Talk:Vladimir Plahotniuc

Deletion creep

This article seems to have fallen victim to quite a lot of deletion creep. The infobox doesn't even have what he was in office as, and the opening paragraph has shrunk to a tiny sentence. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Y Resolved. --XXN, 22:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

Jedisvrais has removed (multiple times) cited material that xe claims to controversial. I invite xem to discuss the matter here, rather than continuing to engage in an edit war. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look and can't find why the entire controversy section should be blanked. If they could provide specific reasons to the removal of this section (preferably without assuming motives of the authors of the section) that would be helpful for starting discussion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Statements on foreign relations

A section was recently added to this article regarding Plahotniuc's position on "external vectors" (retitled as foreign relations), in which Plahotniuc has made various pronouncements about Moldova's foreign policy. In these statements, Plahotniuc speaks as if he has the authority to direct Moldova's foreign policy, but as best I can tell, he is only the leader of a minority party and therefore can really only speak about his own or his party's positions on these matters, but he cannot speak for the nation as a whole. I argue that this section should be removed rather than leave the impression that Plahotniuc's statements have the authority that they seem to claim. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war

@Wikjanna: Let's not get into an edit war. I'm talking about my edits (770527331 770527852) and your reverts (770583563 770584489). Why I made these edits.

---

770527331 (such bold statements have to be cited from other sources than massmedia owned by the subject). The text was

Most of the controversies regarding Vlad Plahotniuc has been launched by controversial political figures, such as Sergiu Mocanu or Andrei Năstase, both of them having strong connections with two convicted Moldovan businessmen – Victor and Viorel Țopa.

The first part of the phrase has two references, both referring to Publika, one of the TV channels owned by subject (per both Publika and opposing massmedia). The statement is bold and I have not been able to find it in any massmedia not controlled by Plahotniuc. If Wikjanna happens to find, he/she can add the info back. I deleted the rest of the phrase, as it depends on the first part. Moreover, only the last (4th) reference points to a neutral source, and it does not prove the link of *both* Mocanu and Năstase to Țopa, only Năstase-Țopa relationship.

---

770527852 (removed diary; diplomatic meetings were part of his job; kept the references only). Plahotniuc's diplomatic activity was being heavily accounted in the article. I deleted the detailed information, but I kept the references stating that Plahotniuc indeed had a lot of business trips. The same thing was done at Russian Wikipedia (see this diff).

These being said, @Wikjanna: please explain your point of view. --Gikü (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@Gikü: I'm not getting into an edit war. After your deduction all the references from jurnal.md and jurnaltv.md should be deleted. You evidently favor Topa side, but this is not a platform where you complain about the subject, for this you have a blog. Your arguments that "I deleted the rest of the phrase, as it depends on the first part." isn't reasonable. Your argument that references are not neutral in this case are not relevant, because all the controversial information in this article is based on jurnaltv.md the Topa's channel, the opponent of Plahotniuc. Agree with me, please. If you delete other information related to politician activity, that highlights his political activity i consider an act of vandalism. I believe that Wikipedia doesn't admit such behavior and believe though it doesn't favor anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikjanna (talk • contribs)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2017

This article Vladimir Plahotniuc seems to have fallen victim to an edit war. Once you have protected the article, you undid all the contribution of other editors. And it look like administrator protect the page to further their own position in content disputes. Wikipedia rules say: Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied for these reasons. The present version 770761747 contains such statement: “According to Moldovan newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, in early 1990s when Plahotniuc held the position of specialist at the "Minor" Center for prevention and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, he started recruiting young ladies from socially vulnerable families for sex slavery abroad. Many trafficked girls disappeared in Albania, Bosnia, Croatia. But their parents believed that their daughters were working as guides, managers or business women. ” - this contentious material that quotes KP newspaper, but redirect to jurnal.md, according to the WP is unsourced or poorly sourced. Moreover the sites jurnal.md and jurnaltv.md are financed and owned by the opponent of the subject and it is meant to denigrate and defame the subject. This is a poorly sourced information that need to be removed immediately. Wikipedia says that article Vladimir Plahotniuc must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. In this order of idea to avoid the wrong interpretation from other editors and contributors, please to save the page with the revision code 770632598. Thank you. Wikilaj (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I need to see a consensus before editing this protected article. Gikü: can you comment please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The statement is indeed backed up by a single source (Jurnal), and Jurnal's source is an article in KP (Komsomolskaya Pravda) which 'shortly after [...] was deleted'. As these are some very serious accusations, they need to be consistently referenced, thus the mentioned paragraph should be removed from the article. I was backing the removal of the paragraph before, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive252#Vladimir Plahotniuc. --Gikü (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay paragraph  Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2017 (2)

Please consider re-enacting the edits I made on two occasions described by me above in the #Preventing an edit war section. Let me rewrite the rationale behind those edits:

---

770527331 (such bold statements have to be cited from other sources than massmedia owned by the subject). The text is

Most of the controversies regarding Vlad Plahotniuc has been launched by controversial political figures, such as Sergiu Mocanu or Andrei Năstase, both of them having strong connections with two convicted Moldovan businessmen – Victor and Viorel Țopa.

The first part of the phrase has two references, both referring to Publika, one of the TV channels owned by subject (per both Publika and opposing massmedia). The statement is bold and I have not been able to find it in any massmedia not controlled by Plahotniuc. The rest of the phrase is backed up by moldova24.info and today.md, relatively new news websites said to be particularly criticizing opponents of Democratic Party. I request the removal of the paragraph or at least adding "According to sources [close to/owned by/favoring of] Plahotniuc".

---

770527852 (removed diary; diplomatic meetings were part of his job; kept the references only). Plahotniuc's diplomatic activity is being heavily accounted in the article. I suggest that the detailed information should be deleted, and the references kept. Wikipedia is not a diary. The same thing has been done at Russian Wikipedia (see this diff). Gikü (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war (2)

@Gikü: Let's find a consensus in editing the article Vlad Plahotniuc. Your argument that “The first part of the phrase has two references, both referring to Publika, one of the TV channels owned by subject. The statement is bold and I have not been able to find it in any massmedia not controlled by Plahotniuc.” seems not to be reasonable, true and impartial. I undid your removal and added the references that redirect to sources not only owned by the subject. In many times you mentioned that in the article are statements that are based on sites owned by the subject and you consider it unfair, in this way can we delete all the statements based on jurnal.md and jurnaltv.md, once you see the strong connection between the Jurnal Ttrust Media and Topa, the opponent of Plahotniuc? Please, to be impartial and respect the WP which say that “Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.” In fact this article should be rewritten from zero, because most of paragraphs don't respect the Wikipedia BLP Policy. Most of statements are written in a way to denigrate, attack and defame the subject and are supported substantially with articles based on jurnal.md and jurnaltv.md which use bad language and instigate to hate and violence. Wikilaj (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

If your opinion is "Most of statements are written in a way to denigrate, attack and defame the subject", I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is. It informs based on sources. Some sources say nice things, some say bad things. We collect everything. But I guess you know all of this, thing is your job is to polish the article as good as you can together with your friends Wikjanna, Jedisvrais, Wecontrib (all three are sockpuppets), Wilkeborch Jonas, Dumitru123, Maxim.ascanio, Piticu21, Angeloftruth, Angeloftruth777.

Going back to the references you added:

• http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28f3i1_miscarea-populara-antimafie-este-creata-si-finantata-de-pcrm-mai-multi-membri-ai-formatiunii-si-au-a_news - yet another clip from Plahotniuc's TV channel Publika
• http://adevarul.ro/moldova/economie/milionarul-viorel-Topa-fost-sef-banca-republica-moldova-osandit-inchisoare-1_50ad49e17c42d5a663925362/index.html - contains nothing about the phrase it references: "Most of the controversies regarding Vlad Plahotniuc has been launched by controversial political figures, such as Sergiu Mocanu"; it instead says: "Victor Ţopa a declarat că dosarul i-a fost intentat [tot] la indicaţia lui Vlad Plahotniuc."/"Victor Țopa stated that the criminal file has been started [also] at Plahotniuc's command"
• https://www.rise.md/prezidentiale2016/adevarul-despre-omul-topilor/ - confirms the link between Năstase and Țopa, and at no point the main statement of the phrase "Most of the controversies [...] has been launched by [...] Andrei Năstase"
• http://www.timpul.md/articol/marin-ciobanu-i-andrei-nastase-suprini-la-frankfurt-impreuna-cu-victor-opa---video-93181.html - same; also the article references back to today.md, which I stated earlier that is a pro-Plahotniuc website.

Who are we kidding? I reverted. --Gikü (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gikü: There is no reasonable argument why you delete the information. Arguments that one or another source belong or protect the subject is not your job to prove this. With these being said, I ask you not to delete and to be impartial, otherwise I will ask your blocking. Thank you! Wikilaj (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gikü: @NeilN: Giku you didn't answer me and prefered asking to block me. Let me ask you one more time, you said that all the affirmation I add shouldn't be based only on sources owned by the subject, in this case other especially the negative information must be deleted as well as it is backed up by a single sources jurnal.md and jurnaltv.md? All the negative affirmations have as a purpose to harm the public image of Vlad Plahotniuc are based on false evidence and don’t have any legal groundwork to support any of it. Moreover, this misinformation masterpiece is a personal vendetta of Misters Victor and Viorel Topa, who currently are convicted in Moldova and are blaming for all their misfortunes, Vlad Plahotniuc. Here is a link which will direct you to the testimonials of Vecealsav Platon, given to an official notary lawyer from Holland, by declaring that he has been used by Victor and Viorel Topa to go against Vlad Plahotniuc so they can fulfill their personal vendetta. Moreover, he declared in his testimonials that Victor and Viorel Topa provided him some false papers so they could lure him into going against Vlad Plahotniuc. Additionally ther is a recent document that the Justice Court from Amsterdam issued concerning the legal dispute between Vladimir Plahotniuc and Topi on Victoria Bank case. In the document, you will see that the Court ruled in favor of Vlad Plahotniuc and demonstrates again that all the accusations of Topi are products of good imagination and very strong groundless vendetta. We would appreciate a lot if you could take this legal evidence in consideration and erase the falsehood written in there. Please take in consideration that the decision came from Amsterdam Court. Wikilaj (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

You're not trying to perform original research, are you? I am tired to say the same thing: Wikipedia gives the information, the reader decides on who is the good guy. Add the info about Amsterdam court decision if you like, but stop accusing everybody of attacking Mr. Plahotniuc's image on this wiki. PS: Your second reference if word by word the Facebook post of a famous Moldovan troll (pardoned be my words), not exactly trustworthy if you ask me. --Gikü (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Wikilaj: Who are "we"? In concordance with the Wikipedia's Terms of Use, you are obliged to disclose your affiliation with the subject of this article. I left a more detailed message on your talk page. XXN, 12:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Another edit war

Another editor(s) very insistently tries to add improper subsections to "Controversy" section provoking an edit war, previously as AlbertPenfold[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and more recently as an anonymous[9][10] XXN, 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As an user uninvolved editorially on this article, who previously noticed other issues, WikiDan61, could you review these actions reported above? --XXN, 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: As most of these edits were minor (such as adding headings to existing text) and predate the most recent discussion, I don't believe there's anything more to be done here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In those headings is the problem. IMO they are inappropriate as they does not cover all the sectioned textual content, but the other user insists on re-adding them. XXN, 23:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the headings as a problem. But since you do, please discuss why you feel they are inappropriate. But do not remove them again until the matter is settled. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

As I stated previously, the newly introduced subsection headings does not cover all the sectioned content below:

• in the subsection named "Accusations of Purchasing Diploma Illegally" only the first phrase from around ten is about the diploma case, and moreover, this is only an unproven accusation - it does not deserve an individual subsection;
• subsection "Street Protests Against Business Center" - only a fourth of the subsection content is about this subject;
• the subsection "Accusations of Holding Two Passports Illegally With Different Names" also contains content unrelated to this subject.

Also they are orthographically incorrect (unnecessary capitalization). XXN, 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This is AlberPenfold and it's a comment for XXN and Wikilaj and these subheadings are common practice to help break up text. If you have a problem, please explain them, I am happy to engage in a dialogue. These are accusations, and while they are accepted as conventional fact within Moldova, they have been left here as a "controversy" because they have not been proven in a court of law in Moldova. If you want to move them to facts, you can do so but they need to be demonstrated credibly. While these citations used do show significants facts, I have left them under the controversy section since this is a living person. —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war

Gikü Really every sentence? Please find this claim "Plahotniuc has been accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution." in this article , I found the info with "traffic" in this context "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged".. why do you tolerate the non neutral position? Isn't You, who told me earlier that I need to use the phrases from sources without changing them? Wikilaj (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

So edit it, why removing. Gikü (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Question to administrators

Winner 42 is it acceptable that a statement to be mentioned more times in the article in different sections? for ex. this sentence "The New York Times has called Plahotniuc Moldova's "Most Feared Tycoon".[78] In the Carnegie Report, "The Structure of Corruption in Moldova," Plahotniuc is referred to as controlling Moldova’s network outside of the government and that a central-bank-commissioned report detailing a suspicious transfer of some $1 billion was "seen as a move by the Plahotniuc network to disable its lone competitor, the network around former prime minister Vladimir Filat" is mentioned some 2 or 3 times. First in Political activity section, 2nd line. Then Businessman section 7th line. And a special section named Criticisms of business practices. Can i consider that the editor wants to highlight some idea?SandY181 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The dispute over review of changes

Hi,

I did not look for or pursue the polishing or denigration of Vladimir Plahotniuc image, but just proposed to the reader information in a neutral form (NPOV), that he himself should draw conclusions. In this regard, I present my actions in steps:

1. I have removed information that from the start gives a negative tinge to the page (such accusations should also have some notorious sources). Changes have been made based on Wikipedia policies (NPOV, BLP, MOS, RS)

• From

Introduction - Vladimir Plahotniuc (born 1 January 1966), is a controversial Moldovan politician, businessman, philanthropist, and accused but not convicted criminal ,

• In

Vladimir Plahotniuc (born 1 January 1966), is a Moldovan politician, businessman philanthropist. Who here resorted to policy violation BLP???!!

2. We have drafted the text in line with the NPOV and the MOS, removing the doubling of passages that have actually been returned (and this is not a wiki policy, it is obvious that it has not been analyzed !!!) and obviously come to emphasize negative aspects.

• From

Described by Forbes magazine as a "shadowy figure," Vlad Plahotniuc was denied the Prime Ministership of the country after Moldova's president declared that Plahotniuc lacked integrity.

• In (I removed, arguing that the information is found in the Political Activity Chapter) while maintaining the reference source:

On 13 January 2016 Plahotniuc was proposed for the position of Prime Minister of Moldova by the Democratic Party, but his candidacy was rejected by the Moldovan President, Nicolae Timofti. In an official statement, Timofti noted that "Plahotniuc fails to meet the criteria of a candidate for the post of prime minister." He further specified that among the conditions for prime minister, the candidates "integrity should not cause doubt."

3. On the segment ”Theft of the Century” I have drafted / removed the duplication of information (text editing, completing with information added by AlberPenfold):

• From

Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman . The main mastermind, according to the Kroll report, is a man named Ilan Shor, an Israeli-Moldovan citizen who ran a complex scheme to defraud three banks under his control – Unibank, Sociala and the largest of them all, Banca de Economii. However, a near-miracle has occurred since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, thought to be vital to the poorest nation in Europe. A new government was sworn in and under severe pressure, managed to pull Moldova out of the depths in a very quick period of time. Investigations had been launched, arrested the perpetrators of the massive fraud, including the former prime minister, and secured some important convictions. Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman. However, since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, a new government was sworn in. Under severe pressure, they managed to quickly pull Moldova out of the depths. Investigations, arrests and convictions of the perpetrators of massive fraud were launched, including former Prime Minister Vlad Filat , businessman Ilan Shor , as well as the controversial businessman Veaceslav Platon. Following investigations, 1 from 14 billion lei was recovered in over two years. Subsequently, Mihail Gofman said that the organizer of the theft of that billion is Veaceslav Platon, a person who knew how to orient himself in the banking system.

• In

Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman. The main mastermind, according to the Kroll report, is the businessman Ilan Shor, an Israeli-Moldovan citizen who ran a complex scheme to defraud three banks under his control – Unibank, Sociala and the largest of them all, Banca de Economii. However, since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, a new government was sworn in. Under severe pressure, they managed to quickly pull Moldova out of the depths. Investigations, arrests and convictions of the perpetrators of massive fraud were launched, including former Prime Minister Vlad Filat , businessman Ilan Shor , as well as the controversial businessman Veaceslav Platon. Following investigations, 1 from 14 billion lei was recovered in over two years. Subsequently, Mihail Gofman said that the organizer of the theft of that billion is Veaceslav Platon, a person who knew how to orient himself in the banking system.

4. Exclusion of the subchapter (=== Criticisms of Business Practices ===), which has no place in any form in the Business Chapter, motivating that in Controversies Chapter is a whole paragraph about ”The heft of the century" (Which is the link between business and "the theft of the century"? "The theft of the century" is described in Controversies)

5. I have removed partial information about people's statements that can not be verified by bringing the text to a neutral position (NPOV, VER).

• From

Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution. While this has not been proven in a court of law, interviews with officials have revealed "in the 1990s he owned a sauna, where he provided businessmen and even diplomats with young prostitutes; Plahotniuc kept a collection of videos to blackmail people and push them to certain deals." . There have been multiple, extensive articles covering these issues by reputable investigative journalists. The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."

• In

Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution. There have been multiple, extensive articles covering these issues by reputable investigative journalists, however none of them had any valid evidence to support all the accusations. The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."

6. I have excluded the information on the case filed by the Italians on the INTERPOL segment. Argumentation: text editing, the link https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/how-the-russians-helped-turn-moldova-into-a-hotbed-for-money-laundering/#6604a346b783 has limited access to money laundering information, which casts doubt on credibility

• From

Interpol has been monitoring Vladimir Plahotniuc since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Plahotniuc denies this. The Italian police have also investigated Plahotniuc for money laundering.

• In

Interpol had a case ID involving Plahotniuc's activities throughout Western Europe since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Vlad Plahotniuc, disputed the information that his name would be in the Interpol documents

7. I did the editing of the paragraph about the organization of the crime against Gorbunțov, with the annexation of the sources containing his statements. I did not understand why this information was excluded by AlberPenfold and was not seen by the user Gikü. Emphasis was placed on the credibility of the statements of a person in detention, with a criminal biography than on Gorbunțov's statements.

• From

According to the respected Russian business daily newspaper Kommersant, Plahotniuc has been accused by a hired assassin of being behind the order to kill a Russian banker in London, German Gorbuntsov. This accusation adds evidence to a previously developing story: Plahotniuc had long been accused of being linked to the "organization of the murder attempt on banker German Gorbuntsov." The hired assassin, Vitaliy Proca (sometimes spelled Proka), had been turned over to Romanian authorities in 2013 from Russia for a separate hired assassination after negotiations of an extradition through Interpol. Proca had previously accused Plahotniuc of arranging the assassination, noting, "Plahotniuc's hands are in blood up to his elbows.” Soon after these statements were made, Proca's wife and brother-in-law were imprisoned, and his wife told the press that she was offered a deal by representatives of Plahotniuc to free them if Proca remained silent.

• In

According to the respected Russian business daily newspaper Kommersant, Plahotniuc has been accused by a hired assassin of being behind the order to kill a Russian banker in London, German Gorbuntsov. The latter rejects the information issued by the killer Vitalie Proca and claims that there are many signs leading to Renato Usatîi.

This accusation adds evidence to a previously developing story: Plahotniuc had long been accused of being linked to the "organization of the murder attempt on banker German Gorbuntsov." The hired assassin, Vitaliy Proca (sometimes spelled Proka), had been turned over to Romanian authorities in 2013 from Russia for a separate hired assassination after negotiations of an extradition through Interpol. Proca had previously accused Plahotniuc of arranging the assassination . Soon after these statements were made, Proca's wife and brother-in-law were imprisoned, and his wife told the press that she was offered a deal by representatives of Plahotniuc to free them if Proca remained silent. Finally, Moldovan media were divided into two camps, and both camps have their own version of the case. In repeating lines, both for CrimeMoldova and for other media sources, German Gorbuntov said that Renato Usatîi is the one who wants his death, and Plahotniuc would have no reason to order his assassination.

• Conclusion:

I believe that the changes we have proposed are in line with Wiki policies, especially the NPOV, BLP, VER of information based on CS notorious. I reiterate that I have a neutral position towards Vlad Plahotniuc's personality (to exclude the accusation brought by the user Gikü - blatant polishing, removal of negative coverage, OR).

Following the exposed ones, how do you think it could be solved this situation? In my opinion I would see as follows:

• Reviewing the latest changes;
• Returning to access for possible changes;
• Taking into account the wiki rules and requirements (ex. Wikipedia editors are very careful when adding information about living people to any Wikipedia page.)--Jeremydas (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

References

@Gikü: I invite you to the discussion page.--Jeremydas (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Hello, I followed your advice and started a discussion on Vladimir Plahotniuc discussion page. So far, I have not received any answer. Once I wrote all my actions through concrete examples, which would be the next steps to unlock the page with keeping the changes, taking into account Wikipedia policies.--Jeremydas (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gikü & Jeremydas You need to seek WP:CONSENSUS. This may require inviting other editors to the discussion using a neutrally worded invitation which can be posted on related talk pages such as wiki-projects and WP:BLP. If all else fails see options under WP:DR including the possibility of posting a WP:RfC. I may consider lowering the protection level depending on how things seem to be moving. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Hi, I followed the steps you have proposed. Until now I have not received any answer. Is it possible to find a common denominator to solve this dispute? Either we go back to the initial version in order to preserve impartiality initial version (or when the user Gikü intervenes and proposes possible changes, we initiate a new discussion).--Jeremydas (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@AlbertPenfold: Before insisting on any changes, I am asking you to consult the page discussed, particularly Section 10, which contains the steps of my detailed action, according to the Wikipedia policies, and also regarding the Section 12, without making any changes, there are discrepances between the reference source and information included in the article.--Jeremydas (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice Concerning Page Protection, Edit Warring and BLP Violations

@Ad Orientem: Hello, thank you for your interventions. Just like before, I will make all the changes in accordance with Wikipedia policies to contribute to the articles I'm going to work on.--Jeremydas (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Modifications

Controversies, monitoring INTERPOL

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.

Reference sources:https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/billion-dollar-theft-in-moldova-one-rich-bankers-crime-has-a-nation-doing-time/#e88b9af4f7ec the author writes:

• Interpol has had a case ID involving Plahotniuc’s activities...., the reference is made to the primary source: https://www.timpul.md/articol/(document)-vlad-plahotniuc-prezinta-dovezi-ca-nu-e-cautat-de-interpol-41000.html, and the content is less related to the text written by the author on forbes.com The reference source does not contain the information on the existing file ran by Interpol, and only the proof that the related person is not under the INTERPOL focus..., etc. (VER);
• ... he is loosely associated with one of Russia’s biggest mafias, the Solntsevskaya Brotherhood, the reference is made to the primary source : https://evz.ro/un-document-exploziv-al-interpol-dezvaluie-oligarhul-moldovean-vladimir-plahotniuc-omul-care-face-legatura-intre-mafia-rusa-si-politicienii-romani.html?v=347635&page=2 – the article entitled “An Interpol explosive document reveals: Moldavian oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, the person who connecting the Russian Mafia and the Romanian politicians" gives plenty of information without any reference (several news summaries, without support documents presentation, according to the title of the article) accusations and allegations made to person (VER; BLP; NOR; NPOV)

Reference source https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/how-the-russians-helped-turn-moldova-into-a-hotbed-for-money-laundering/#6b0c6429b783 the author writes:

• Plahotniuc, who according to Interpol… reference to the primary source (less known): http://thewhistleblowers.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Operation-OCTOPUS-page-003.jpg, where the scanned page in PDF format is presented, with the list of the persons, among them VP also, which does not present clear and relevant information on the subject of the article (VER);
• ....money laundering, and loose association with the Russian Solntsevskaya mafia, reference to: (http://hewhistleblowers.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Operation-OCTOPUS-page-002.jpg) to redirect http://hewhistleblowers.info/ when it is accessed there are no information on the related subject (VER).

According to the Wikipedia policy the questionable information related to the living persons or with less references - whether negative or positive or just questionable - must be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion. Content must have references to the reliable sources and should relate to the topic of the article.--Jeremydas (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you post your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This materials looks to be based on the information taken from that platform (https://interpoloctopus.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/operation-octopus-and-vladimir-plahotniuc/ ). the author of the article from (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/how-the-russians-helped-turn-moldova-into-a-hotbed-for-money-laundering/#6b0c6429b783) making reference specifically to this source.--George men (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

In the current form of the page appears only a part of the content from the source https://interpoloctopus.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/operation-octopus-and-vladimir-plahotniuc/, which is the primary source for https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/how-the-russians-helped-turn-moldova-into-a-hotbed-for-money-laundering/#6b0c6429b783 . Let assume that the primary source can be, according to the Wikipedia policies, the reliable source (VER, BLP, NPOV, RS). It contains the scanned document in PDF form, the entire text does not contain data related to Vladimir Plahotniuc that he is under INTERPOL monitoring, and that he has roots with Solntevkaya Brotherhood, that there were files related to his implication in money laundry. These are the interpretation used by several mass media sources (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/billion-dollar-theft-in-moldova-one-rich-bankers-crime-has-a-nation-doing-time/#b7b81844f7ec , https://evz.ro/un-document-exploziv-al-interpol-dezvaluie-oligarhul-moldovean-vladimir-plahotniuc-omul-care-face-legatura-intre-mafia-rusa-si-politicienii-romani.html , https://adevarul.ro/moldova/economie/vlad-plahotniuc-prim-vicepresedintele-parlamentului-chisinau-supravegheat-interpol-1_50ae3d5c7c42d5a6639af7a4/index.html , etc.) The document relates to some INTERPOL actions carried out in Italy. The document requested the data on several persons, who landed in the airports mentioned in the letter, from the INTERPORL Services to several states:”… at request of our antimafia investigative directorate, please provide, every service for its own competence, any information, including police records, on bellow listed subjects: …..”, and ended with “for police and juridical use only…”. After these interpretations has appeared both in the mass media and on the Wikipedia page, the INTERPOL official answer has appeared to the subject (https://www.timpul.md/articol/(document)-vlad-plahotniuc-prezinta-dovezi-ca-nu-e-cautat-de-interpol-41000.html ) who says that: ..."there is no information regarding Plahotniuc, in the Interpol files of this Central National Bureau”. My impression is that the source https://interpoloctopus.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/operation-octopus-and-vladimir-plahotniuc/ was specially created to blackmail the image of Vladimir Plahotniuc.--Jeremydas (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to add here as AlbertPenfold, that the changes made above by including "positive" words like philanthropist but excluding anything with a "negative" connotation is an attempt to present a biased presentation of Plahotniuc. A living figure should not be slandered and should not be lionized. Please, Jeremydas, make an effort to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertPenfold (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war

Again, it is insisting on the repeating and information transfer from one section to another to emphasize the controversial issues. The Controversy Section is already described the information about so-called arrest in the Russian Federation. As well as, the INTERPOL position on international search is also highlighted, because of political interest. How does these information relate to the Career section?

Regarding the news on [11] implication in the money laundering together with Veaceslav Platon (sentenced for the “century theft”). The Wikipedia’s objectives neither looking for sensations no spreading the spreading promiscuous statements about people’s lives. As we, all know the Wikipedia is not the news bulletin. Therefore, an editor must show that the material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

It is insisted on every intervention on denigrating and defamatory aspects on the person, without any arguments or sources of reference. It's a continuous attack on personality within the election campaign.

In fact, all the contribution of the AlberPenfold user on wiki, linked with the interventions on Vladimir Plahotniuc’s page, in the given period of time. Every intervention has a negative character, the same issues are emphasized every time, without considering any updates (for example, in this regard coming back to the same subsections in the Controversy section), the fact about was mentioned before([12]).--Jeremydas (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Prevent Edit War

This is not about denigration or defamation. An accusation is nothing more than an accusation, these are factually accurate and my sole intention here is to present a balanced view of the individual. It's clear that Jeremydas has a biased view that prefers to create a "cleansed" version of history. It is unclear to me why Jeremydas would have a problem with accusations against a candidate, accusations that are from multiple sources and involve criminal courts and police in multiple countries. You can add positive public relations information -- I am not deleting those additions -- I am simply adding additional, factually accurate information. You can add information, like "philanthropic" activity to present the candidate in a positive light; I also consider that to be factually accurate and therefore do not delete the information or complain.

Your question about Plahotniuc's career seems paradoxical or circular: you are asking what a career connected to a criminal group lasting over a decade has to do with the individual's career.