Lindorm

Hej! Jag tänkte dra mig tillbaka från Wikipedia så därför tömde jag alla sidor, men sen ändrade jag mig så nu finns den här igen!

Discussion about page on it.wikipedia.org

Hi Lindorm, I don't think OTRS is the right place to solve the problem, according it.wiki's policies OTRS is not such a kind of editorial office. I think you has to do three step: write to info-it withdrawing your request (or just claiming you'll discuss on wikipedia), persuade yourself there's any "italian plot" against A. P. E. (me, who firstly blocked your account didn't even know his existence before your edit-war on it.wiki) start dealing with *sources* on it.wiki, without threats and canvassing (I can unblock your account by now if you agree). Running across wikipedias complaning about plots & hypotetical relationships between it.wiki's contents and prisons in Venezuela is not the best effort you can do. --Vituzzu (discusión) 01:25 3 ene 2011 (UTC)

Vituzzu, if I knew Italian well enough to write there I would. I don't, so I have done everything in my power to make the Italian users step up to the plate (have you read the talk page?). Granted, the Italian users may not understand the English comments on the talk page... I have even got a person to translate the English article to Italian but that change was revoked and I got blocked. I've spent at least 100 hours on trying to edit this article. A tremendous amount of damage through defamation has already been done, though. I welcome any initiative to set things right, and if you unblock me, I will continue to try to improve it to the extent I can. (PS. The man has, himself, before he got arrested, tried on repeated occasions to remove the slander as well, to no avail.) Lindorm (discusión) 12:08 3 ene 2011 (UTC)

At all, you didn't give any correct explanation and you cannot expect people, reading "save a life! save a life!" or "there's a source! there's a source!" may trust you. I still don't see any evidence of damages nor valid source to removale (a scan of a correct source would be ok) nor a reason why OTRS could solve your problem. I'm managing you email on OTRS and I don't see how you can reach you goal through it, that's why I'm suggesting to start again using wp. There's still a source about APE involvement in TFP, you must "fight" against it (simply showing why it's false), otherwise the sentence would have been already removed. --Vituzzu (discusión) 12:57 3 ene 2011 (UTC)

Vituzzu, maybe you are naive. This involves global political players, dictators and their supporters. Wikipedia has been exploited, and we must shine the spotlight on it. If you are not involved, you would do Wikipedia a favor by assisting in clearing up how this libel could be on the site for 4 years, and resist multiple attempts at removal, most of which after it was pointed out to be false and libelous. Obviously something went very, very wrong, and a scrutiny is required within the Wikipedia Foundation. I don't believe that the scrutiny will happen without a lawsuit. Do you? Lindorm (discusión) 18:00 3 ene 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm doubtfull about your will to solve the problem. --Vituzzu (discusión) 18:30 3 ene 2011 (UTC)

The simple truth is that I am doubtful about YOUR will to solve the problem. Lindorm (discusión) 19:46 3 ene 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at comments for "other people" you made just under my words (also claming something false) I'm getting more and more sure you don't want to solve the problem but just playing and "winning" against those you choose as enemies and you don't care about wikipedia's rules but just about other people's opinion. In my previous messages I told you the only way to reach your target (using **sources** not just saying "I'm right! I'm right!" giving non possibilities to other people to trust you) but you don't seem to be intrested in that. --Vituzzu (discusión) 02:14 5 ene 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are getting at with "other people" or "false". Returning to the issue, look below, that is the discussion page. Read it and you will see that I was making valid arguments the whole time, based on Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's rules, and those rules were consistently ignored by the Italian editors. If your REALLY want to solve this then start out by following the rules that exist, as per my original comment below under "Libelous". Can you believe that after almost 6 months still nobody has done that? It is shameful, nothing short of shameful. Lindorm (discusión) 01:23 6 ene 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now I see what you mean. You had the AUDACITY to remove a heading and a paragraph that _I_ wrote on _my_ user page. If that is how you feel that cooperation is done, then I'd hate to be your friend. I will now reinsert it here below where it belongs. If you now care to reply to my question in the previous paragraph about what is false, it would be useful. That is, if you really are interested in improving the article and removing the libel. Lindorm (discusión) 01:38 6 ene 2011 (UTC)

Background for Vituzzu's comment

The comment relates to the Italian article about Alejandro Peña Esclusa, which was created as a libelous and defamatory article in March of 2007, and has resisted every attempt at edit or conflict resolution since then. In the discussion page I made reference to the rules as I found them in English Wikipedia, but the Italian editor claimed that they were not valid on Italian Wikipedia. I urge you to make your own evaluation, all the rules violated are available right here on Wikipedia... just browse away. If you can read Italian you will see that I was banned on Italian Wikipedia why this discussion can not be carried out at my user page there (this is contrary to the rules on English Wikipedia, but apparently according to the rules on Italian Wikipedia).

COPIED from discussion page

For simplicity, and since page histories CAN be edited, I will copy the discussion page here (note that all links to user pages are broken since they exist on it.wikipedia.org and this is es.wikipedia.org):

Libelous

This page appears to contain potentially libelous claims without source, that should be removed immediately - this needs to be addressed by an editor in Italian wikipedia.Lindorm (msg) 18:01, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

Removed every sentence containing potentially libelous claims and lacking neutral sources (it turned out to be all of them except one). There is sourced information on the English page. Someone please translate that.Lindorm (msg) 22:32, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

Sorry, but the way to contribute in Wikipedia in Italian (not "Italian Wikipedia") is not the one you used. You can not come here with your claims and just based on them remove the whole contents of the voice just because you don't like the way it's written and you question the sources. This page is already labeled as "sources to be checked" (there are sources, by the way, but their reliability is to be checked) and in any case the controversial contents are presented using a dubitative form. If you like contributing to Wikipedia in Italian you're welcome, but you have to follow the rules in force here. Your edit has been cancelled. Thanks. --L736E^dimmi 22:37, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

After you annulled the change I repeated it. Libelous claims should be deleted IMMEDIATELY according to Wikipedia rules. I gave 4 hours notice but nobody has stepped in to correct it, so it has to be deleted until sources are available. If you want to re-insert it, do it WITH sources.Lindorm (msg) 22:39, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

Sorry guy but "libelous claim" should be demonstrated and presented as such. Mayybe you're not so familiar with the italian language, but the contents of the page are not presented as "matter of facts" but in a dubitative form. By the way, the page already asks for more reliable sources. Please respect the rules and don't apply here rules where they don't apply. Thanks.--L736E^dimmi 22:44, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

Please read the Wikipedia policy for articles on living persons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons as it clearly states that when in doubt, delete immediately. Your argument is hurting the person of this article. If you really insist on keeping that info, THEN GO TO THE ENGLISH PAGE AND GET THE SOURCES and more information to make the article balanced, and not a hit-job by communists, because that is what it is now.Lindorm (msg) 22:51, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

Guy, this is Wikipeda in italian and, as all the Wikipedia, we have our own rules which may differ from the ones in English Wikipedia. The English page, by the way, is highly biased and unbalanced as well since also there the biography is exposed just from one point of view. The immediate deletion for biography contents here is foreseen for clear personal offences, and this is not the case of this page. If the page is biased, we mark it as such and highlight why it's biased but, unless there's something illegal or against our rules, the contents are kept to allow the proper reworking. --L736E^dimmi 22:59, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

First, I don't recall that we have dropped the titles, "guy". Second, thank you for putting in the NPOV flag. Third, there is a big difference between an article about a person being biased positively and negatively, especially when as in this case he is accused of very serious crimes without indicating a source. Forth, there is no Italian translation of those rules, why you would do yourself a favor if you followed the rules that do exist, since otherwise you expose the Wikipedia Foundation to lawsuits for libel. Even with the NPOV flag it remains a hit-job by Chavista communists.Lindorm (msg) 23:19, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

First, you dropped information that "was" referenced with sources, even if questionable, and you dropped an information related to a visit to Italian politicians that really was somehow argued here: so, you dropped sourced information "improperly", just because you don't like the political flavour of those sources and in a somehow arbitrary way: according to the rules of Wikipedia in Italian, this can be considered as a kind of vandalism. Second, you're welcome. Third, if a page is biased, it's biased, no matter if the bias is positive or negative: bias shall be avoided, full stop, and it's not correct even to present this person as a kind of "freedom martir", exactly as it's not correct to present it as a "monster". Fourth, tf there is no Italian translations for the rules coming from en.wiki, this means simply that "those rules don't apply to it.wiki", as I was telling you: there's no implicit application, and you can't claim those rules as a justification for your intervention. Fifth, the fact itself that you defined the page at lest twice with a political characterization of "communism", means that your intervention is highly biased from a political point of view and therefore not acceptable. Please respect the rules.--L736E^dimmi 13:35, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

Moderator L736E is openly biased

A sentence was inserted by user 24.127.208.87 saying that "his allied consider him a political prisoner," and L736E immediately deleted it for not making it clear "who" said that. Although the user later re-inserted the statement with a reference, this is OUTRAGEOUS considering that the same administrator allows potentially libelous claims to stand, without any source, not even "his ideological enemies accuse him of...". Read the earlier exchange below under Libelous, and I think you will find, as me, that administrator L736E is acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Venezuelan de facto dictator Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias.Lindorm (msg) 23:39, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)

This is really out of any common sense. You performed edits and deletions against the rules active on it.wiki and I'm just acting to have these rules respected. There's no political bias in my actions, just the task to have all users respecting the rules - and since you didn't respect that rules, I have to delete your edits. I'd like you also to notice that in my interventions here there's no single word nor statement based on political positions nor there are any expressions of political ideas to support my interventions but only technical explainations and technical reasons. I'd like also to point out that the only political statements you can read in this talk page, all come from your side, as clearly evidenced also by this last intervention of yours. So, if there's someone openly biased, that's you. And about claiming my "biasing" and my supposed attitude as "propaganda mouthpiece", I just recall you that on it.wiki personal attacks against other users are forbidden and may lead to a temporary ban. So I kindly invite you being very careful on your words. Last: if you were an italian user on this italian wiki, this behaviour of yours would have been flagged by far as "problematic" or "vandalic" and if this didn't happen (yet), it's just because you're not an italian-speaking user. But also this is close to come to an end, now. --L736E^dimmi 13:43, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

You are referring to rules that only you know. That is not how we do things in the free and democratic part of the world. I referred explicitly to the rules for articles on living persons, in English, and you failed to provide a counter-reference to those rules in Italian. The failure to follow the rules are thus on your part, not mine. Furthermore, I have not accused you of being a mouthpiece of Hugo Chávez Frías, only as acting as one. It is possible to act as a mouthpiece by naïveté, ignorance; and perhaps that is the reason, you probably know that better than me. But to let unsubstantiated accusations against a man who is so obviously imprisoned on false grounds stand, is beyond the pale. Beyond the pale...Lindorm (msg) 00:33, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)

To say en.wiki policies have no effects on it.wiki you don't need any counter-reference. Anyway won't need any source to undestand that personal attacks are not allowed on both en and it.wiki but a 36h block will be a clear explanation of this.--Vito (msg) 01:59, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)

Revisione totale della voce

Dal momento che giudicavo la voce eccessivamente schierata, con gravi affermazioni senza fonti e con fonti altrettanto schierate, ho cominciato l'opera di sistemazione. Non sono un esperto in materia e non è detto che abbia fatto un buon lavoro, anche perché ho trovato molto difficile reperire fonti "autorevoli" neutrali. Nel redigere la voce mi sono quindi dovuto affidare anche a fonti di parte ("Fuerza Solidaria" e, perché no? "Il Tempo" da una parte e "Gennaro Carotenuto" dall'altra) ma ho tentato sempre di utilizzarle in maniera il più possibile neutrale, che poi ci sia riuscito è un'altra faccenda. Tutto questo per dire che occorrerebbe che alla voce fosse data una controllata da qualcuno più esperto di me, prima di (eventualmente) togliere gli avvisi. -- Lepido (msg) 14:45, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

La voce ora sembra decisamente meno squilibrata rispetto alla stesura originale. Trovo anche questo modo di procedere decisamente molto più corretto di quello adottato dall'altro utente. --L736E^dimmi 18:05, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

This is much better, thank you Lepido. One observation, though: The paragraph with the accusations from the AP article is taken directly from the propaganda of the dictatorship in Venezuela, and is thus highly biased. To counter that, it is essential to let Alejandro Peña Esclusa defend himself. On English Wikipedia (i.e., English-language Wikipedia) there are links to videos that he himself has recorded with his defense, before being arrested. He could do that since he discovered how they were planting evidence against him. You can also use as references articles on Fuerza Solidaria and UnoAmerica. To find neutral sources will be impossible, so the best we can do is to present both side's arguments. 74.164.41.7 (msg) 22:26, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

Mi pare comunque che l'articolo di AP riporti entrambe le versioni, quando ad esempio afferma che la moglie ha detto: «These people dared to plant those explosives in a very crude way because they put some explosives in the drawer of our 8-year-old girl's desk,» o che l'avvocato ha detto: «he was not allowed to enter the apartment during the raid». Inoltre nell'articolo si afferma che «Critics of the president accuse his government of using criminal prosecutions to intimidate opponents and try to silence dissent — a charge that Chavez denies.» Mi pare che quindi AP dia spazio ad entrambe le versioni, ed è quanto più neutrale io abbia trovato. Wikipedia non è un bollettino politico e secondo me la voce ora offre numerosi spunti e fonti perché chiunque voglia approfondire possa farlo -- Lepido (msg) 23:09, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

Sono arrivato qui bloccando l'utente per gli insulti ad L763E e vorrei informarvi (ma l'avrete già notato) che la pagina di en.wiki portata a mo' di esempio dall'utente è stata da lui pesantamente modificata. --Vito (msg) 02:06, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)

Se la voce va migliorata la si migliori, ma non tenete conto neanche di una parola di quello che ha detto Lindorm. E' un utente chiaramente NNPOV e, visto che sta girando le varie wiki solo per POVvare, io direi di bloccarlo direttamente infinito Jalo 16:14, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)

D'accordo sul ban infinito come "utenza programmatica" trovo ovviamente altamente inopportuno comminarglielo io stesso, quindi passo la mano a qualche altro sysop. L736E^dimmi 17:24, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)

TFP

Alejandro Peña Esclusa: "No he formé parte de la TFP" (Capítulo 17 del Libro "350 Como salvar a Venezuela del castro comunismo"). 74.164.41.7 (msg) 20:21, 31 dic 2010 (CET)

The second paragraph states that Mr. Peña Esclusa is a member of TFP (Tradition Family Property). The source given for that claim is the propaganda branch of Bolivia, a political enemy of the now political prisoner of this article. Here is a referenced quote from the man himself (in his book on how to overthrow the Chávez communist dictatorship by peaceful means using the constitutions's article 350) saying that he has never been a member of TFP.

Furthermore, the rest of the paragraph does not belong in this article but in the article about TFP, and it is clearly present here for the sole purpose of defamation.

What is relevant is that even Cardenal Uroso Savino of the Catholic Church in Venezuela says that he is sure the man is innocent.

The man himself is being held as a political prisoner in a 2 x 3 m cell without windows and with bare concrete floor. This article contributed materially to him being framed and jailed. Is it too much to ask from users of Italian Wikipedia that You at least not help the Castro-Cuban-controlled regimes in Venzuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to imprison their political opponents and convict them in Kangaroo courts - even though Chávez is close to Putin and Putin is close to Berlusconi? Please? 74.82.68.144 (msg) 16:22, 2 gen 2011 (CET)

END OF COPY

Footnote: The book "350" mentioned above is available for free online, e.g. here: http://fuerzasolidaria.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Libro350Espanol.pdf