Talk:António Garrido (referee)

Transparency

Hi, as you may notice I'm a wiki newbie. Like almost everyone when I want to improve my knowledge I search the Wikipedia. it's a great project and has become almost daily essential for everyone. But obviously it's not all butterflies. Many friends warned me that there's frequently deliberately misleading information. As you may be aware this situation seriously harms Wikipedia reputation. Probably it's a small group of users that can ruin the dedication of millions. Across the years I've face several times this situation, so I decided to stand up and give my small contribution.

First of all, I added several new info to this page, fixed some errors, but I didn't censor nothing. I've just removed deliberated non neutral info and I can explain every single point of my edits.

1' The reference "António Garrido, o ex-árbitro que ajudou Pinto da Costa a fazer do Porto um clube vencedor" [António Garrido, the ex-referee that helped Pinto da Costa making Porto a winning club]. http://futebolonline.pt This is not a reliable source. It's an offensive personal blog with gossips and unproven facts. I don't think Wikipedia is a MTV reality show to accept this kind of sources.

2' "Directivos del Oporto cenaron con el árbitro tras el partido contra el Villarreal" [FC Porto members dined with the referee after the match against Villarreal]. Marca.com This is a clear demonstration of a deliberated tendetious view. There are several news and sources that denied and contradicted this info. There weren't any border members at this dinner. Therefore it's a false statement. There wasn't any case like the tendentious view tries to make believe. In my point of view, it's even pathetic to have the restaurant address written at this article. One of the lacking infos I added, is that Mr. Garrrido was a referee commissioner for european matches named by the Football Association. So he was named for every european club matches, included not just FC Porto but also SLBenfica or Sporting Lisbon. At this dinner there were UEFA members that didn't appoint anything wrong. This is factual.

3' Mr. Garrido wasn't involved at Apito Dourado. He was heard as a witness. I think it's a bit different.

4' He wasn't "portista". He became after his retirement. That's clear on the referenced interview.

I'm not censoring anything. I've even added controversy info. I'm just trying to fix the lack of neutral view that this article clearly showed. There was a clearly break of the Wikipedia principles. I contributed to fix it. But it suddenly showed an user "SLBedit", a regular one, it's here everyday from 8 to 5 just like a paid pro. A quick search shows several conlict history about non neutral views.

As I said, I'm a newbie trying to understand how Wikipedia works. If this is just a kind of mob guys that use Wiki to manipulate info like the mentioned user, then this isn't place for me. If the Wikipedia principles are useless and there're no real concerns about Wiki reputation, then this was the first and last article I edited.

Hope you can understand my views Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius XX (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

From your edits I can see that you are not a newbie, you act suspicious. You created an account to hide your IP address and then you censored information as minor edits. Yes, you did censor information provided by reliable sources. You are trying to hide the fact that Garrido's career was surrounded by controversy.

1' Yes, it seems like an opinion blog. It can be removed.

2' You are calling the reporters liars. It's relevant information. Provide reliable sources.

3' Yes he was involved as witness in Apito Dourado, he was recorded having phone calls with the suspects. He was involved.

4' He admitted to being portista in the interview.

Refrain from doing personal attacks. From your edits and views on Wikipedia, and personal attacks, I'm sure you are an experienced editor. SLBedit (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about my account or yours? The suspicious acts are from you. I'm not here from 9 to 5, neither manipulating info like there is only one religion/party/club in the world. Pluralism is a vital need to everyone. I just want fair articles. Not tendentious and partials.

I'm such an "experienced" editor that when I edited yesterday, I made a big mess: .Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page) Ãfter that review a link for the 1978 WC controversy vanished. That was very important because it's a WC, so I had to copy back all the text from the previous articles and wrote back my changes. So don't talk me again about controversy.

2' yeah sure, spanish sports media has some huge reputation... for soaps. If you search the news you'll find that only "Marca" made that article which is then reproduced by other portuguese media. After that there're news from the same media with press releases denying the claims and the presence of board members. In fact, after this there're no more updates as the subject is irrelevant. It's pathetic to even reference the restaurant's address at the article. I remember you Garrido was european referees commissioner for several clubs named by the FA. The dinner was followed by UEFA members that didn't appoint anything wrong. As you may all be aware UEFA punishes severely corruption and didn't even open a disciplinary process.

3' on my edit I wrote "In 2005, Garrido was heard as witness in Portuguese corruption scandal Apito Dourado (Golden Whistle)." Am I censoring anything? I'm just adjusting it to accurate the info. He was heard as a witness like dozens of people. He wasn't the object of the wiretapping, therefore he wasn't involved, he was just a normal witness.

4' "admitted to being" is very different from have become. The interview is very clear on that. In the early days of his career, He admitted that was a Sporting childhood fan, and only after his retirement became "portista". So as you can see I'm not hidding any controversy.

I reiterate all my initial post. The "experienced" user here are you, not me. Don't call me that again. I'm here in good faith, not to be insulted. It's the first time I edited something but if I knew there would be all this mess, I wouldn't do anything. At the help pages there're many rules to be respected, so Wikipedia can mantain a good and reliable reputation. If someone is breaking those rules, that one isn't me for sure.

Equity is a very strong value to me, worthless for many.

Btw I still don´t know how to put tags and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius XX (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that you seem an experienced editor, this is not an insult. So far you have insulted me by accusing me of being paid to edit and manipulating information. No, from your edits and views I conclude you don't want anything of that.

2' Marca is a reliable source.

3' He was involved in the case as a witness, being involved doesn't mean he was guilty of anything. I changed that line accordingly.

4' It wasn't me.

Is that a threat?

I think you have bad faith, calling you an experienced user is not an insult. Your actions show the contrary.

Yes you did break one of the essencial rules on Wikipedia by censoring sourced information.

What matters is what you did not what you say.

Comment on content no editors. SLBedit (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SLBedit, can you explain exactly what about Caius XX's editing is "suspicious"? If there is specific evidence, then it would be much more helpful to state clearly what that evidence is, and if there isn't, then you should assume good faith, rather than make accusations without being able to substantiate them. If he or she is, as you suggest, an experienced editor pretending to be new, then he or she is a very good actor, as the editing looks to me very much like that of a new and inexperienced editor. Also, can you say exactly where Caius XX has made "personal attacks"? I have looked at every edit the account has ever made, and I don't see any personal attacks. (However, your accusations against Caius XX could well be seen as personal attacks.) I see nothing at all to suggest that Caius XX is doing anything other than editing in good faith, and if you think he/she is making mistakes, then the best thing to do is to try to help him/her by explaining how to do better, not attack him/her and make unsubstantiated accusations. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My sustained accusations are supported by his/her actions (first he/she censored information, marking it as minor edit, and then mixed it with good faith edits). Caius XX wrote "But it suddenly showed an user "SLBedit", a regular one, it's here everyday from 8 to 5 just like a paid pro." is a serious personal attack, a bad faith statement. There is a thing called Watchlist. There is no rule against contributing a lot to Wikipedia. There is a rule against being paid to edit to Wikipedia, and for Caius XX to accuse me of that is also suspicious. SLBedit (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote before, this is my first Wikipedia edit. I found the article clearly biased. The editing took 2 hours (!) as I removed the unreliable and added several new information. Both were marked as minor, as I had no idea what was that. I didn't know I had a talk page or a discussion page and its meaning, I thought Wikipedia was editing and done. I should have read the guidelines first.

I felt the article wasn't well constructed, and came back the following day. My edits were reverted and the history tab says "blatant censoring". I edited again as I'm sure about my sources' reliability. Now I noticed the edit summary and filled it.

Again all reverted, blocked and notifications. The user "SLBedit" was accusing me of "vandalism" - now I know it's also an online term... - "censoring", "acting suspicious" and "was sure it was an account created only for this purpose". I obviously felt insulted. I explored then the help and history pages, and replied the accusations here. This time, SLBedit wrote even worse accusations, insinuating I'm a liar. Now I felt hugely insulted and bullied.

"bad faith and suspicious acts" after searching the article's history tab:

1' that was a link from a blatant unreliable source, an obviously personal propaganda blogsite with zero reputation. SLBedit didn't removed it. Actually the link was promoted to reference, and used by SLBedit, who didn't notice that was a major breach. I removed it. SLBedit restored it, and once more, couldn't notice such a bad source.

2' a reliable source doesn't mean necessarily reliable content, especially when contradicted. "Marca" is a Spanish sport newspaper. Sports media usually aren't known for its special accuracy or independence, e.g. huge amount of fake transfer gossips, tabloid headlines. "Marca" even assumes its pro-Real Madrid editorial policy. So what was real? There was an European Cup match, Mr. Garrido was named as referee commissary by the Football Association, which happens in every single UEFA match. The commissary role is to accompany the referees. Following the match, the dutch referee had dinner alongside Mr.Garrido (on his duty) and the UEFA delegates. This is factual.

"Marca" claimed there were FC Porto board members at the dinner. On that same day, Board members categorically denied the story - "Marca" wrote then another article stating this - but, once again, SLBedit couldn't notice. Reliable and highly reputated newspaper "Público" contacted then UEFA - the article entitled "UEFA says there's no reason to investigate the case of the alleged Matosinhos's dinner" - http://www.publico.pt/noticia/uefa-diz-que-nao-ha-razoes-para-investigar-caso-do-alegado-jantar-de-matosinhos-1492857 UEFA stated they knew what happened and there was nothing wrong.

"Marca" story is 3 years old, and was introduced to this article by SLBedit with a clear purpose. He didn't check or verify it. Way beyond neutrality. I removed it. SLBedit restored it twice and blocked my edits.

SLBedit even wrote the restaurant's address. Should we also add its phone number?... How can this be an encyclopedic content?

3' another inaccurate non-neutral statement added by SLBedit who, once again, couldn't notice Garrido was a witness.

4' another clear purpose of misleading statement. I doubt this is an encyclopedic content.

All these 4 points were introduced by SLBedit in September... all in the same direction.

SLBedit continued the personal attacks. Calling me a liar is a personal attack. I don't threat anyone. I'm not on a playground. You are the experienced user with tons of edits 24/7. I can't and don't wanna do it. Although I'm trying to understand WP mechanic, I'm a newbie, not a moron. I know how to distinguish encyclopedic content. With yours experience, you should be able to provide neutrality and to discern between a reliable source and a reliable information. If you can spend so many time promoting one single topic like SL Benfica, do at least an effort to be equidistant and neutral, and do not plant factious theories promoting manichaeism like a North Korea's regime.

WP main purpose is to be an Encyclopedia. Neither a newspaper nor a way to serve 3rd party purposes. Its content has to be very well scrutinized to avoid breaking WP goals.

All my points are well sustained and I won't be here in an endless discussion. When I created my account, it never crossed my mind to have such an unpleasant welcoming. It makes me reconsider if it's worth to edit WP. I apologize for the long text especially because this is a low importance subject, but I can't accept being insulted. --Caius XX (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on António Garrido (referee). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910111809/http://www.jornaldeleiria.pt/portal/index.php?id=7538 to http://www.jornaldeleiria.pt/portal/index.php?id=7538

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)