User talk:Easteasyrider

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jorge Horacio Brito". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 January 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jorge Horacio Brito, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

January 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Easteasyrider (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi! I was blocked and I don't understand why. It seems that I was accused of sock puppetry just because I ask for a mediation. I have nothing to do with the blocked users, but it is true that I was asked to make proper changes in the article of Jorge Horacio Brito because it breaches de BLP policies. Please, don't block each user that is interested in making the article more neutral since we are many users who are interested in improving Wikipedia and I just wanted a mediation in order to discuss the changes that should be made. I would be grateful if you can analyze my request. Many many thanks!Easteasyrider (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for sockpuppetry in violation of our policies, per this sockpuppet investigation. Whether or not you and the account holder of User:Sherlock4000 are the same individual is irrelevant, as our policies on evading a block via a meatpuppet state: "New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating." - Please note that any future accounts that you or your PR firm create that serve the same purpose will also be blocked per this policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

While I appreciate your disclosure of your paid status, you do understand that our conflict of interest policies prohibit editing anything you have a vested interest in, right? Even if you were to be unblocked, you would not be allowed to directly edit the article in question.

As for the sockpuppet issue, @Drmies: will hopefully offer more insight. m.o.p 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi m.o.p! Thanks for your reply. As a user hired by Jorge Horacio Brito itself, how can I defend his reputation if I can edit the article? I even had a request of mediation denied. The article clearly has misleading information and is bad sourced. It even gives a wrong place of birth. I do not really know who to make the article neutral. Y really appreciate your help on this issue. --Easteasyrider (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about making an article neutral is that it's impossible to achieve neutrality if you're going into things with the agenda of 'defending [the subject's] reputation' (or any other agenda, really).

If I may ask you a question in the hopes of making things clearer - do you think Wikipedia would work if the subjects of articles (be they persons, corporations, or anything else) could simply pay to have their 'reputations defended'?

Now, since this is fairly open-and-shut, essentially the only thing I can offer you is a chance to contribute to the article while following Wikipedia's rules. If you'd like to take a shot at quickly jotting down the things you would see changed were you to edit the page, you may do so here. If things look good, I would take them to the article's talk page for review by other members of the community. It would be made clear that you are editing with a heavy bias, so be warned that proposed changes you make may not be well-received if they are even slightly biased.

Additionally, I'd recommend heavy usage of reliable, verifiable sources that are not primary in nature. We cannot take unreferenced content, even if it's perfectly neutral.

Let me know if that sounds reasonable! Best of luck, m.o.p 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very reasonble m.o.p! I want to follow every Wikipedia policy. The problem with the article of Jorge Horacio Brito is that there is a user that is interested in using Wikipedia as a place to denounce corruption cases of many Argentinian people. Of course I am interest in Brito because is the one who have hired me. If you read the article you will realize that it links Brito to relevant scandals based mainly in poor sources. It is difficult for a non-Argentinian and non-Spanish speakers to see that the sources are really poor and the reliable sources used (important newspapers from Argentina) just mention a rumour of an alleged link between Brito and the corruption case, but no judge considers it strong enough to investigate it. However, the user who wrote de article just describes Brito as one of the key actors in several corruption cases of Argentina. I believe that this harms his reputation and since no judge has proved that he is involved in those cases, it is not fair that Wikipedia gives this information as a matter of fact. I will do a deep analysis here in order to show you this point and I will really appreciate if the rest of the community can see this and edit the article in order stop damaging Brito's reputation because is one of the policies of BLP is to avoid harm. Thank you again and between the next to weeks I will prepare a deep explanation and edition here to show you.--Easteasyrider (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. If you have any questions please feel free to leave them here for now.

One thing I should note is that, while I understand your analysis of the situation, know that we do not accept original research. We do not take two points of information and say "since point A, therefore point B". So, while you may understand the political situation in Argentina and say that said corruption is too weak because no judges have investigated, we would only accept such a statement if a reliable source (e.g. a widely-published newspaper) made the claim.

Let me know if that makes sense. Best, m.o.p 23:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi m.o.p and Drmies! I'm back from holidays and I want to explain you why the biography of Jorge Horacio Brito is biased and should be neutralized. I saw that Drmies has made a couple of changes.

Jorge Horacio Brito was worn in Buenos Aires and not in Salta. I know that because he is my client, but this information is not sourced in the article.
The first two sources are links that don't work (Forbes and revistaeconomica). What is worst, the second source is what supports this arguable sentence: "He is said to have great influence in the economy and politics of his country".
There is a quote of Wikileaks. Can be this source considered 'encyclopedic'?
The Corruption Allegations section should be removed in its entirety because no Court has linked him with those scand,als. The article only used rumours spread by websites that cannot be considered serious and are not used even by Argentinean newspapers. Those sources are OPI Santa Cruz, Contexto (whose link is dead), La Política Online, Urgente 24, Informador Publicado, Diario Veloz, Taringa (which is just a forum, not even a blog!), Que Pasa Salta and Gustavo Sylvestre. If a user uses this sources on an article at Wikipedia in Spanish it will be rejected immediately because of its lack of neutrality. Those sites are like blogs where the information is based on unknown sources.The only serious sources of the article are the ones of Perfil, La Nación and Clarín. But the information they give was not proved yet, so until there exists evident information about Brito's links in those scandals, these information should not be included in Wikipedia because it damages his reputation. The same happens with de Politics section. Moreover, there is an interview where Brito explains everything and denies his relationship with those scandals that it wasn't included in the article.
The source of this non-relevant and harmful sentece is down: 'During the Menem presidency, Brito came under criticism for allegations of favorable treatment for one of Macro's largest borrowers, leather manufacturer Emir Yoma (Menem's brother-in-law), particularly after Macro's 1995 rescue by the Central Bank of Argentina'.
The follwing sentence was included with the malicious aim to link Brito with the 'Boudougate' scandal and it is completely irrelevant for a biography: 'Macro Bank participated in the construction of Madero Center, a Puerto Madero mixed use development midrise in which Brito owns an apartment, as do his son, President Cristina Kirchner, Vice President Amado Boudou, and partners in the London Supply firm (which was implicated in Boudougate)'.
The Personal Life section should be removed to because ii is about his son and not about him. Moreover, it has a new corruption allegation with just one source, which is unreliable.

I hope you can get my point and see why this article is not neutral, biased and misleading. Many thanks for the chance!--Easteasyrider (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, before I get into this - in the future, please make sure to ping me by using {{reply to}}. I missed this post as I wasn't notified. Also, @Drmies: and @Panyd: - if you guys don't mind checking over and making sure I didn't miss anything.

To address your points in order:

I have updated the information and added a citation to Brito's personal page (as you can see here).
I have repaired both sources so that they link to their original pages. Can you review the second source? I do not speak Spanish.
The quote is not coming directly from Wikileaks, but from a third-party publisher - therefore it meets our sourcing criteria.
Splitting this into sections:
- the Contexto link, which I cannot find an alternative to, is used to cite a claim about how Brito grew Macro Bank during the 1990's.
- As for the other sources, I have repaired the ones that were not accessible. The thing about Wikipedia is that we are neutral. Whether allegations have been proven or disproven does not mean anything; if reputable sources are making a claim, and we can verify that by going to their websites, we are obligated to publish the claim. In the event such allegations are proven false or true, that will be incorporated into the article as well. There is more to this which I can not sum up easily, but our policy on articles about living subjects details this further, including talking about balancing viewpoints and other relevant information. Do you have any sources which detail how the courts have not investigated allegations further because they think them trivial? It's worth noting I did see a note in one of the articles that there was a judge reviewing at least one of the allegations.
I have repaired the reference.
From what I can see, that is echoing the Perfil source, which makes the claim.
I agree that this section is very flimsy. I have removed it.

If you would like to see all of my changes, you may view them here directly, or through the article history. Does this look better?

In terms of questions pertaining to reliability of sources, I will invite editors on the talk page to comment on whether or not they think any of the sources you've listed are unreliable (barring the social media site, which I have already removed).

Let me know if you have any further questions! Remember - {{reply to|Master of Puppets}} if you'd like to notify me you've replied here. Best, m.o.p 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Puppets, I have faith. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Puppets: , @Drmies: and @Panyd: Thank you for all the changes you made. Sadly, no other user is interested in checking the liabilities of the sources and the Article still links Brito to corruption cases where he has said he has nothing to do with. In fact, investigators and judges only consider him as a witness and not someone who is involved with those corruption allegations. Therefore, stating on the first paraghaph of his biography that he "has been implicated in Boudougate, also known as the Ciccone case, a political and financial scandal that erupted in February 2012", for a man who is an important piece of the Argentinean financial system, is a little bit disrespectful, specially when no source was cited in that sentence and the ones that can be quoted are not reliable, such as OPI Santa Cruz. That source is what mentions Wikileaks, so that sentence also is weak and should me removed.

On the other hand, the line "and cultivated close relationships with leading officials in the governments of both Raúl Alfonsín and Carlos Menem. During the Menem presidency, Brito came under criticism for allegations of favorable treatment for one of Macro's largest borrowers, leather manufacturer Emir Yoma (Menem's brother-in-law)" is also misleading and denied by the source itself, which is an interview with Brito where the journalist say he has a relantionship with Yoma and Brito says that it is not true. This is an example of how misleading have the sources been used to create a biased article about Brito.

Is this information relevant for a biography? "Macro Bank participated in the construction of Madero Center, a Puerto Madero mixed use development midrise in which Brito owns an apartment, as do his son, President Cristina Kirchner, Vice President Amado Boudou, and partners in the London Supply firm (which was implicated in Boudougate)". In my opinion, it isn't and it was included in bad faith to enforce the theory that Brito is part of the Boudougate scandal.

Again, I still ask for deleting the Politics and Corruption Allegations sections. The first is very poor sourced with websites that in Argentina are considered 'independent' blogs that contain information that is not checked. If you read it you will realize that the information given in this section is irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. Regarding the Corruption Allegations section, it gives loads of information that come for the articles The Route of the K-Money and Boudougate, but barely mention Brito, so it should not be included in his own biography. In the other hand, in a recent interview that is not included in the article, Brito confirms that according to expert's reports presented in the investigation, he is not able to know what kind of operations his customers do, and that includes all the people involved in those scandals. Here isthe source.

Last, Brito has finished his term as president of ADEBA this month, so this information should be updated. Here I leave the source.

Many thanks for your help and please forgive me if I sound a little tough, my English is not the best and sometimes I don't know how to express in the most friendly manner. I really thank you!I hope Brito's article can be neutralized at last. --Easteasyrider (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easteasyrider, I think you're missing something--you were blocked, indefinitely, for using multiple account to achieve what the clients of your PR firm wanted to have place in articles. That means you lost any credibility you may have had, and I see no reason whatsoever why I should do your edits for you by proxy. If there are problems with that article, you should hit yourself over the head for having screwed it up a year and a half ago. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: , @Master of Puppets: We commit a mistake because we do not know so much about Wikipedia policies and we have many users, and even another PR Firm, making edits in the article. I apologize for this and I want to do it in the right way. Anyway, the mistake that the users that belongs to the PR Firm and me have done should not be mixed with the fact that the article is misleading and that it damages Brito's reputation. You can see that only by reading the article. I do not pretend to be unblocked now because I know we had made a mistake and breached Wikipedia's policies. I only ask to be listened to by the community in order to show the how bad and harmful this article is. The user who wrote it tries to stain Brito with corruption scandals and the community, should pay attention to that, apart from our behaviour as unexperienced users. I apologize for all of this. I talked with my team in order to stop using Wikipedia because we want to get unblocked. I am willing to do anything to be unblocked and I ask to make Brito's article more neutral. Please, don't let some users to use Wikipedia as a tabloid and please help me to improve Brito's biography in spite of my block. Many many thanks.--Easteasyrider (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your socking goes back to 2004. I am not paid to uphold Brito's reputation. If there are BLP violations, you can consider looking at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. If you want to be unblocked, it'll have to come from the original account--but considering the number of socks and how long this has been going on, good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @Master of Puppets: there was a mistake in my blocking too. I was accused of being a sockpuppet of user Sherlock4000, but in fact I have nothing to do with him. He was an expert user here who hold the same position as me. The first user in our team who started to edit this article strongly was SuperAgente86. His position was defended by Sherlock4000, who apparently had another accouont and was blocked. Then, when the edit war begun, SuperAgente86 was considered a suckpuppet of Sherlock4000 when in fact there were no relationship between them. Then, when he was blocked, the rest of the team created accounts in order to defend the article and because of lack of knowledge on Wikipedia's policies, we breached the rules and I am sorry for that. In the other hand, users should be take care of articles and if there is one clearly misleading as Brito's biography, all the community should be aware of this. It is not a matter of being paid for that but a matter to keep the encyclopaedia neutral. I hope you understand and again, I am sorry for the mistakes that my team and I commited and thank you for looking at this case. I do not pretend to be unblocked because I know I breached the rules, but I hope the community can understand that there are is a misleading and poor sourced article that must be improved for the benefit of all.--Easteasyrider (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check the SPI where comments are made about "meat"--see WP:MEAT. You can't really have it both ways, arguing that the block was mistaken but you broke the rules and you still want to have the article improved (which would be asking for editing by proxy, yet another violation). I posted a note on WP:BLPN; perhaps others will have a look. As I said, there's the Volunteer Response Team. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]