User talk:Brancojuan

November 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Juan Branco. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred and thanks. I'm not systematically reverting, and I have very cautiously discussed the issues in. The page is nonetheless attacked and I'm trying to protect a previous consensual version. Please do not intervene before having verified these different elements and seen the different proceedings I have launched. In the meantime, please do not reverse the version I have reestablished, which was not authored by me but was the fruit of community work. This is a sensitive page of which protection has been asked, as well as wikimedia intervention. Do not request me not to protect the basis of my reputation, that said, and the violation of WP rules by other contributors, which have initiated this "revert" war. JB Brancojuan (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are systematically reverting. You have reverted twice with this named account, and there are an additional five reverts by an IP today that are identical to the revert you're making.

Frankly, you should not edit the Juan Branco article at all due to your apparent conflict of interest. If you have specific concerns about the content, you should raise them at Talk:Juan Branco, at WP:BLPN, or if there is something in the information that shouldn't be publicly disclosed, via email to the Volunteer Response Team. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, it has been done, but I shall not leave libellous content that attains at my reputation, systematically induced by two ideologically driven accounts, without reaction, after a consensus was found for years over this page, after much work from the community. I'm very sorry if this is frustrating for anyone but this is playing with someone's reputation and career, and I perfectly assume to defend my rights and not let subjective, libellous elements be published against me, when the community, understandably, does not find the time to involve itself with sufficient seriousness to avoid the instrumentalization of this page. The fact that people (two accounts) have an inimity against me and have large amounts of time to invest in order to destroy this page, and the fact that "normal" users have no time to spend in controlling their behavior, is no reason to leave my rights unprotected. I have proposed that this page shall either be deleted, either frozen to its previous version before their intervention and translated from French version, which has been protected and should serve as a reference (in spite of the many negative elements i could subjectively detest) as most of the sources are French. If this perspective was to be spoused, only English speaking sources could justify modifications from the original model, thus avoiding the distorsions that are currently been put in place, by profiting from the lack of capacity of part of the WPEN to crosscheck french sources. The proceedings you mention have been triggered, and I expect more than anyone for this issue will be solved as soon as possible. Brancojuan (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Juan Branco could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Your edit summaries on this article are suggesting a threat of legal action - such threats are not compatible with editing Wikipedia. Please stopNigel Ish (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ish, these elements have been forwarded to administators, editors and Wikimedia foundation. Please take into account the circumstances in which these events are unfolding. I will not reiterate, but will persist in requestion WP to deal with this issue in a neutral and objective way, and protect its community, by all means, including the use of law, which WP can't prohibit (even if it can limitate its enunciations in order to avoid any kind of shivering effect that would not be legitimate, which I understand and respect).Brancojuan (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment sounds like a legal threat ("including the use of law, which WP can't prohibit"). Your next comment here needs to either be striking that remark or otherwise making a very clear statement that you are not attempting or planning to attempt to use the courts or other legal systems to change the article. Otherwise, this account will be blocked for making legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia users have to abide by the laws, this is a fact, can be sanctionned if they don't, and any abusive behavior should be prevented by the community, which has no interest in letting them happen. That said, I'm certainly not planning to use the courts or other legal systems to change the article, and I'm very glad to let it be known. I wouldn't have otherwise solicited internal proceedings both in WP and WM to actually solve this issue, nor would be intervening here and in discussions in order to have the community look into detail in what has been going on for the last year. What I do not accept is the instrumentalization of the platform by very specific individuals to attain objectives that have nothing to do with the goal of the encyclopedia, which should not accept this kind of behavior. Two specific French accounts have been using the article as a platform, and other users, some of them experienced and legitimate participants, but with little time to analyze the sources and the evolutions of the page in detail, have in good faith, and relying on immediately visible elements that can subjectify perspectives (as the COI), intervened to protect their actions, which has brought the page to become extremely disbalanced, potentially libellous, and frankly destructive. I have been a WP FR contributor for 15 years, and I know perfectly well the rules, including intimidating NLT. I do not wish that the debate over this page, for any good faith contributor, shall intervene under this auspices, but I do wish that everyone will consider the harm they're potentially doing, both to the subject and the encyclopedia, by letting it become a support for political mongering. I hope time will be taken to assess the situation and make it even, by excluding the said contributors and taking the project from its begining. I'd then be glad not to participate anymore. Brancojuan (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to assume good faith with your edits. However, when you describe others' edits as "libel", (diff, note the section heading) it really makes it hard to see that you have concerns about the the content of the article truly being inaccurate as opposed to just unflattering of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Brancojuan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

It is suspected that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other IP have been blocked . This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Brancojuan, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to change your username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you do not want to continue to use this username, you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]