Talk:Edi Rama

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Edi Rama (portret).jpg

Makoçi's testimony in divorce hearings
I've been digging this story and so far I came to the conclusion it's unnecessary and useless. While I'm writing this it's worth mentioning I'm digging stories for other politians as well and I'll add some more controversies here, anyway I'll explain my conclusion. Out of the 3 citations it has the first one doesn't work, the second one is from the Democratic Party's official newspaper a.k.a his rival party so take it with a grain of salt what's says there and the third citation is partial copy of the second one. I've tried searching more but few newspapers report the same thing nothing more. Also this story doesn't add anything relevant his career (if it's true). Here an interview his his son Greg https://www.anabelmagazine.com/news/37606/greg-rama-beyond-art-39zaho-is-my-weak-point39/eng/ and here's the same interview more expanded but it's in Albanian (you can translate it) https://sot.com.al/aktualitet/gregor-rama-rrefim-te-vecante-jeten-pasionet-dhe-familjen-e-tij-zaho-pika-ime-e-dobet-ja. S.G ReDark (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I will remove this story and will add new controversies while maintaining neutrality S.G ReDark (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Albwiki001, you need to stop edit warring over poorly verified BLP content, and start explaining what you are doing. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Drmies - Just so you know, S.G. ReDark has been removing entire sections from the Controversies section of Edi Rama's page, and in my view is engaging in selective "clean up" of the page to make the current Albania's PM look good. Whether or not he is on the government's payroll, I don't know and frankly don't care. All I know is Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia where different views and facts are discussed, and censorship is not tolerated.
 * To give a little bit of background, S.G. ReDar has been removing a story in connection with Edi Rama's claims during his divorce hearings that the baby his then wife Makoci was expecting couldn't be his since (1) he could not father children, and (2) Makoci had spent the time when she got pregnant on vacation with Rama's parents. The story, including the court statements, were first published by Gazeta Tema's Editor in Chief Mero Baze who is a reputable journalist in Albania, has previously worked for VoA, etc.
 * Notice S.G. ReDar started the edit war by removing the last sentece that said Gazeta Tema has retracted the story. I kindly invited him, and still do, to provide a link showing that they have retracted it. They couldn't provide so they started removing the story altogether which is super absurd.
 * In my view, it should be restored. If there are any missing citations, we could certainly add. That S.G. ReDar thinks it is "unnecessary and useless" and "doesn't add anything relevant" is irrelevant and I'm sure the vast majority of Wikipedia's readers would disagree. Albwiki001 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Albwiki001, this is the kind of thing that is needed here: an evaluation of the sources, which is not so easy since we don't have many readers of Albanian here. As an admin I am less interested in the actual content than I am to reliability of sources--and if reputable sources have published the story, and commented on it, then we have valid material. What we really need though is some input from other editors who read Albanian. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Drmies @S.G ReDark I am an Albanian speaker. I want to let you know how much relieved i am seeing that subjects like him are being stopped on English Wikipedia.
 * As regards the impartiality of the sources, you must know that the majority of Albanian newspaper are highly biased. Although there are few exceptions.
 * I saw his edits. As regards the sources, they cannot be defined reliable and impartial since "Rilindja Demokratike" (The Democratic Rebirth) is the official newspaper of the Democratic Party of Albania, namely the opposition party. They always use these type of attacks in order to make gossip about the current PM of Albania.
 * In fact, just like two days ago the Leader(!) of the DP said that Edi Rama wants to legalize cannabis cultivation just because he is a consumer himself!
 * Anyway these are my argumentations. If you need someone that can read Albanian you can ask me. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Drmies@S.G ReDark As regards the .jpg image of the alleged 'Gazeta Tema' front page provided as proof, i will say it is highly, highly grainy and absolutely nothing, except the titles, can be read. It could have easily been photoshopped. Moreover the Albanian newspapers articles dating back to the '90 and early 2000s cannot be considered reliable since the caotic (really extreme corruption and criminality) situation in Albania.
 * @Drmies Just to give you the context: take a look at the Albanian Civil War caused by the longest and widely known pyramid schemes. Allegedly nothing was controlled at that time and newspaper were a valid mean to distort public opinion. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Drmies - Agreed that if reputable sources have published the story and commented on it, we have a valid material. Notice the story was first published in October 2023 by Gazeta Tema, which has historically been an independent outlet with no political affiliation whatsoever. Its Editor in Chief, Mero Baze, has worked as a correspondent for the VoA and Radio Free Europe, so I'm sure you'll agree that the source is as reputable as it gets.
 * As for the claims this was not published in Gazeta Tema (really absurd in my view), I have my sources here in Albania that have confirmed they can provide an original issue of the newspaper from 2003 upon request. Honestly you can just do a Google Search for "Grigori nuk eshte djali im" (tra: Grigori is not my son) and see the image results to confirm this was published in Gazeta Tema. A simple Google Translate can also confirm that RD, a politically affiliated newspaper, covered the story referring to the original publication in Gazeta Tema. They did not break the story themselves as S.G.ReDark claims.
 * Also, @Drmies - please look at the edit history to confirm for yourself the gradual and persistent attempts from different users to "clean up" the Controversies section in Rama's Wikipedia page. For this story, they started with a naive attempt at adding language saying "Gazeta Tema has retracted the story as false". When I started challenging them and asking for proof of retraction, they started removing the whole thing on grounds that the story was never published, that Gazeta Tema is somehow party-affiliated and unreliable, etc. This can all be easily verified by looking at the Edit History. Albwiki001 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok let me understand, you called my edits "vandalism" while I opened a discussion provided sources and EXPLAINED my edits when I made them. You are also accusing me of cleaning up the page to make Albanian PM look good and that I might be "on the government's payroll". Seriously you are not even trying to hide your POV and at the same time you start throwing accusations and conspiracies because someone disagreed with you. Also, I didn't start and edit war (just letting you know) and what last sentence are you referring to? When did you invite me (again what last sentence)? Oh the story is "unnecessary and useless" and "doesn't add anything relevant" since I provided YOU sources why it is. S.G ReDark (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked into this matter a bit. It’s difficult for me, because I don’t speak Albanian.  However, as best I can tell, the publisher of the newspaper Tema did make a statement in 2019 about his newspaper’s earlier report on the paternity of Greg Rama.  In 2019, that publisher, Mero Baze, said he got the documents supporting that story from former Prime Minister Sali Berisha, who was Edi Rama’s fierce political opponent.  Mero Baze says he has doubts about the veracity of the story: “the publisher Mero Baze reacted by showing for the first time how Berisha served the news about Rama's son to the newspaper 'Tema'. Baze says that the former prime minister offered him the documents as if Rama denied the paternity of his son, while he emphasizes that he has doubts about what was presented to him as the health ‘card’ of Edi Rame.” Here’s a link in English.  The publisher, Mero Baze, rather cavalierly added: “This of course makes that part of the newspaper's history dirty, but if we were different, we would be the New York Times, not an Albanian newspaper, and this neither embarrasses us, nor complicates us.”  So we could either keep this BS out of Wikipedia, or expose it as BS in this BLP.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting take. I hope you'll agree that only a journalist of questionable professionalism and integrity would publish a story served by a political opponent without fact checking it first in great detail. That he has worked for the VoA and Radio Free Europe is strong evidence that he cannot be of such questionable professionalism and integrity. Such media outlets have very high standards for who they hire, and would've likely been able pick up on his flawed professionalism and either never hired him, or cut him loose after a month or two.
 * Let's suppose for a second that he faced such an immense pressure (professionally, personally, family-wise, etc.) back in 2003 to publish the story. Well, that would be a strange thing to assume, since back in 2003 Edi Rama's Socialist Party was in government, but let's assume he gave in to whatever pressure he was facing and published a false story. You'd think he'd want to make things right and issue an official retraction, wouldn't you? Mentioning it in passing in an interview is not nearly enough for such a reputable editor. Also, consider the following. Albania has some pretty strict libel laws. You'd think that if the story was definitely made up, Rama would sue Gazeta Tema like many of his political allies have sued media outlets for libel. He's never taken them to court. Why? Maybe because the story is true, and supported by court documents?
 * Last thing to add, Rama's been in government since 2013, with an increasing grip to power (e.g. Back in 2013 he was in a coaltion governmet. Since 2017 he's governing alone). Rather than calling Baze's story BS, doesn't it seem more likely to you and everyone reading this that Baze has been facing a lot of pressure to deny the story and has finally given in for whatever reason (e.g. protecting himself and his family, advancing his career, son gets a government scholarship to study in London, etc.) so the 2019 interview is BS? Albwiki001 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The newspaper publisher Mero Baze says: “According to a law of Sali Berisha in 2008, every Albanian student who is admitted to one of the 15 best universities in the world, the Albanian state pays the school fee, (not housing and food) and the student against a contract, is obliged to then work for two years in the Albanian administration. My son was accepted for a master's degree at UCL, which this year is in the top ten universities in the world.” Anyway, the story about Edi Rami claiming he was not the biological father of his son Greg is not well-sourced because you haven’t presented a reliable source that says Mero Baze was lying in 2019 about the dirtiness of that story.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah and that's just your opionion. Just ask yourself though, what did Baze have to gain by publishing the story in 2003? Not much, since Berisha was not in power back then so he couldn't really curry any favors from him. What did Baze have to gain by denying the story in 2019. A lot, since Rama had been in government since 2013 and had greatly tightened his grip to power.
 * The story that Edi Rama claimed he was not the biological father of Grigor is well-sourced since it was published in one of Albania's independent daily newspapers, with a Editor in Chief that has worked for very prestigious Western media such as the VoA or Radio Free Europe.That he would deny the story under political pressure in 2019 (or to advance his career, curry favors from Rama, such as son gaining a government scholarship, etc.) is not really that surprising under the current political conditions in Albania. Albwiki001 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying Baze was telling the truth in 2019. What I’m saying is you haven’t yet produced a reliable source that says he was lying in 2019. See the difference?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not saying Baze was telling the truth in 2019, then you'll agree this is still an open controversy. What's stopping Baze from issuing an official retraction in his newspaper? Unless there's an official retraction, everything else is just cheap talk.
 * Also, if the story is BS as you called it (you're absolutely not impartial in my view), what stopped Rama all these years from suing Gazeta Tema for libel? Albwiki001 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As of now, the sources I’ve cited from 2019 discredit the earlier report. But the earlier report can turn from BS to solid gold if you would present us with a reliable source that indicates Baze was lying in 2019.  I would support inclusion of this matter in our Wikipedia article if you can do that. You’re right that it’s strange there’s no official retraction, but what Baze said in 2019 seems like plenty enough to render the earlier report unreliable.  As for why Rama didn’t sue for libel, I don’t know, in the USA it’s very hard to sue newspapers unless the newspapers were certain they were telling a lie, whereas Baze says he did not know whether the info was true or not.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you're all over the place. First you said Baze denied the veracity of the story, now you're saying he did not know whether the info was true or not. You tried to distract by defending Baze's son scholarship (Since when is UCL a top 10 university in the world? Did it never occurr to you that hundreds of Albanian students every year get admitted at top 10 universities but never receive any government money?) Honestly, everyone reading this can see how ridiculous you're being, and frankly you're just supporting censorship for the benefit of an autocrat.
 * Since Gazeta Tema have never officially retracted the story, this is still an open controversy whether you like it or not. Everything else that Baze or anyone else may say is just cheap talk that doesn't count for anything. Baze had little to gain from publishing the story back in 2003, and a ton to gain from casting doubts in 2019. Everyone that engages in critical thinking understands this. Albwiki001 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I said above that “Mero Baze says he has doubts about the veracity of the story”. Maybe he didn’t go further and officially retract the story because he’s not sure it’s false.  Or maybe Baze knows it’s a false story, and always knew it was a false story, but if he says so then he would open himself up to a defamation lawsuit.  Anyway, to get this controversy included into this BLP, all we need is a reliable source saying that Baze was lying in 2019 when he wrote that his own newspaper’s prior report might be incorrect.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what you say is what we need, but you've failed to present any sensible arguments. At the very least, by your own admission the controversy is still unresolved. All that's needed is a retraction from Gazeta Tema, why wont they do it?
 * I'll go ahead and add the story again. If I have to escalate this issue to senior Wikipedia editors and management, I most certainly will. Albwiki001 (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Might save you some time if you read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're shilling for an autocrat and promoting a Stalinist-type removal of history, so no not taking advice from you. Albwiki001 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, one of our options is to include this matter briefly while explaining that the credibility of the accusation was greatly diminished by what Baze said in 2019. But you don’t seem to agree with that.  I don’t know hardly anything about Albanian politics, but I do know that even the nastiest living people are covered by WP:BLP.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Albwiki001 you again are using conspiracies and accusing editors that disagree with you. You are literally asking what Berisha had to gain by attacking his political opponents, @FierakuiVërtet@&#32;Anythingyouwant and myself included explained to you and even provided sources but you still refuse all that. S.G ReDark (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Weren't you the one disputing that Gazeta Tema published the article, saying only RD published it? You're a dishonest fraud, you should be banned from editing. Albwiki001 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Go on keep attacking me and see who's gonna get banned. Also I didn't say that, you can read my first message but obviously you don't. S.G ReDark (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Impartiality/reliability/content manipulation/Propaganda in "Controversies"
I will rewrite here what my concerns are. In Controversies the content of the articles, used as a source, has been intentionally manipulated by changing the lexicon and omitting important parts.The result is an intentional semantic shift of the content, which mislead the reader. This methods has been widely used in Controversies by a user that is trying to defamate this politician by transforming his Wikipedia page in a sensationalistic Tabloid. Moreover, in one of my l even deleted a part about Egin Ceka/ Alleged Assault which was supposed to be justified by two articles provided as a source. But, when I looked into it, I found out that the articles were referring to another episode and not the Alleged assault. It is all in English, everyone can read the sources by himself.

FierakuiVërtet (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Edi Rama physically assaulted Egin Ceka, according to multiple well-documented reports in the media. He engaged in unlawful physical contact, so it is assault by definition. You are engaging in selective "clean up" of stories you think are too inconvenient to appear on Wikipedia and doing a disservice to the community. Also, suggest you improve your English before editing pages. Albwiki001 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @FierakuiVërtet @Albwiki001 @S.G ReDark One of you should take this to Arbitration/Requests and let them sort it out instead of edit warring with each other.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skywatcher68 - Thanks for stepping in. Could you provide some detail on how I can present the case to Wikipedia's arbitration? I think it's clear and obvious to everyone reviewing Rama's history page that Fieraku and S.G.Redark (maybe the same person since Fieraku was banned in the past for socketpuppetry) are acting in concert to remove well-sourced factual content that they think is too inconvenient to appear on Wikipedia. For example, Rama has clearly violated (or at the very least directed and directly benefited from a violation of) U.S. Federal law when he engaged in campaign donations in a U.S. election. The language that I had included related to this 1-2 years ago, together with the links from U.S. media reports and court press releases were deleted by Fieraku earlier this week with no real support provided as to why (besides the fact that he is engaging in selecting "clean up" for the benefit of Rama). Albwiki001 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Best thing I can recommend is to use one of the other Requests for Arbitration as a template.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Albwiki001 so now you are accusing me of being a sockpupet of @FierakuiVertet, first you accuse me of being "on government payroll to make Rama look good" or that I'm "Rama minion" and there's probably more.

About the Egin Ceka case, you only provide one side of the history and never mention the other part (aftermath) and that's usually what POV pushing means. Now I've tried to be civil with you and tried to solve this thought discussion, but you instead accuse me and other editors with conspiracies and go on edit war every time you disagree with someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.G ReDark (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Then maybe instead of removing the whole story you can include language around "the other part (aftermath)" (not sure what you mean really, can't really understand your English). Whether you like it or not, the truth, documented by several independent eyewitnesses and reported in the media, is that Rama was escorted by security at that event, because he physically assaulted a diplomat. He engaged in unlawful physical contact, what's there so difficult to understand? I will go ahead and include the story again later today (and report both you and Fieraku, to Arbitration). Suggest you work on improving your English, instead of engaging in edit wars with me. Albwiki001 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My English is fine and clear, you chose to ignore the aftermath of this whole story (how it ended) and you know it, here for example https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/rama-i-shkuli-veshin-8-vite-me-pare-djali-i-neritan-cekes-le-shtetesine-shqiptare . Before you change anything to the page, discuss it here so we can de-escalate this edit war, btw you broke the "3 revert rule" accusing other editors being: "Rama minions", "you are on government payroll, " S.G ReDark and FierakuiVertet could be the same person", calling good faith edits "vandalism" and now you criticized mine and FierakuiVertet English. I could go on and on about how your behaviour is disrespectful towards other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.G ReDark (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok in the spirit of de-escalating the edit war you have started I will go ahead and add the physical altercation's controversy back on (together with the sources and support). You can go ahead and add the "aftermath of this whole story (how it ended)" and the sources. There is no case to be made that physical assault is not a controversy, so this is the best path forward. Albwiki001 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting to understand each other, before we make any move let's wait FierakuiVertet opinion, also would you be interested in the future to collaborate together and add controversies to other politicians?Or at least help me (give me articles etc), Since that's what I'm working on but I don't have much free time. S.G ReDark (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not true.


 * 1) We were not disputing, and we did not dispute (until now), on Egin Ceka's alleged assault. An episode I had to rewrite, since it told only one side of the story. However, due to copyright (my fault), it got deleted, and I don't mind if someone else adds it again. But did not do so and did not mention it until now (i would have backed him up). Instead he decided to use this as an expedient to revert my edits on Bilal Shehu and the theatre. Bilal Shehu's charges have nothing to do with Rama. They were obviously added in order to defamate Rama, turning his Wikipedia page in sensationalistic tabloid.
 * 2) The same thing has been done with Rama's opinion regarding the national theatre's historical value. Pure Tabloid methodology.

Albwiki has alredy shown his will to defamate Rama, accusing him of being authoritarian. He also accused me of "being on government's payroll" and of being "Rama's minion". He went on, shamefully comparing us to the Stalinist censorship. I am planning to report him for repetively breaching WP:NPA, WP:NOTATABLOID, WP:NOTNP, WP:BLP (he insulted Rama numerous times in the talk page). I will repeat it: I don't care about Egin Ceka's part as long as it is not biased. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Bilal Shehu pled guilty to making an illegal contribution (i.e., on behalf of a foreign agent) to Obama's campaign. Rama was the direct beneficiary of the illegal contribution since he attended a private, donor-sponsored U.S. political campaign event (using Bilal Shehu's wife's ticket, per media reports) and got a photo with Obama. How is this not a controversy? I will go ahead and re-add this. Albwiki001 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that he attended the event and got a photo with Obama does not imply anything, it is not enough to pass WP:BLP. No charges have been pressed against Rama. These are Bilal Shehu charges, therefore your edit is openly in contrast with WP:NOTATABLOID, WP:NOTNP. I suggest you read these Wikipedia policies, instead of voluntarily ignoring them. I repeat it: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagreed that the edit is in contrast with Wikipedia's policies. Could you point to which specific policy it violates? That Rama hasn't been charged yet with a crime does not matter. Controversy still stands since there's plenty evidence to suggest he made a contribution to U.S. political campaign as a foreign agent. That's just the truth. Why are you trying to hide it? Albwiki001 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you joking, right? Your assumptions do not necessarily correspond to the truth. Keep this in mind while editing Wikipedia. However:
 * as per the source you provided yourself here, You didn't even mention this fact ! You didn't even mention that all of this is nothing but a newspapers allegation ! Instead, you wrote an entire paragraph about Bilal Shehu(!)'s charges and entitled it Violation of U.S federal Laws, all of this on Rama's page. Do you think we cannot see what you have done here?! Better check your biases before accusing other editors.
 * The paragraph, as you wrote it, is unacceptable. If you want to suggest he made a contribution to U.S politcal campaign do it properly and propose another version. What do you think ? Personally, I am down for including this controversy, as long as it is written properly. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @FierakuiVërtet - Your reading comprehension in English is obviously limited, I kindly suggest you improve it. Prosecutors did not identify does not mean prosecutors didn't know who the foreign national was. It simply means at the time of the bargain they decided not to include Rama's name in court ruling documents (honestly my best guess, from knowing the U.S. prosecutorial and court system in detail, is that they're holding onto this information so they can press charges against Rama at a later time). Multiple U.S. media released the information that Edi Rama was the foreign national who benefited from the donation and attended Obama's donor event using Bilal Shehu's wife's ticket, so this is a well documented controversy. I'm sure you don't like it, but that's not my problem. Albwiki001 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @FierakuiVërtet I 100% agree with you, If the story is rewritten and includes both sides (of the story) then it's fine by me. Also Albwiki001 by constantly criticizing others about how good their English isn't going to boost your argument any further. Let's keep continuing with the de-escalation "spirit" please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.G ReDark (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @S.G ReDark Great! FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My English is fine, it is you that keeps ignoring basic Wikipedia's policies and what i am trying to say. Identify: I've never said they could not identify the source/national, I said they did not identify it!
 * Now, read this carefully: The fact that you(!) think prosecutors know that Rama is gulity, but are holding onto this information for later, is nothing but your assumption! We do not need your opinion here. The three (not multiple) media have not expressely made allegations against Rama, instead they have limited theirself to expose these events (which is exactly what you did here), in order to suggest an opinion to the reader.
 * An example to make this more clear: How do you know it was Rama the offender and not a lobbying (2013 p. elections)? How do you know it wasn't an oligarch the culprit? Did prosecutors exlude these eventualities? (if you got lost: the sources you provided tell that Rama was denied access to the event and suggest this whole thing (including the photo with Obama) was a scheme to gain consensus in the 2013 albanian p. elections. So, these are legit questions.)
 * Remember that benefiting does not mean he was the direct offender. This is not a newspaper and we do not need your opinion here. I am sure the arbitration committee would agree with me on this.
 * We need facts, what you can do is to write:  Rama is alleged to [...] or  Rama is under investigation for [...] . Then, provide the sources to this statemant. These are controversies! I will not comment anyfurther to this specific episode, as i believe i made myself clear. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you disagreed with the wording of what I had written, you could've tweaked it so it aligned closer with (what you think) are the facts. No, you deleted the whole thing. Why did you delete the whole thing? Is that professionalism, or is that censorship? Why do you engage in censorship, care to explain before we take this to arbitration? Why don't you, and @S.G ReDark, in the spirit of de-escalation, restore the stories, and I will tweak the language (I understand even tweaking will be very hard for you since your English is very good and you struggle making yourselves clear in writing). Albwiki001 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You have showed blatant biases in all the paragraphs you have wrote. It is odd how you, a native English speaker, have completely misinterpreted/manipulated the lexicon of the sources you provided yourself and changed the wording, isn't it? Is this professionalism? (Don't even ask me to prove this, just read the Egin Ceka episode). You can well understand that tweaks are not sufficient in these cases.
 * Besides, you reported Rama's exact words about the theatre's historical value and labeled them a 'controversy'! Please, it takes neither an arbitration committee nor a native English speaker to understand your intention was to defamate Rama with propaganda-like content? This is not the place for demagogy.


 * And finally, you might want to learn the difference between fine and very good. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So your mask is finally off, you really showed your true intentions with your lasted edits. I guess the "de-escalation spirit" we where doing it's basically gone, since I don't have time can do an arbitration. S.G ReDark (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

""Vaccines smuggling" with Italy" paragraph in Controversies, removed by an Edi Rama fan that uses international Wikipedias for political propaganda purposes
I think that the different and reliable sources cited speak for themselves as regards the relevance and media attention reserved to the facts described by the president and to the words he used (the word "controversy" recurs several times). I'm a Neapolitan-Italian-Albanian and I'm always "in line with the law". 87.11.88.149 (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Speak for themselves" is not an argumentation. Explain clearly what is the controversy here. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:5P4 and stop offending editors who disagree with you. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)