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

Controversy
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
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, please explain your point of view. --Gikü (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * I need to see a consensus before editing this protected article. : can you comment please? &mdash; 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 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive252. --Gikü (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay paragraph &mdash; 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 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)


 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war (2)
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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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 and more recently as an anonymous XXN, 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As an user uninvolved editorially on this article, who previously noticed other issues,, could you review these actions reported above? --XXN, 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 ,

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

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)


 * I invite you to the discussion page.--Jeremydas (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @ & 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
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: 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: 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)
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * 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 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.--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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertPenfold (talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciated a lot your initiative to update the information. However, since information cannot be checked or has some weak references it is better to avoid the newscast creation. All this is came in accordance to the Wikipedia policies. I believe that my involvement has the only purpose to protect the encyclopaedia’s policies and working rules. And further, I will presented the reasons and my motivation for the related updates:’


 * In the Controversy Section and in the newly made Arrest in Abstentia for Attempted Murder Section the information is repeated. The information regarding the so-called arrest in the Russian Federation is actually described in Controversy Section, being emphasized even the INTERPOL position on announcing the international search, as it would be of political interest. Moreover, there are Gorbuntov statements in this respect. The updated information can be found in the Controversy Section as long as there are no information that could confirm any position (Gorbuntov declaration related to Proca Declarations) (MOS). The Arrest in Abstentia for Attempted Murder Section was deleted not because of the intention to “clean” the  history page but because this information is already exists in the Controversy Section;
 * Thank you for this update. I have edited that section to combine (talk)


 * In the Political Activity Section there is a reference to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/this-man-s-about-to-get-elected-after-a-1-billion-bank-fraud as “Many people, including Western diplomats interviewed for this article, say he and his allies control the courts, Shor, and, to an extent, the Socialists.”  Whose are these statements? Who are they? How we could check these statements? According to the NPOV policies any point of view can be included if it is correctly assigned, in order that every person who reads the article could create an opinion starting with the information linked to the related source. In this case, the source of statement is lacking.
 * Which part would you like to verify specifically? Which specific point? I will add additional references; there are many people who are on the public record. (talk)


 * Subsection Money Laundering Probe of the Controversy Section refers to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russian Federation, which presents the proofs on money laundering (https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/nation-world/article226620429.html/). According to the official webpage of the MIA of RF (https://xn--b1aew.xn--p1ai/news/item/15935569/) it is presented the information about one person who was arrested and there is a reference  on the scheme organized by Vladimir Plahotniuc and Veaceslav Platon (sentenced for the “century theft”). Irina Volc (https://xn--b1aew.xn--p1ai/contacts/presscenter/spokesperson) stated that the prosecution is continuing. There are no proofs that would accuse Vladimir Plahotniuc, as it is mentioned in the current form of the subsection. Sensations are not the Wikipedia purpose, as well as, it is not the mean of sharing the promiscuous statements related to the persons’ life and it is not the newscast as well.
 * This is not proof, this is an accusation. No one is claiming otherwise, and this is not about sensation but simply about accusations made in a public court.


 * In the Businessman chapter you added again the following information – “More: http://tass.com/economy/1045935” – which actually is linked to the Money Laundering Probe Section.
 * Thank you, I have updated. (talk)


 * As for the segment the Century Theft ( it content can be discussed again once M. Gofman’s new statements has appeared), for the women trafficking all the reasons for the updates which have been made/proposed according to the Wiki’s policies (Discussion) and unfortunately, I have not receive any arguments/ counterpoint position, and for the INTERPOL segment on the discussion page (Discussion), where the study on primary source accuracy (RS) was submitted (https://interpoloctopus.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/operation-octopus-and-vladimir-plahotniuc/) from which many news have appeared in local and international media about so called INTERPOL monitoring, to which you again do not come with any feedback.
 * Better for you to explain what you do not like rather than simply say that changes are according to policies. These controversies of course exist, and it's widely assumed to be factually accurate. Ambassador William Hill's book is a good starting point for you with specific names and accusations. Again, these accusations have not been proven in court and therefore I believe it is better to maintain them in the controversy section and not include them above.


 * And also, I would like to prevent the sections on which you have insisted on (as I understand from the very long time NPOV) I believe, which come only to emphasize the negative issues (the fact that I wrote before) (→Controversies: Subsection headings clearly highlight controversial and libelous information, with more accusations, poorly sourced (in some cases with dead links) (RS, VER), resulting in non-compliance with the rule of neutrality (NPOV). The contents of some subsections do not coincide with its title (example: Accusation of theft from the Central Bank))) does not ease the reader perception on the content.

As for introducing the wording “philanthropist” or a section designated to “philanthropy” – which you insisted that was done by me, I am kindly asking you to dig more deeply. This issue was placed before I have any interventions on this page.--Jeremydas (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This goes to demonstrate my point: the issue is not who wrote the subheading of "philanthropist" the point is that you choose not to delete this subheading but choose to delete subheadings that you interpret to be negative. We all understand how public relations campaigns work and we, as members of Wikipedia, are asking (talk) to remain objective and not deliberately create a one-side view.
 * We are having the common ground: an interest to have a factual accuracy. However, this interest is perceived differently. I do not like to make a wrong impression that I try to hide myself behind the Wiki’s policies, because when I am interfering I am always motivate my interventions, for example: The source and it reliability means a lot for me. In this regard, the source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/this-man-s-about-to-get-elected-after-a-1-billion-bank-frauda that contains “Many people, including Western diplomats interviewed for this article, say he and his allies control the courts, Shor, and, to an extent, the Socialists.” In my previous message I have asked: Who made these statements? Who are they? How could we check the statements? As long as we don’t know the source of the statements, it is not relevant according to the NPOV, BLP (WP:BLPGOSSIP).
 * Also, I can bring an example of the discussion held before on the source verifiability related to the INTERPOL Monitoring https://interpoloctopus.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/operation-octopus-and-vladimir-plahotniuc/ which also, can be assigned to the Wikipedia policy (WP:SELFPUBLISH).


 * For the „Controversies” section, I have proposed several times before (→Controversies: Subsection headings clearly highlight controversial and libelous information, with more accusations, poorly sourced (in some cases with dead links) (RS, VER), resulting in non-compliance with the rule of neutrality (NPOV). The contents of some subsections do not coincide with its title (example: Accusation of theft from the Central Bank)


 * You are insisting on making the Arrest in Abstentia for Attempted Murder as a sperate chapter and in parallel, on the other information also (such as century’s theft), and you are mentioning: ” Again, these accusations have not been proven in court and therefore I believe it is better to maintain them in the controversy section and not include them above” what are the difference among these information? Or maybe is a source that prooves the guilt in the first case, (not only some assumptions)?


 * I think, that to double the links is absolutely not necessary and moreover, to add some dead links is usless (just to have them more impressive in number) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Plahotniuc&type=revision&diff=885019399&oldid=885017851--Jeremydas (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Interpol
Previously on the discussion page I posted my point of view on the INTERPOL MONITORING segment.INTERPOL I presented the primary source - https://interpoloctopus.wordpress.com/ - used for several publications and articles in the press. The source has no author, it is a blog created on https://wordpress.com/ (WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH), especially to use as a source for denigrating the image (BLP).

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) 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The assassination attempt
As I stated before the information on the assassination attempt on the controversial businessman Gherman Gorbuntov, related to which the arrest warrant was issued on Plahotniuc name when he was absent in Russian Federation, and this information can be found in Controversies. Moreover, I stressed also, the INTERPOL position in this regard, when was announced search on Plahotniuc, that, the political interest would be in the middle and the implication is not appropriate.

Thus, there are pros and cons regarding Plahotniuc implication in the assassination attempt. On the one hand there are statements of Gorbuntov (who is the victim of this attempt), and who buttressed that Renata Usatii is to be blame, and on the other hand there are Vitalie Proca statements (the assassin) who said that Plahotniuc ordered it.

Wikipedia it is not a platform for sensations and debates. In addition, the further statements, that, there were some agreements between Plahotniuc (through some tertiary parts) and Proca. Moreover, this was declared by the Proca’s relatives (interested persons!), that his family is prosecuted, and some written proofs have been presented (the video shown within the press conference by the Proca relatives, when a sheet of paper with some notes was presented) are good for the newscast and not for Wikipedia. There are no any reliable references that somebody has visited Proca from Plahotniuc side in order to agree on the information made before.

Thus, there were some accurate sources (WP:VER and WP:RS) and the references to the information linked to these two (Gorbuntov and Proca statements) that built a balanced view on the situation (WP:NPOV) and the reader can built its own opinion on this. --Jeremydas (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of Bank Theft
Currently, the page source is https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/08/01/billion-dollar-theft-in-moldova-one-rich-bankers-crime-has-a-nation-doing-time/#5fb73bdc4f7e contains Mihail Gofman statements made in 2016 http://www.anticoruptie.md/ro/interviuri/mihail-gofman-furtul-miliardului-a-fost-o-diversiune-impotriva-r-moldova-pusa-la-cale-de-serviciile-altor-state-cu-implicarea-autoritatilor-nationale. In 2018 (November and December) https://zeppelin.md/rom/investigatii/interviu-cu-mihail-gofman, https://zeppelin.md/eng/investigatii/platon-s-notebook-interview-with-mihail-gofman he made new contradictory statements, where his position is dramatically changed, where he accused Veaceslav Platon of being guilty for the theft scheme. Zeppelin Investigation has published these declarations (and "borrowed" by other media institutions), media institution biased to Plahotniuc In this case, the source's notoriety does not really matter, but the actual statements of the person. I have suggested before some updates related to these statements, however, they have been removed. How truthful can be the reference source if contains the contradictory statements made by the same persons? According to the Wikipedia policies, WP:VER when the person using the encyclopaedia can check the information from a single source (WP:RELIABILITY). The content is defined by the information published before and not because of the opinions or extensive experience of an editor/user. Since the information is tackled differently by several sources, and even if there is a demonstrated truth, the balanced point of view (WP:NPOV) should be kept and the information should be provided by all existing sources, and thus, each part should receive the related weight, to maintain the balance and weight of the points of view. There is the impression that Wikipedia, besides the essence of free encyclopaedia, would also be a platform for investigations and prosecutions. There are two official documents of the Kroll Company https://www.timpul.md/articol/raportul-kroll-este-public---shor-este-prezentat-drept-principalul-vinovat-ar-fi-transferat-sute-de-milioane-din-shor-grup-spre-offshoruri-73788.html,  https://www.bnm.md/files/Kroll_%20Summary%20Report.pdf,   http://moldnova.eu/ro/sinteza-raportului-kroll-2-intr-o-pagina-26257.html/ where the “Century theft” investigation’s outcomes have been provided. It is obvious, the some key politicians made the statements that not all theft’s beneficiaries have been named https://unimedia.info/stiri/doc-Maia-Sandu-despre-raport-Kroll-2-Cel-care-promova-cel-mai-insistent-adoptarea-garaniei-statului-era-actualul-Preedinte-al-Parlamentului-Andrian-Candu-145103.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss, http://anticoruptie.md/ro/stiri/doc-kroll-asteptat-sa-vina-la-chisinau-bnm-a-facut-public-rezumatul-in-romana-al-raportului, and some other experts in the field have commented the international investigation carried out. https://moldova.europalibera.org/a/28859895.html The related comments have been the points of view that would be good for the news. For the Wikipedia this official documents would be a reliable source, regardless, whether it is true or not. At least in these documents the Plahotniuc name is not found.--Jeremydas (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of Trafficking Women
In relation to the accusations on human trafficking and prostitution networks I have analysed the sources used in the extract, from which in fact the text resulted. Below, I would like to make a point on each referenced source used:
 * https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-uprising-against-moldovas-donald-trump the source content is moved out of the subject approached. The entire article referes to the geopolitics, to the great powers fight to keep the control and influence on RoM. From behind, some statements made by Natalia Morari has appeared on the interviews with the officials (without providing concrete names!) about the saunas, prostitutes, video collections, which remaind to be only the statements because it accuracy can’t be checked (WP:SELFPUBLISH).
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/world/europe/moldova-vlad-plahotniuc.html?_r=0 the source content is moved out of the subject approached. The whole article refers to the Plahotniuc’s position in the RoM, it has a denigration feature... and also the USA influence. Again, on this subject, some Natalia Morari’s statements has appeared related to some threatening given by the Plahotniuc’s associates side as they would have a sex-tape with the videos from her bedroom…. which are only the statements, however, the accuracy of the information cannot be checked. In the text the reference on one wording is made, an attempt to make an impression of keeping the neutrality… He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged (WP:SELFPUB).
 * https://carnegieendowment.org/files/10_Moldova_Full_Web1.pdf the source content referes to the The Structure of Corruption in Moldova. On the subject aproached there is an extract named Criminal Elements, where there is a general overview on prostitution in Moldova. And where there is no word about Plahotniuc implication in any human trafficking and prostitution networks-- No evidence of concrete links to the Plahotniuc network has been publicly uncovered.
 * https://enews.md/articles/view/5177/ dead link.
 * https://en.crimemoldova.com/news/politics/plahotniuc-and-topa-former-partners-become-mortal-enemies-/ the entire article presents the somebody vision on the relations among Victor Topa and Vladimir Plahotniuc. It looks like  that Plahotniuc is found more guilty than  Topa. In the subject approached a statement has appeared: Plahotniuc had to work hard, showing video in student dorms, involving human trafficking and doing dirty business in Macedonia. Who is the author of these thoughts? Is unknown. Moreover the article is not signed. Would  it be a mass media institution opinion?

Following the above mentioned, according to the Wikipedia principals and policies, the poor referenced documents have to be removed. There is no reference that would contain the checked information about Plahotniuc implication in human trafficking and prostitution. That’s for sure that some mass media institutions have circulated the information about his implication in trafficking schemes, however the encyclopaedia policy expressively stated the conditions when the information can be kept, particularly, about living person. The credibility of the information must be proportional to the weight of the allegations. The sources does not directly support the information from the current content on the page of Vladimir Plahotniuc (WP:RS)--Jeremydas (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on subsections from Controversies
AlberPenfold Regarding the subsections I have commented that the proposed headings emphasized the controversy information, and the reader could make an impresion that we are talking about some proved facts, regardless the fact that the information is placed in the Controversy section, and in spite the fact that a significant part of the information is overtaken from the newscasts, whose main focus are to do a sensation. Moreover, the headings proposed such as "Accusations of.." are infringes the benefit of doubt. The term "Accused" can relate to the defendant, or accused, who is already accused of something, of an offense and is a party to a criminal proceeding or against which an action has been filed. Who filed these allegations? Under what circumstances can accusations be made against a living person, in particular, on a public platform? Based on which evidence is filed the allegations?

For these reasons we excluded the titles of the subsections and we avoided the alternative proposal of titles. I'm ready for the dialogue on what I have mentioned before. --Jeremydas (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeremydas Accusation does not imply anything more than an accusation has been made and certainly does not infringe any benefit of the doubt. I am a trained British lawyer and this can be considered a basic legal principle. If you can demonstrate to me that accusations hold a different legal principle in Moldova, I am ready to reconsider this entire section's content -- in fact the subheadings are irrelevant to that discussion because the content of the "Controversies" section are riddled with accusations that have not been demonstrated to be true in a court of law. As a result of this, they should remain in the Controversies subsection. The subheadings, meanwhile, are simply a mechanism to help the reader break up the text, this is standard in Wikipedia. Please see, for example, Ramzan Kadyron and his page's subheading which notes "Accusations of Human Rights Abuses". There are hundreds of such examples. You can go ahead and challenge the Kadyrov page if you are really interested in this topic, but I believe that issue has also already been settled and you will not succeed. I am open to further dialogue on this matter. AlberPenfold (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am really glad that you accepted the dialog on the Vladimir Plahotniuc's page. However, I would note that your interventions are similar with the one made before, aiming at the changes in the Controversion section, particularly on the subsection with the titles. As I said before the changes made are having a negative tone, and I would say disparaging. To this extent more vocal example would be on one hand  the amending of the section's title "Attempted Assassination" into "Alleged Attempted Assassiantion" and by the way, in this regard there is a court ruling on the condamnation of those involved into the assassiantion attempt. And on the other way you reduced the titles of the Controversionțs  subsections formulated as "convictions", as being the demonstrated and argumentated facts.  Before I made a reference to the "Accusation" term. I assume, that most probably that's why you've mentioned that you are a lawyer. The term "Accused" can related to an accused or defendant who is accused of something, accused of an offense and is party to a criminal proceeding or against which a legal proceeding has been run. In your message  you  emphasized that the information  from Controversion section are accusations which have not been proved in the court (but let's not forget about the fact that the Wikipedia is not the newsreel). And this time you decided to come with some new title in the subsection related to the trafficking - Accusations of Trafficking Women and Minors -that I can labled as denigration and (on purpose!!!) misleading of the reader ( the metioned sources do not reflect under no circumstances  the chage made).  Regarding your persistence that the section should "preserve"  its subsections, which is a standardized element of the wikipedia, which would ease the reading, would be the case for the bigger texts of a subsection. I don't perceive this element as mandatory one.  Under the current page form, to the reader is less clear for example, the Accusions in Theft subsection, in which  only 1 or 2  excerpts  from the text have a link to it.  I agree, that there are some pages of the living people, as for example the Ramzan Kadyrov page,  which contains subsections. We have discussed before the existing practices of the other pages which are not mandatory and  correct  for all. Moreover, within all my interventions to the page I brought argumentation on the  impact that may have the subsections' titles. In case you will come with some neutral proposals, which would be compliant with the wikipedia policies I am ready for the dialog.--Jeremydas (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Banned from the U.S., add?
"In January 2020, the U.S. State Department endorsed the corruption allegations against him, banning him and his family from entering the U.S." X1\ (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)