User talk:AleBZ

Your expertise in other languages

I liked your previous contribution in the subject of pedophilia (although it was later reverted and rewritten, its main idea is still there). I'm willing to improve the article with legal sources about defamation, especially in countries where the local age of consent is lower. Legally speaking, it is defamatory to refer to a non-pedophile as a pedophile, especially when we talk about a legal relationship.

I'm not sure where u r from, but if you speak French and Spanish (which means you probably understand Italian), I'd like to ask for your help in researching legal sources about defamation in these European languages. Thanx a lot!! Leb Lilo (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response with detailed info in your talk page. AleBZ (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My text in English

Hi. Thanks a lot for your cooperation. Here is the paragraph I submitted to the English article. Please feel free to translate it and/or adapt it to French and Spanish.

"Given its classification as a mental disorder and a highly pejorative connotation, referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile may be construed as defamation or a related offense, like libel, slander, injury or calumny, especially in the case of relationships that are legal or not defined as sexually abusive. Depending on the jurisdiction, these offenses may be a tort or a crime, and in some cases also a hate crime on the grounds of age".

The sources are many, and are all indicated in the article. Good luck and good work ! Leb Lilo (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation

Please when you have time, take a look at the article defamation. One of the sources (European Council) has part of the text in French (Belgium, Switzerland). If you can translate, that would be helpful. Thanks a lot. FranMo23 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My block

Now it is clear to me what I suspected before - that Wikipedia is not actually free. When someone dares to put in evidence some inconveniences or exposes the dictatorship of certain users who have taken over some articles like pedophilia and treat them as their personal property (violating the rules of Wikipedia whenever it's more convenient to their point-of-view), then this person is "blocked forever", like they did to me!!

This is truly bizarre and should be reported to Jim Wales.

I affirm that presently I work in Brussels, Belgium, and in principle this should be considered true (according to the “Assume Good Faith” rule, WP:AGF). Any Check IP on Earth will prove that I'm in Brussels, Belgium, right now, and that I was also here before on the 2nd and 3rd of March when I dared to question the double standards applied by users “Jack-A-Roe” and “Legitimus” as to the use of “Reliable sources” in Wikipedia. They excluded a reliable source because it was inconvenient to them and their point-of-view. They accused the author of an “inconvenient” article (Agustin Malon) of “having an agenda” without giving credible evidence for these wild accusations. The true is that the article was written by a university professor, is peer-reviewed, and was published by a credible scientific institution; therefore, it is a “reliable source” according to the Wikipedia rule.

It is becoming clear to me that the ones who “have an agenda” are exactly users “Jack-A-Roe” and “Legitimus”. They have taken over the article “pedophilia” and similar ones, they spend hours a day editing only these articles, which indicates that much probably this is their ‘’job’’. I mean, it’s possible to assume beyond reasonable doubt that someone or some group or institution literally pays them to do that. I can’t find other possible explanation. I don’t know whether their “sponsors” have political or religious motivations, but the fact is that they routinely frighten and intimidate newcomers who just want to contribute in good will with new information in the spirit of voluntary collaboration of Wikipedia. Their IPs should be checked as well, because they synchronize too many interventions in these articles. It is very clear that they work together. They are specialized in Wikipedia rules, but violate them whenever it’s more convenient to their “agenda”. They usually “game the system” and interpret very literally all norms, both methods being forbidden by Wikipedia rules.

Whenever necessary, they have the support of some Administrators (like “Will Beback” who blocked me), and I wonder how deep this rabbit-hole goes, i.e. how many Administrators may be involved in “blocking” inconvenient users and if these Admins would also be paid by someone.

This is a very serious flaw in the Wikipedia system, and should be reported to the press and/or to Jim Wales.AleBZ (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. AleBZ you need to request for your block to be lifted. I see no explanation from the blocking admin for your block. That's just plain wrong. Something terribly fishy is going on here. I'm not sure but somehow it appears that such editors as User:Jack-A-Roe and User:Legitimus are working together to ensure their POV is kept. I haven't gone through all their contributions but from what I've seen so far, both clearly have an agenda so I agree with you there. As for Will Beback, he could very well support their POV and as a result has made a bad block. It's a shame to see the lack of respect shown towards a good contributing editor as yourself. Your contributions to the project look good from what I've come across. Please consider appealing your block. Caden ^cool 09:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've communicated with the ArbCom about this and I recommend that the user appeal directly to them. arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org Will Beback talk 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I recommend strongly that you lift this block. You were an involved party on those articles. You supported both User:Jack-A-Roe and User:Legitimus. As an admin you should never have blocked User:AleBZ, since you had a conflict of interest. You are an active involved party. Therefore, your block is a very, very, very bad block. Wrong. So wrong. Caden ^cool 11:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the worst block I've made then I'm not doing so bad. I don't like blocking any account and I'll be happy if this user is unblocked by the ArbCom. Will Beback talk 11:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're actions and behavior speak volumes and expose the exact opposite of what you claim. Your block was done in bad faith and you very well know it. Caden ^cool 11:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AleBZ would also do well to stop using socks, such as this, this and this. You ask for us to assume good faith yet ask "if these Admins would also be paid by someone" and claim in your edit summary "evidence that users "Jack-A-Roe" and "Legitimus" have taken over some articles, manipulate Wiki rules to their convenience and probably have an agenda" and offer nothing other than assertions. Continually posting to Jimbo Wales' talkpage under different accounts does not help your case. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]