| Revision as of 08:40, 2 January 2021 editEdgarAllanFrost (talk | contribs)177 edits →Juan Branco← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:20, 2 January 2021 edit undoFvasconcellos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,939 edits →Juan Branco: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| ] (]) 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC) | ] (]) 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi there. Let's take this one step at a time, shall we? | |||
| :*I was not referring to you or D.Lazard in the log; not sure what would give you that impression. | |||
| :*As I have noted in the Talk page, subjects of articles have immense leeway under our BLP policy to object to how they are presented in the encyclopedia, to the extent where blanking of content by the subject of an article is not considered vandalism, and complaints about potentially libelous or defamatory statements are not considered legal threats. | |||
| :*I have not chosen to get involved—]. My only involvement has been administrative; I have no intention whatsoever of diving into any content issues which remain. That would be inappropriate. I deliberately did not familiarize myself with the matter—''that'' would have muddied the waters. It was a straightforward request for protection, which I obliged, and later discussed with another administrator. | |||
| :*The article is no longer fully protected. You are free to edit it as you see fit, as long as you stick to BLP policies and guidelines. | |||
| :Best, ]<small> (]·])</small> 11:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding edits to the 'Finance' section on the 'Roman Catholic Church in Poland' == | == Regarding edits to the 'Finance' section on the 'Roman Catholic Church in Poland' == | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 2 January 2021
 | FV is neck-deep in work and will be away from Misplaced Pages for the foreseeable future. |
Archived every 30 sections.
Juan Branco
Please add a neutrality box (POV) to the page that was reverted by a SPA user (EdgarAllanFrost), and take into account that libellous elements have been "sedimented" in the page as it is now. The simple fact to have asked for an "non EU administrator" in order to protect it seems like wanting to evade the law: its in general a sign that something is not going on well. Reading the page in diagonal and the lack of encyclopedic respect of basic rules (hierarchy of information) should be sufficient to understand it. Living personalities pages can't become on wikipedia bashing tools SarahMonteiro23 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have restored the dispute/POV tags. Please note that if you or the subject of the article have concerns about potentially libelous material, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- For the record: I disagree with your re-inclusion of the dispute/POV tags which I removed in accordance with policy (When to remove: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given"). There are no factual elements in dispute, merely unsourced accusations of "bulshit" and a "gross tentative to destroy an individual". Other administrators have already been involved (notably here). As for the substance: I defer to the convincing arguments made by C.Fred on the talk page. The article has quite the illustrious history; if you are fluent in French I'd suggest reading this article (archived here). I consider it bad form to be accused of being a "SPA" by an account created today. EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Fvasconcellos, there remain issues regarding this article that I feel the need to come back to.
I have to say I am somewhat miffed by your insinuation that D.Lazard and I are "autoconfirmed users potentially acting on behalf". I understand that the history of the article in question is a mess and you are acting in good faith, but I fear you have misunderstood a few things...
- I was the one who requested the protection of the article (thanks for obliging this request btw).
- I made the request after the subject started tweeting about the article and it was subsequently (yet again) vandalized and turned into a hagiography by him and/or sockpuppets and/or his followers.
- You then "restored the dispute/POV tags" based on the request of User:SarahMonteiro23, whose account was apparently created primarily for this purpose and to [harass.
- There is still no discussion on the article's talk page regarding the alleged "neutrality" issues and no serious concerns regarding specific facts have ever been raised. I understand that the legal threats call for a prudent approach, but adding the POV and Dispute tags seems questionable as a matter of policy.
- In fairness to the subject: The COI-tag has no basis, as the article was specifically rewritten to get rid of the previous hagiography.
Again: I understand that the history of the article is a mess. I have no objection to the continuous protection. But since you chose to get involved, you should have familiarized yourself more with the matter before accusing me and D.Lazard and accidentally muddying the waters.
I apologize if I come off as strong, but I have already been threatened and insulted based on my involvement in this article. In the past, the subject of the article went so far as to write threatening letters to employers of other editors. I remain committed to stop this kind of blatant abuse.
EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there. Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?
- I was not referring to you or D.Lazard in the log; not sure what would give you that impression.
- As I have noted in the Talk page, subjects of articles have immense leeway under our BLP policy to object to how they are presented in the encyclopedia, to the extent where blanking of content by the subject of an article is not considered vandalism, and complaints about potentially libelous or defamatory statements are not considered legal threats.
- I have not chosen to get involved—quite the contrary. My only involvement has been administrative; I have no intention whatsoever of diving into any content issues which remain. That would be inappropriate. I deliberately did not familiarize myself with the matter—that would have muddied the waters. It was a straightforward request for protection, which I obliged, and later discussed with another administrator.
- The article is no longer fully protected. You are free to edit it as you see fit, as long as you stick to BLP policies and guidelines.
- Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding edits to the 'Finance' section on the 'Roman Catholic Church in Poland'
• Citations do not present evidence of what is being stated, and rather lead to arbitrary websites with no related information. • Websites listed as references lead to websites seemingly hostile to the Catholic Church. • The only seemingly valid reference source seems to be a website that lists a concordat existing between the Church and the state of Poland, which itself seems to be a biased and hostile website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.214.94 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)