Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 8 January 2021

FV is neck-deep in work and will be away from Misplaced Pages for the foreseeable future.

Archived every 30 sections.

Archives Archive 1: Apr–Nov 2006 Archive 2: Nov 2006–Jan 2007 Archive 3: January–March 2007 Archive 4: March–April 2007 Archive 5: April–May 2007 Archive 6: May–June 2007 (aka "The RfA files") Archive 7: June–July 2007 Archive 8: July–August 2007 Archive 9: Aug–Sep 2007 Archive 10: Sep–Oct 2007 Archive 11: Oct–Nov 2007 Archive 12: Nov–Dec 2007 Archive 13: Jan–Feb 2008 Archive 14: Feb–Apr 2008 Archive 15: Apr–May 2008 Archive 16: May–June 2008 Archive 17: July 2008 Archive 18: Jul–Sep 2008 Archive 19: Sep–Nov 2008 Archive 20: Nov–Dec 2008 Archive 21: Jan–Feb 2009 Archive 22: Mar–Jun 2009 Archive 23: July 2009 Archive 24: Jul–Sep 2009 Archive 25: Sep–Nov 2009 Archive 26: 2010 Archive 27: 2011 Archive 28: 2012–2016 Archive 29: 2017–2020

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)

Thanks for clearing things up. Since D.Lazard and I were the only non-IP contributors to the page, I thought you meant us and might have overreacted slightly. I apologize for being pushy. I don't want to get into the nuances of the debate - suffice to say that I think other administrators rightfully considered this "I am preparing criminal prosecution against you via a lawsuit (...) before the senior investigating judge." a legal threat.

Kind regards (and a belated Happy New Year)

EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 11:32, 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)

Declining my request

Please explain why you have ignored this request. I feel you have made a very wrong call. That user is not even replying to my requests to engage, how on earth do you expect me to have a dispute resolution in this case? I cannot report him to AIV as his edits are not technically vandalism, but a desruptive edit. Edit warring noticeboard needs more than 3 reverts to be reported. I have already made 3 reverts. That user has already restored his shitty nonsense in the current article version as of now. You are basically refusing to help and would not allow others to help. Just resign from Adminship or at the very least stop taking shitty calls on Page protection by just pressing buttons, I believe you should find a more productive admin work where you are not meddling with others who are trying to help. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. looking at the busy template, if you are too busy to look into an issue you should let others who are willing to spend time in looking into it. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We have very clear policies on page protection and disruptive editing. The user's changes were not disruptive, and there was no indication for protecting the page. The fact that you requested protection so as to circumvent committing a 3RR violation yourself is also quite concerning.

Calling others' edits "shitty nonsense" and complaining about "shitty calls" really doesn't help your case here. If the user is refusing to engage, post a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, good so you respond to questioning of your shitty admin calls by attacking my edits now. Way to go! What exactly are you suggesting me to do there once that DISRUPTIVE editor made 4 edits? Ignore the shitty edits and leave the article in its shitty version, because we have a shitty admin who will patrol the admin noticeboard to help the vandals and the disruptive editors? I left the article as I did not wanted to break the 3RR, and waited on the talk page. As expected no response came.

I have read those pages you linked for me and it is clear that Page protection is an acceptable response to prevent edit warring. May be you should also read the pages you are asking others to read.

Grow a thick skin and learn to take criticism on its merits when you are going to make shitty admin calls. Through your reply you have just proved why my suggestions for resigning, not doing RFPP calls is applicable for you. If you take another shitty page protection call on that page, I would take your calls to Admin Noticeboard for a review. Have a good day. Bye. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)