Talk:Juan Branco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the whitewashing soon complete ?[edit]

Sorry guys, but I can help being utterly puzzled at what happening here. I keep seeing accusation being raised of uncoordinated and biased changes, double standards for sources etc and calls to alignment on the discussion page. Yet with literally dozens of daily changes and comments on the talk page, when I point out serious misrepresentations of the sources as to the Attal affair or CV embellishments, nothing of this gets answered or addressed and it stays there like it doesn't matter. And when something finally happens, it's that the "question of integrity" paragraph gets discarded altogether while we are graced with the super important information of the composition of Lamaline basically implying "it's only paracetamol after all".

In the meantime, to date :
- lying on role at ICC : gone
- lying on role as chief of staff of Filipetti ministry : gone
- Abdeslam : one lengthy paragraph to explain that approaching him could have been borderline legal (though highly unethical as per the source : the bar itself recommended sanctions) under some circumstances that the source itself clearly explains were not met and as such the case falls out of this exception. But the (proven wrong by the source) argument from Branco is transcribed here verbatim. And complete silence on the harsh criticism from the bar that is 95% of the source article.
- Attal outing : gone

Etc, etc. Ebtpmus (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to restore anything that you think should go in.
As for lamaline, I listed the ingredients "paracetamol, opium and caffeine" because the drug is not, I think, familiar to readers from some countries. In England at least it would look bad in a rape case if you had given someone a drug that in any way affects consciousness. Southdevonian (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ebtpmus, could you please quit throwing accusations around every time you don't like a change to this article? Given your edit history is only about this article, it stands to reason that you may not be the best arbitrator of neutrality about what's WP:DUE when it comes to this particular subject. Nemov (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nemov: you are the one casting aspersions about editors and their motivations all the time. How about you answer my arguments on their merit ? For once. And not about my edit history or supposed motivations.
Edits that have been exclusively on this talk page for quite some time now BTW. And as to the edits I made to the page itself, I don't believe that they were orientated in any way. But feel free to comment specifically on points or suggestions that I have made, instead of remaining comfortably vague. Ebtpmus (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally agree with you. But D.Lazard took the side of this whitewashing that is totally similar to the previous one he was against: Perhaps he was afraid of the legal threats.
The structure of the page as it is now comes from me actually: I was just noticing that some things were disappearing and putting them back and trying to discuss them in talk page, and then Nemov, who acts an admin (reverting a lot but never ever discussing content), reverted me, and bizarrely D.Lazard took the same position, against his own reverts (he would put back the content on the CV etc. in the past.
If D. Lazard agrees with that, there is nothing one can do. Delfield (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not comment my supposed motivations and my supposed opinions, and stop ridiculous accusations (nobody can act as an administrator if he has not the administrator rights; apparently, you have not understood the role of Wikipedia administrators). D.Lazard (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue Libération investigation based on ex-employee testimony?[edit]

It seems that this investigation, based on the testimony of an ex-employee (primary), has not been relayed by any other reliable secondary source. If that's the case, it's undue imo, or we would have to add interviews of Branco about his books as well Neo Trixma (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suppressed as per WP:BLPPUBLIC sent by @Nemov: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Neo Trixma (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we talking about this ?
It is also there, commented by Branco himself :
Or there :
And there :
Also mentioned here that she actually won the case : Ebtpmus (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"après avoir gagné son procès contre son ex patron Juan Branco qui l’a poursuivait pour un motif de chantage." Might that not refer to her "winning" the blackmail complaint because it was "classée sans suite"? My understanding is that the employment case is yet to come, unless of course they settle out of court. Southdevonian (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due Mediapart investigation reported by Le Point[edit]

D.Lazard how can you suppress the Mediapart CIA revelation reported by Le Point (2 sources) and, at the same time, argue that a legal case reported only by Libération (1 source) is due? Neo Trixma (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is this relevant ? This was part of the surveillance of Assange and target at him, not Branco.
Are we to mentioned "surveyed by CIA" about anybody Assange ever talked to ? Ebtpmus (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neo Trixma (now blocked as sockpuppet of Branco) changes[edit]

OK, so now it seems that Neo Trixma is blocked on the ground of being a sock puppet of Branco. Which should come as no surprise since the account was apparently created on July 30th, shortly after Imagritte was blocked, and with an activity about 50% on Branco. And given too the nature of the contributions, which produced a considerable amount of whitewashing, as previously pointed out.
So what is the next step ? Revert to a consensual version pre-sock puppet, or try to untangle the Gordian knot of recent changes made in large part by the sockpuppet ? Ebtpmus (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of that editor's changes have been discussed. No need to do anything major at this time. If there's something you object to change it. Nemov (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beg to differ.
A lot of the changes by the sock-puppet are not good faith edits (that's the whole point of sock-puppet).
Some (not all) were discussed, mainly with @Southdevonian, who tried I good faith to meet the sock-puppet halfway. Issue is: meeting half-way somebody pushing lies into the article is not conducive of quality.
Those edits build-up to the whitewashing I previously pointed out. At what stage you ignored the obvious and raised some accusations against me instead.
The white-washing is nonetheless obvious: the edits gradually removed most content that could cast a negative light (entire sections disappeared) while on the few remaining contentious topics, most/all information on the substance of the cases held against Branco disappeared and was replaced by lengthy descriptions of the arguments/ claims made by Branco in his defense. Even some that are stated to be untrue by the mere source used as "proof" (eg. Abdeslam case: the newspaper states that Branco's arguments are factually untrue and disproves them, yet it is a thorough presentation of his arguments that made their way into the WP article without any mention of the newspaper's conclusion that it is an obvious misrepresentation of facts). Ebtpmus (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS : I am happy to edit the page, though I'd value some input/feedback/opinion from users involved in the content (rather than the moderation) beforehand. Ebtpmus (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have a specific issue make the change, but mass changes are not welcome. Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fairness, my first query about possible block evasion came back as suspicious rather than positive [1]. So I assumed we were dealing with Team Branco or a dedicated Branco fan, rather than another sockpuppet. As for Neo Trixma and BlackSun - both names are taken from film/TV... Southdevonian (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the topic of BlackSun16, he doesn't seem to have been ever on WP-EN, however his pattern on the French version leaves little room for doubt. I raised to the attention of editors on the French talk page and NinjaRobotPirate's page :
- a previous sock-puppet Paulk12 gets blocked Feb 20th,
- very same day BlackSun16 is created,
- on that day BlackSun16 makes 5 edits in 5 minutes, for a total ... 18 characters (Is there some kind of 5 edit threshold ?)
- Absolutely no activity for 6 months (Is there a 6 months threshold ?)
- Imagritte gets blocked in end of July
- BlackSun16 arrives on Branco's page August 19th and makes a whopping 68'500 characters one-time addition to Branco's French article,
- barring another very singular similar contribution to Emmanuel Todd's page, the activity of BlackSun16 is 99% (in volume = characters) on Branco's page,
- arrival on Aug. 19th is a mere hours before Neo Trixma also arrives on Branco's French page and starts a duet with BlackSun16 supporting each other in a very intense edit war. Ebtpmus (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts on the article would be to keep it reasonably concise at the moment as Branco is only borderline notable and probably would not be notable at all if it wasn't for Crépuscule. I cannot see that he has done anything particularly noteworthy in law or politics. There are millions of lawyers out there going about their business and they do not get Wikipedia articles. Likewise there must be millions of people who hang around on the fringes of politics without ever holding elected office. And he is not an academic so all those masters are not of much interest, except perhaps as background to a writer's career. Of course it might change in the future. Southdevonian (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree. I would add that in France he is also notable for Griveaux affair. Even if he denied a direct implication, most French people believe that he is at the origin of the publication of the videos that pushed out politics a probable futur major of Paris. Also, it seems that his only success as a lawyer, is the case with his father (I do not count his successes for increasing his visibility in the medias). D.Lazard (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, thanks so much for your diligent efforts keeping this article in line. Someone should add an archive to this talk, I always screw it up. Nemov (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page was already automatically archived, but only after 150 days. I have changed this parameter to 20 days, since the closed threads are 24 days old. So, most of the page should be archived soon. D.Lazard (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you're also accusing me in this talk @Ebtpmus: I'm not a sockpuppet and I didn't support neo trixma in an edit war.
I hadn't noticed the recent edits on this page (I remembered a particularly negative and biased version I read a few weeks ago). The current consensus seems much more appropriate. BlackSun16 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter outing[edit]

I rolled back this edit[2]. It's been added and removed before. I don't object to its inclusion if it has received a lot of coverage, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Nemov (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it appeared in the Daily Mail today [3]. The Daily Mail is not of course a reliable source so I am not arguing about its removal. Southdevonian (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]