever and with literally zero Google hits for the term. I've therefore reverted per WP:BLPREMOVE, which requires that "any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" be immediately removed. I strongly suggest that you do not violate WP:BLP this way again. Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, conspiracy theory? TDA, your understanding of a conspiracy is clearly deficient. Prioryman's edits have been based on reliable sources...yours appear to be based on bias. DietJustice (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to repeat a point I made above, as Jimbo said last year with regard to Edward Davenport (fraudster), "it isn't non-neutral to say that someone is a criminal, if they are." Di Stefano is a career fraudster, however you like to spin it. By the time he (maybe) gets out of jail in 2022, he'll have spent nearly a third of his life behind bars. When he's been described in many media reports today as a fraudster, when the judge who sent him down says his claim to have been "legal counsel" was completely false, it's simply perverse to endorse what a court of law has found to be a false description. That's not just unsourced, it's anti-sourced. Prioryman (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is non-neutral if you act like that is what defines the subject when it is not. The example you give is of someone whose activities were notable because they were fraudulent. Obviously, given his clientele, Stefano's activities are notable for entirely different reasons. Here is what the first source in the article says:
 * "A self-styled ‘lawyer’ who built notoriety, fame and the nickname ‘the Devil’s Advocate’ for the type of cases he took on has today been jailed for 14 years for a catalogue of crimes including deception, fraud and money laundering following a long running City of London Police investigation."


 * That is the people who brought the recent fraud charges literally saying he is notable for the type of cases he worked, not for any fraudulent activity. Just because you can source a label doesn't mean you should use it, especially when it comes to an article title for a living person.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a personal interest in this. Either you are the man himself, or you are someone close to him. Looking back at the archives, it's clear he cares a great deal about what is said here so i don't think your bias is an unreasonable conclusion. DietJustice (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Never met the man. My "interest" is that this type of labeling goes against the whole purpose of Wikipedia, that is to document subjects of noteworthy interest. Is someone generally going to be interested in this individual as someone who has committed fraud? Seems they would and have taken a keener interest in his choice of clientele, with the fraudulent activities only being of significant interest as a result of that.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As a matter of common sense, we would not want to label this person as a lawyer when a UK court has convicted him of fraud for falsely describing himself as such. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, we would have to stick to what reliable sources (e.g. this one) have said -- so if someone were to insist on "lawyer", it would have to be something like "bogus lawyer" as per that source.  I don't think that's a promising option, myself, and I think "fraudster" is appropriate and preferable.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the article is now move-protected. As usual, this is not an endorsement of the current title, it was done solely to prevent further moving of the article without discussion. Please take whatever steps are needed to establish a consensus and then ask an admin to make any further moves. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The unfortunate issue is that it will likely be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a consensus on something — anything — other than "fraudster," given his illustrious past. Hell, I honestly can't think of a single encyclopedic, neutral disambiguating suffix that describes the guy.  Evildoer?  Provocateur?  Villain?  The issue is that they all (however comically) convey editorial judgment without context, like fraudster.  As has been noted numerous times at this article and in discussions over the term elsewhere, the label is poor to failing from any of a number of standpoints (verifiability, accuracy, precision, and neutrality just to start).  About its only advantage is its brevity.  I sincerely hope that it doesn't survive by default.  I would honestly support the past arguments made that this guy is the primary topic just to try to resolve the outstanding wp:blp issue this label creates as a disambiguator.   user: j  (talk)  11:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fraud is the one consistent aspect in the guy's life. Obviously we have the convictions in 1986 and 2013.

There was also the Sandhurst Assets mess in 1991 (Di Stefano managed to outrun the Statute of limitations) and theft from the accounts of some of the clients of John Barry Shaw in 1990.

Of the other businesses Di Stefano has been involved with his activities looks suspicious to put it mildly. I don't know exactly what he was up to in new Zealand but something made the authorities suspicious in the first place. The bid for MGM does look entirely regular. Tracking the guy in the mid 90s is difficult. Serbia wasn't the most stable of areas. However Di Stefano acquisition of Radio Pingvin doesn't exactly look to have been by the book. The involvement with Arkan's purchase of FK Oblilic looks rather suspicious (Arkan was a Red Star Belgrade fan). Given what I know about football in that part of the world money laundering of some type would be the most obvious possibility. His time with Dundee F.C. lead to some interesting stories although its possible that all his activities were technically legal. The collapse of Uralindustry (UK), and Angloasian Media doesn't appear to involve any illegal activity although I'm somewhat supprised the BBC allowed things to get that far. There is some other fun stuff that can be found if you spend enough time digging through Companies House records.

So yeah fraud is the main theme in this guy's life so far. Everything else has been more transitory.©Geni 10:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm 2 cases in the 1970s as well:
 * http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lawyer-who-fooled-criminals-and-media-was-insane-29165187.html
 * ©Geni 10:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

An interesting blog post
From a paralegal researcher who attended the trial. Worth reading. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting times
Plus ca change 'n all that.... I always find this article interesting - but agree with da above that the current title isn't quite right - perhaps this article should simple be eponymous? Privatemusings (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'fraudster' doesn't quite feel right, however after lots of discussion i think it's the most accurate descriptor. The alternatives aren't ideal either, and 'fraudster' seems to be the one with the most consensus. PS...try to avoid text speak, it makes your message much harder to read :-) DietJustice (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a dab page and there's a fair chance of others with the same name. One way or another, we have to have a unique name. And frankly "fraudster" is better than he deserves, you will remember the threats he made to the Foundation and others in order to try to exclude verifiable fact and promote what we can now definitively say (thanks to the court) were lies. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How about "(imposter)" as the disambiguator? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, no - he didn't impersonate anyone, did he? Honestly, I really don't know why there seems to be a reluctance to use the term "fraudster" when he has been tried and convicted of the offence on four separate occasions in two countries. Virtually everything he's known for was either done fraudulently or was enabled by his fraudulent activities. There isn't a BLP issue of any kind with using the disambiguation "fraudster" - that's what he's been found guilty of, and when he's going to be spending the next decade behind bars for fraud it's nonsensical to imagine that he could be "harmed" by Wikipedia referring to him as a fraudster. Prioryman (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point, at least in my mind, is not the avoidance of harm for Di Stefano, whose behavior was certainly appalling, but that "fraudster" is an uncommon term in American English (albeit granted that this is a British English article). He was an "imposter" or "impersonator" in the sense that he wasn't really a lawyer, but was pretending to be one (an imposter is someone who pretends to be someone he or she is not). But I won't make the change over objection; let's see if any others have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However the fake lawyer thing is only his most recent scam. Fraudster covers a longer period.©Geni 19:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Fraudster" is not incomprehensible in American English -- in fact its meaning is readily apparent, even if the word is less often used. The fact that the article is about someone based in Britain is also a significant point in that connection.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) → Giovanni Di Stefano – Two other bios with same name are about obscure figures from the 15th and 14th centuries. Current title has a pejorative label attached so it would be better to move to a title without such labels per WP:BLP. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Move it, sound reasoning. Also, relevant policies Neutral_point_of_view and Article_titles apply here. -- John Reaves 23:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no evidence that this individual is more long-term notable than Giovanni di Stefano (sculptor) or Giovanni di Stefano (architect). If the dab "(fraudster)" isn't acceptable then we need a multi RM to deal with Michael Brown (fraudster) (1966), Edward Davenport (fraudster), Kevin Foster (fraudster), John Friedrich (fraudster), Russell King (fraudster), John McNamara (fraudster)and non-BLPs Henri Lemoine (fraudster), John Thomson (fraudster), Edward Lawrence Levy (fraudster). No reason to deal with this article separately. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that most of those guys are notable solely for fraud, whereas this guy is more notable for serving as a legal counsel for various notorious individuals.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to the article and sources, the legal counsel role was also fraudulent. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- the move is unnecessary, and reading the article it's clear his notability comes at least as much from his convictions for fraud. His activities as a "lawyer" also amount to fraud. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, he is not known for being a lawyer who wasn't really a lawyer, but for being someone who acted as legal counsel for numerous notorious individuals.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The request is naive and misconceived. As the article makes clear, GDS is a career fraudster - he's been convicted of fraud four times and sentenced to or served a total of 22 and a half years in jail. "Fraudster" is wholly appropriate in the circumstances. It's not a POV or pejorative term - it's not a violation of neutrality to say that someone is a fraudster if that is what they in fact are. His career as "legal counsel" was in fact part of the fraud. A very similar issue was discussed in the case of Edward Davenport - see Talk:Edward Davenport (fraudster) and note Jimbo Wales' comments there. Prioryman (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The term "fraudster" is, in my experience, relatively uncommon in American English. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why, I assume, the people to whom the appellation is attached (see the list posted by In ictu oculi above) are almost all either Brits or Australians. WP:ENGVAR applies. Prioryman (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Perhaps this will return again to RM in the future, but at the moment there isn't support for a move. There is reasonable evidence that the subject prefers upper case Di. The British newspapers seem to use lower case 'di', but the New York Times employs upper case. The separate RfC opened by BDD is leaning towards the subject's preference being 'considered' or 'should carry significant weight' if I'm reading it right, and it includes four people who didn't vote here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) → Giovanni di Stefano (fraudster) – Particles like "di", "de", "von", etc., are generally treated in English as they are in their native languages, as long as they're still "from" those languages as opposed to being anglicised. People like Martin Van Buren really aren't applicable here, as I'm talking about how we treat the names of people who are from non-English-speaking cultures. He apparently doesn't capitalise "Di", and the sources on this article that I checked (for example, #1, the BBC) don't either. I was tempted to move it without discussion, but the "fraudster"/"businessman" bit has created enough controversy over the title that I feared finding that controversy had spilt into capitalisation, too. --Relisted. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC) --Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, though I can't help but point out that the previous move discussion gets things exactly wrong; this would be better at a name with no disambiguator. In any case, the nomination is correct in that we should treat name particles like "di" the way they're treated in the majority of sources related to the particular person's name, rather than according to some rule that might have as many exceptions as there are names following the rule. That is particularly so when the title of the article is contentious for other reasons. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Support di - non controversial . In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support personal names should be written like the person himself writes it. Harold O&#39;Brian (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Errrr, this question has been raised before. The "Di" is capitalized because Giovanni himself asked for the capitalization. Giovanni writes "Di", for example article written by him. The web of his legal firm had "Di" until it closed. Giovanni's son once came here and changed the "di" to "Di". See previous discussions Di_Stefano/di_Stefano and [|Requested_move]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Enric. Normally I'd support this sort of move, but we have good evidence of the subject's preference, which should trump for BLPs in all but exceptional circumstances (e.g., Barack Obama says he now wishes to be called the Sugarplum Fairy). Pinging In ictu oculi, who I believe would also give subject's preference some weight, and Harold O'Brian, who has already said he does. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this is bizarre, I suppose because he lives in UK he wants Di capitalized to stop people listing him under Stefano. But okay. I'll take BDD's word that the sources on his preference pass WP:RS - but we should note that The Guardian spells him as if he was a normal Italian. Based on this I am neutral here. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for reasons given by Enric and BDD. Dezastru (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: The issue here appears to be whether to apply the subject's preference per WP:BLP, with some lack of clarity about whether there is a reliable source for that preference. So rather than close as "no consensus", a relisting gives editors more time find any sources which exist. Links would help.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've created an RfC related to this discussion; your input at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources for personal preference:
 * article written by him, in a website he founded himself
 * press release, from his legal company, which he founded himself, links to a letter where he signs with capital "D"
 * In personal emails, his signature was:

"Giovanni Di Stefano www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com"

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources for personal preference (edit conflict) - BrownHairedGirl asked for reliable sources. I don't know that there are any readily accessible sources that would meet RS standards for BLPs. Enric linked on 4 March to an article presumably by Di Stefano hosted at the onlinepublishingcompany.info website. Di Stefano, or someone claiming to be Di Stefano, is a regular contributor to that site, where he is listed as CEO, writing a blog called "Letters from the Inside". Someone on Twitter also claiming to be Giovanni Di Stefano frequently mentions or links to articles from Di Stefano's blog. All of the articles show the name as "Giovanni Di Stefano". TMZ published a copy of a 2011 letter that had allegedly been sent by Di Stefano to the Obama administration's pardons attorney requesting a pardon for a convicted murderer (Di Stefano also communicated with someone at TMZ and was quoted in the article). The letter showed his name written as "Giovanni Di Stefano". Dezastru (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

From gds
With regard to my arrest in Majorca perhaps you conveniently failed to add that I have not been held a single day in custody and that it is impossible to receive 75 years in the UK, on occasions I do admit unfortunately as some offenders deserve throwing the key away. This is a further example of wholly biased and quite cheap and amateur writing from what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia but cest la vie.....217.125.182.94 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we frame this please? Guy (Help!) 01:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please add this to the article! I would do it myself, but am not sure of wikipedia's policy on this. 213.123.199.119 (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327015549/http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/files/FLinesWikipedia3213.pdf to http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/files/FLinesWikipedia3213.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)