Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-12 William Gaillard

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	William Gaillard
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Dead-or-Red
Mediator(s)	JeremyMcCracken
Comment	Unproductive; user continuing reverting after unprotection of the article.

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|William Gaillard]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|William Gaillard]]

Request details

To bring a resolution to a content dispute.

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

Content dispute that has left the article locked from all users

What would you like to change about that?

Very much like to bring the situation to a conclusion, move the article forwards.

Mediator notes

I'll take this case on. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement to go with a WP:3O at article's talk. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion relative to that 3O is occurring there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Due to the edit war, the article William Gaillard has been fully protected until the dispute is resolved (log). PeterSymonds | talk 08:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To be clear, does this diff show the content dispute we're concerned with? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would largely focused on that issue, and I was happy for that edit. Another editor flipped the citation saying he has been involved in anti-racism work, which I have no problems with, it's just that BBC article chooses to focus on the furore of a Spain v England match in 2004, and the racism suffered by England's black players. I offered to add context, offered the other editor to add context, show the anti-racism work, but they simply wished to remove the section.Londo 06 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll want Dead-or-Red to come give his thoughts, then work toward a compromise. Let me make a request at this time, and that is to keep things civil. There have been labels of vandalism, accusations of sockpuppetry, the leaving of vandalism warnings on talk pages- please don't do that from here on out. Let's have a calm discussion, and talk about the edits, not the editors. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The accusation of sockpuppetry was simply my repetition of another editor, I believe an administrator, but I shall endeavour to remain civil.Londo 06 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main contention about the article was that it was first added as an attack page on its subject. If you look at the earliest versions this becomes clear. I still feel my first edit said more than enough for somebody who is a relatively minor character. Over time most of the hyperbole has calmed down. There are however two main things with the article that I feel need to be adressed. 1) the racism slur and 2) The Champions league final.

1) Gaillard, as a press secretary gets asked a lot of questions and a lot of what he says appears in the press. His stance on racism was nothing out of the ordinary, it gained little press, and is forgotten by almost everyone. Wikipedia as we know is not a mirror, and shouldnt just replicate what can be found elsewhere. The Gaillard page should be about William Gaillard, not racism in football, and not a collection of soundbites given to the press.

2) The Champions League Final was the catalyst for this page. After time its memory has faded from view and as such we can afford to attribute less on the page to it. An edit made by myself in March reflects this. It was quickly reverted with no reason given.

In summary, the current article does more than enough (perhaps even now, too much) to document Gaillard and racism. And that the article excessivley documents last years Champions League Final. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me insert here the policies and guidelines to be looking at: the basics are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. I think, however, that Dead-or-Red is stating a particular problem with this article being a WP:COATRACK, dealing with issues in regards to 2007 UEFA Champions League Final#Problems before the match. Is that a correct way to state it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. Dead-or-Red (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the press coverage it was widespread in the print media, television and radio coverage, covering both incidents and over a number of deays.Londo 06 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at the talk page archive, it looks like there was a request for a third opinion, that wasn't of much help. Has there been one more recently? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the user that posted one, but as I was afraid, the answerer didn't say anything due to this medcab. Here's what I propose- since this is a two person dispute, if I post a third opinion request there, can both of you agree to accept it as an ad-hoc consensus? If both of you are willing, I'll post a 3O request myself. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no issue with that.Londo 06 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After third opinion

Two outside editors gave opinions. Both were skeptical of the inclusion of the direct quote; in particular, it was pointed out that without the context of the quote, its use in the article doesn't portray what he was really saying. Thoughts? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it comes down to the context that I offered to add in, and has been shown by Kevin Murray with a full quote and Kevin has picked up on the line that the press took along with the precedent angle itself. I believe the full context would enhance the readers understanding of the situation.Londo 06 08:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The outside opinions disagreed as to whether the article was coatracking, but both had a concern with including the actual quote. As a middle ground, could the quote be removed, with the remainder of the 2007 section kept? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture to say that the entire quote would ensure the reader understood the situation fully, otherwise they may not understand why he was lambasted in the press. Context is key to describing the situation.Londo 06 08:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wasnt lambasted by anyone, press or otherwise regarding the racism thing. Dead-or-Red (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a source for his anti-racism work Dead-or-Red (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added several sources, that one included direct at the William Gaillard talk page, showing that he does obviously tow the UEFA line. He was knocked by pretty much all the UK papers, along with Sky Sports and the Beeb following the Spain game.Londo 06 12:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

provide just one source that Gaillard himself was criticised, not UEFA. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor wanted England to walk off is the one currently in the article, I am unaware of a way to verify radio or TV coverage from Sky Sports News and BBC News 24. I shall look for the newspaper records on the internet at some point over the coming days.Londo 06 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At no point in that entire article is Gaillard criticised, stop flogging a dead horse. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no horses involved here, I am trying to be civil. Is it about time to use the material available and move the article forwards.Londo 06 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All ouve done is provide a couple of articles about Uefa and racism. Which would be fine if the article in question was about Uefa and raicsm but it isnt. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion. You are correct the article is about William Gaillard. The particular section that is questioned by you is the period of his life where he is employed by UEFA. I feel the article is ready to move forwards with appropriate citations, detailed above, and also requested newspaper linked re Spain match. I would be happy to have the article as it stands now with the entire quotation if necessary and would be happy to add in any newspaper details after that.Londo 06 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is without any quote it doesn't really explain the controversy. How about something with a little background info, like:

"Gaillard has been highly active in anti-racism work within football, coming to prominence in England following a game in 2004 against Spain. There, racial comments were directed at players, sparking a clash between the Professional Footballers' Association and the UEFA, where the UEFA was accused of failing to take action. (citation)"

We already know that he is the spokesman of the UEFA; this would basically show that the event put him in the spotlight as spokesman, without pushing any judgment against him personally. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that is the truth it fails to state why he was reported. I will use the words of Kevin Murray at Talk:William_Gaillard#Other_Third_opinion

But Uefa spokesman William Gaillard, told BBC Radio Five Live that leaving the pitch would have set a precedent.

We would not condone such behaviour for the very simple reason it could lead to all sorts of abuse," he said. "I don't think we should advise this kind of behaviour for merely technical reasons, because we would have hundreds of cases in which players could walk off the pitch and say 'I heard someone shouting something'.

The salient point is "not setting a precedent" not "merely technical reasons." Taking the latter out of context makes his statement seem bureaucratic rather than logical.

That is the angle that it was reported in the British press and as such came to prominence, if anything the whole quote is a defense of the man.

Whilst the proposed version by JeremyMcCracken explains the wider situation, it does not explain how Gaillard came to prominence to a wider audience. I believe that full quote explains why he was the focus of media attention in the form of TV, radio and national press, and at the same time details what he said and that what he said was fine, but that it could and was taken the wrong way, ie "merely technical reasons."Londo06 09:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that he didnt come to prominance personally until the Champions League Final last year. Until that event he was largely unknown. I have no problem with the wording of the quote used by JeremyMcCracken, however I still see no purpose for it to be inserted at all. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously can't comment on whether you were aware of him, regards his name was out there before the CL Final in Athens. My problem is that the whole quote is actually a defense of the man. I shall look for the newspaper reports following the Spain game, but basically it was painted in the 'merely technical', rather than 'precedent setting' way.Londo 06 13:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly his name was out there, however his lack of prominance can be proven in that he had no wikipedia page until last years debacle with Liverpool fans. Why is it that you want this to turn into an attack page on the man? Dead-or-Red (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything the quote is a defense of him, not that I have any great feelings over someone I have never met, nor likely to meet. Also in 2004 wikipedia was a much smaller operation, only in the last few years has wikipedia become part of the common consciousness, largely in the form of derision.Londo 06 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out to be careful stating that a specific event put Gaillard in the spotlight- it's pretty hard to source that (unless there is a bio page out there that explicitly says that), and it's otherwise bordering on synthesis/original research. We can say factually that he is the spokesman for the UEFA, and that he was representing UEFA when these events occurred, but can it be cited that he was brought to prominence? The current source, which includes the disputed quotation, tells us what he said, but it doesn't address how that affected his visibility (which makes sense, being a news source from the time of the event). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he had been in the job for less than a year at that point, and as such it was his name attributed to quotes in the British press that brought him into the spotlight in 2004.Londo 06 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was a little over a year that he had been in the job, not a little under.Londo 06 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm basically saying is, the reader is supposed to decide that Gaillard came to prominence because the story occurred when he was new. That's really a case of synthesis, however. To support a statement like that, there should be a citation that tells us that he came to prominence. I know some new sources were posted, prehaps you can propose a new wording using these as sources. Simply put, the amount of publicity aspect is, as of right now, original research, because nothing is telling us how big this controversy was. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will work something up over the coming days.Londo 06 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, any progress on a new version? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry was away from a computer for three days and didn't really look into it yesterday. Will look to work something up over the next few days.Londo 06 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry had completely forgotten about the request, I will fashion something over the next couple of days.Londo 06 07:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? The article's been locked for a while now and it would be great if it could be unlocked. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry haven't really had time to do anything but little things on wikipedia, but will find time and sort something acceptable to all by tomorrow.Londo 06 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any progess? it would seem that you have been quite active on wiki over the last few days... Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I see the article has been unlocked, and I see the reverts have started. Please stop, or I'll ask for the page protection to be restored. Let's get this issue settled here first. Let's take another look at what's been discussed. We had two outside opinions, both of which were iffy about that quote. In particular, the section restored still contains that quote that's heavily taken out of context. As I'd pointed out earlier, the statement is that Gaillard "came to prominence", but the source is simply a news report about the event. Nothing in that page states that Gaillard came to prominence as a result of the event; it merely quotes him. As I'd said before, I don't think many users would consider that to be proper synthesis. Can a source about Gaillard be provided that talks about his prominence? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this case; User:Londo06 has made it pretty clear that they won't accept anything different from their version. I'm having the article reprotected; I suggest the users pursue another means of dispute resolution. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)