Talk:Carlos Mulas Granados

Article should not be promotional, just NPOV
Every time an edit is made, someone hurries to push a more lenient view on this person. The article is being edited using an IP coming from the IMF, the place where Mulas works. The person pushing certain edits has trouble accepting that Mulas was expelled from the Spanish Socialist Party, and was fire from Ideas Foundation. For example, are sources confirming this, explaining the reasons. . Someone is trying to downplay the whole allegations against him, but it hit the press because Mulas wrote a book about corruption and defended austerity measures as he was throwing the money of the Party's think tank away. --Noopolo (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Article should not be defamatory, just NPOV
Looking at the history of contributions to this entry, Noopolo seems to be obsessed with giving a negative image of Mulas. In her contributions she has constantly introduced the word "fraud" (or used similar ones like "irregularities" or "corruption"). These are crimes of which Mulas has never been formally accused, nor convicted.

Noopolo is using old sources (her references to news from El Pais or El Mundo are from January or February 2013, but not more recent articles which take a softer perspective on Mulas and incorporate some additional clarifications to the media controversy). In addition, Noopolo has based her main accusations of "fraud" on an article that seems to be full of inaccuracies and some false statements. The preferred source used by Noopolo in her history of contributions is the blog of Alana Moceri (a former employee of Ideas Foundation who had worked for Ideas Foundation when Mulas was the Director, and whose contract had not been renovated). Alana Moceri went to TV talkshows to disseminate her biased views contributing strongly to grow the media scandal and she received a warning letter from Mulas' attorney as she recognized in her twitter  for including false statements and defamatory contents in her article. Moceri had also been asking via twitter to send tweets to @IMF to put pressure on the institution for not firing Mulas.

The fact that Noopolo uses references coming from Moceri certainly does no guarantee NPOV, as she seems personally obsessed with this economist.

Two examples show that Noopolo (and Moceri) are wrong in their arguments:

1) They have been sustaining that Mulas joined the Fund after leaving Ideas/PSOE . If that was the case, Mulas would have joined the IMF in February 2013, but the truth is that Mulas had joined the Fund in August 2012 (as the IMF clarified in an statement which was picked up by the media in Spain) and Noopolo prefers to ignore.

2) Noopolo (and Moceri) have also been insisting that Mulas was "expelled" from PSOE. This was the view that some media put forward at the beginning of the events (in late January and early February 2013), based on a statement issued by PSOE's Secretary of Organization. The truth is that the "investigation" announced by PSOE took three months to be finalised, and "Mulas" was never "expelled", nor "accused" of any "fraud", nor "sued" (as clarified by Mulas' attorney in a public letter published in El Mundo, the newspaper that initially published the scoop) . If Noopolo (and Moceri) had used more recent sources, their contributions would have been less biased and more accurate, given that in September 2014 it became accepted by all media reporting on the case that Mulas "requested voluntarily to leave the party".

One last piece of information: According to the IP associated to Noopolo, it seems likely that the person behind that nickname is Alana Moceri herself. In addition, the intended choice of outdated sources that do not contain the latest information and clarify important elements of the controversy, also give strong support to this hypothesis that Noopolo is Alana Moceri. If that was the case, and given that Moceri has publicly shown that she has a personal interest in damaging the reputation of Mulas, the contributions made by Noopolo (Moceri) should be dismissed as containing biased information. --Miskolast (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)