Talk:Patricia Moreira

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Moreira is the head of a notable organisation, and has had significant coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing anything like WP:N I am afraid. Being head of a notable organisation itself is not of itself notable, and the only refs I found were either (a) primary, or (b) regarding an accusation of bullying in the workplace - a WP:1E, covered at Transparency International. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have taken this to AfD instead to allow for wider community consideration. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism and conflicted user
We believe that this page has been vandalised by a user with a conflict of interest according to the Wikipedia guidelines on vandalism and conflicts that can be found at WP:VANDAL and CONFLICT. The user turks sephiroth made a number of changes to the page between June 2020 and June 2021 that appear to be deliberately, maliciously and dishonestly designed to damage the subject. We note that this user does not have an established user page.

On July 2, 2020, the user deleted a paragraph that offered a referenced opinion that was supportive of the subject. Similar comments supporting the subjects position in the dispute were also deleted by the user on the 23rd July. Also, on July 24, 2020 the user added a subheading “Controversies” which is inappropriate given the facts of the case and can only have been added with the intent to cause damage.

On June 7, 2021, turks sephiroth deleted two paragraphs referencing the subject’s recent public campaign against Transparency International, as well as two reference documents underpinning it, even though these were both legitimate and publicly-available documents, and were distributed to all delegates at Transparency International’s last global Annual Members Meeting. In justification of one removal, the user argued the source “does not comply with Wikipedia's regulations as it is an account of the facts as told from the perspective of the subject of the article herself. It does not qualify as an external source”. This is manifestly wrong, since the point of including the source in question was to demonstrate appropriate evidence of Patricia Moreira’s public complaint against Transparency International, rather than delve into the details of that complaint, which was instead briefly and appropriately summarized in the page’s main text (also deleted by the user). The effect of the user’s edits is to silence references to a matter which is widely-reported, ongoing and of significant reputational importance to Transparency International. This in turn gives rise to a reasonable supposition that the user is covertly propagandizing in support of Transparency International or on its behalf, and trying to airbrush unfavourable facts and issues concerning an organisation that is itself is supposed to campaign for accountability. The user’s removal of legitimate, public third-party sources is especially egregious and ironic, given his own upload to the page of a PDF document that is not supposed to be in the public domain – namely the “Report of the Independent Ethics Panel” (current reference number 13), which was briefly published by Transparency International but then withdrawn from the organisation’s website and all public view following a legal complaint from Patricia Moreira. Given that this user has no previous history of editing Wikipedia and the account appears to have been created solely for the purpose of editing this page, and of making similarly biased references to this issue on the Transparency International page, it appears that the user is not a neutral party; is not committed to fairness, balance and accuracy; and has a conflict of interest. As Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living, we would like to request that the community look at the edits made by turks sephiroth to this page and decide whether they have been made with malice or bias. If other users are in agreement ( EdwardX Dorsetonian Whispyhistory Philafrenzy Choccodog ) we would recommend that all edits made by this user are reversed and that the user is banned from making further Wikipedia edits.

telford246 (talk) 14 June 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article
In the event that Turks sephiroth continues to have issues with accessing the citation in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, can he or she please pose any questions here rather than simply reverting changes. I believe that the article should be accessible as things stand - it is currently provided via archive, which is just as well to prevent link rot. Thank you. Pubcrawler2000 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Problem solved, article requires readers to subscribe for access, but this can be done for free. I still made edits to point to the exact wording of the investigations' findings rather than to the FAZ's paraphrased version in a different language. Turks sephiroth (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No, you've now removed the FAZ citation from most of the contested claims. Wikipedia best practice is that articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible - please see WP:RS if you are still having trouble with this. Please also see the related guidelines on original research (WP:OR), a term used to refer to the weaving together of different primary sources. That is what you and Spotted springer7 are doing, which must be avoided on biographies of living persons.
 * Pubcrawler2000 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the Wikipedia guidelines, but in previous edits there were criticisms about the subjectivity of the sources used (especially those critical to Moreira's tenure) and the most contentious points in the article come from the different lens through which the story is told. For that reason, I removed the value judgements from Guardian, FAZ and the Independent pieces and suggest to keep them only as sources to illustrate the controversy between Moreira and Transparency International, but keep the actual results of the investigation to better reflect the facts. 87.154.220.243 (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have suggested new edits that should reflect the versions from the different sources and the original investigations in a balanced manner. Turks sephiroth (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)