User talk:Infinitepeace

Nightingale College
As I have been indefinitely banned for some reason which cannot be shared by me, quote: "Based on [CheckUser] and off-wiki evidence I ask editors to please review the WP:ADVERT that Nightingale College has become. Version with well sourced information Thank you so much in advance. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightingale Nursing College as an WP:ADVERT previously with paid WP:COI editors for Nightingale College

Nightingale College
As I have been indefinitely banned for some reason which cannot be shared by me, quote: "Based on [CheckUser] and off-wiki evidence I ask editors to please review the WP:ADVERT that Nightingale College has become. Version with well sourced information Thank you so much in advance. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Infinitepeace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair use

What is Fair Use?

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement.

Question for you

I just saw this edit. Is this meant to say that you are the user formerly known as Moscowamerican and that you will not be using that account in the future? And if that is the case, please put a link somewhere to that account so that others know the two accounts are connected. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dov Levin (Professor) (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dov Levin (Professor) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dov Levin (Professor), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Infinitepeace! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Infinitepeace. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Infinitepeace, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Active measures have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (e.g.(...)) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting.

Infinitepeace (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't marked as a quotation. The quotation mark was missing— Diannaa (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• user:diannaa can you send me the text of what was deleted, so as I can write it correctly to your standards? Infinitepeace (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Email sent. It's preferable that you write your own prose rather than add quotations from your sources.— Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

thank you. 🙏 Infinitepeace (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa I checked the one email and it was maybe one edit, there were numerous edits that were deleted. Please send me the deletions via email so I can revise the article as you want. Infinitepeace (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I sent you a copy of all the material that I removed. In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. But no additional material was removed, and your other edits were not altered. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sigh. thanks for the prompt response. Infinitepeace (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Blob (Congressional Military Industrial Complex)

Hello, Infinitepeace,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged The Blob (Congressional Military Industrial Complex) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Blob (Congressional Military Industrial Complex)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Blob (Congressional Military Industrial Complex) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Gleb Glinka moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gleb Glinka, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Mitta Film School

The Alexander Mitta Film School is a film school in Moscow Russia founded by Alexander Mitta.

https://www.facebook.com/mittafilmschool

https://www.facebook.com/groups/mitta/members/admins

DOK TOK

Infinitepeace
"Stories worthy of adaptation!"
Russian	Док-Ток
Genre	Daily evening talk show
Directed by	Eldar Sharipov
Presented by	Ksenia Sobchak and Alexander Gordon
Country of origin	Russia
Original language	Russian
No. of seasons	2
No. of episodes	96 (As of December 9, 2020)
Production
Executive producer	Alena Alimova
Producers	Olga (Колесник Ольга Олеговна) Birth day: 09.09.1993 Tanya (Tatiana Leonidovna) ) Меньшикова Татьяна Леонидовна (Menshikova Tatiana Leonidovna)) Birth day: 12.05.1980 Address: Россия, 127018, Москва г., ул Сущёвский Вал, д. 22, кв. 32 Fatima
Production locations	Moscow, Russia. television center "Ostankino". 1st studio
Original release
Release	February 10, 2020 (2020-02-10) – Present

Dok Tok (Док-ток) is a Russian daily evening talk television show on Channel One Russia. The hosts are Ksenia Sobchak (Ксения Анатольевна Собчак) and Alexander Gordon (Алeксандp Гаppиeвич Гордон). The program currently airs on Monday to Wednesday at 10:30 pm. Although brand new, the television show is already rife with extreme scandals and controversy.

In interviews promoting Dok-Tok, Ksenia Sobchak said the program would be "not about shouts and conflicts in the studio", in a clear attempt to distance the series from other Russian talk shows, such as Let Them Talk. This maybe in reference to television shows such as Let's Get Married, which has had guests walk out and have asked guests about abortions, and the television show Let Them Talk, in which the rape victim was mocked by the presenters and audience.

Criminal defamation by Dok-Tok

There is a pending lawsuit for criminal defamation, harassment, moral defamation and a tort claim. Defendants in the case include, Ksenia Sobchak and Alexander Gordon, the three producers, Olga, Tanya, Fetma, the assistant to Sobchak, Lena, the director, Eldar Sharipov, the producer, Alena Alimova, and finally, the television show "Dok-Tok" and First Channel.

Other Criticisms

In early February 2020, the RTVI TV channel accused Channel One of plagiarism, since a show with a similar name “Doc Talk” has been released on RTVI since September 9, 2019. The first episode of February 10, 2020 on YouTube collected twice as many dislikes as likes.

In July 2020, Veterans of Russia appealed to Konstantin Ernst, General Director of Channel One, with a demand "to terminate Ksenia Sobchak's activities as a presenter on the channel". The reason was the presenter's calls to ignore the all-Russian vote on amendments to the Russian Constitution, return Crimea to Ukraine and support Ivan Safronov, accused of treason.

The programs devoted to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny received a high level of criticism , in particular, the discontent of journalists caused Alexander Gordon's mockery of the oppositionist's personality and distortion of information about the causes and consequences of the attempted assassination.

In November 2020, the lawyer of the historian Oleg Sokolov, Alexander Torgashev, filed a lawsuit against Channel One and the guest of the program on October 19, Ekaterina Przhigodzkaya, demanding to refute the information that Sokolov tortured and beat her in 2008, and also to remove the issue from the website channel and pay a thousand rubles in moral compensation.

In February 2021, the Petrogradskiy District Court of St. Petersburg refused to consider the information contained in the program unreliable and dismissed the claim.

External links

• Official site
  • Sample episode

Block 2

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for disruptive editing that pertain to aggressive and tendentious editing, still. I mentioned in the last block that competence is required in order to edit here, and have advised you to please slow down and familiarize yourself with best editing practices. Unfortunately, you have failed to do so. Acute WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS persist, which you must remedy, otherwise, the next block is likely to be set not to expire. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Infinitepeace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Several editors have WP:Wikilawyered their way into the article Nightingale College.

An article that has a history of paid WP:COI (Talk:Nightingale_College#Some_proposed_changes) and numerous one or 2 edit anons and editors attempting to make the article into an WP:ADVERT.

The worst wikilawyer, is User:Morbidthoughts a self proclaimed wikilawyer on his own user page. He first reported me to WP:ANB approximately 2 weeks ago. Their these POV warriors personally attacked me on the administrative noticeboard. They then found of course, an admin who was sympatric to their POV, User:El C. El C then blocked me for a week. He blocked me from editing my own talk page.[1] with dubious (but potentially true) claims that he did not quote policy for.[2] (That I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked)???[3] He then deleted portions of my talk page against talk page policy.

Self-proclaimed Wiklawyer User:Morbidthoughts deleted a huge section of Talk:Nightingale College - where I was keeping all of the arguments in one place, all of the frequent templating my talk page. etc.[4]. I may note that lawyer User:Morbidthoughts uses WP:ANB regularly as an edit war tool. It is amazing looking through his edits at how often he posts at WP:ANB.

These same 2-4 editors editors then whitewashed the article. No criticism is allowed in the article now. None. That is the bottom line. And that is what User:El C is indirectly supporting.

Since the unblock I have been cordial with no personal attacks at all. Yesterday I pointed out that one of the editors was only 2 months into editing yet knew so much about wikipolicy. I asked him directly whether he was a legal sock on the Talk:Nightingale College. This was the ammunition that this small group of likeminded editors needed as an excuse to block me again. User:El C has now blocked me for a month with a threat of a permanent block next time.

It is to the point that these editors are considering putting the article up for deletion rather than have criticism of the article.

The bottom line is that well researched material is being removed from wikipedia by WP:Wikilawyering creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND and supported by one administer. (Who I am sure has friends who would do him a solid and confirm this block - there are certain things you can't talk about on wikipedia, and biased established admins is one of them)

Infinitepeace (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't think a WP:NOTTHEM-centred defense is an effective way for you to go to get another admin to lift your block. Oh well. Anyway, you are still acting in way too adversarial of a manner, accusing your opponents of being WP:PAID and so on (diff), so I don't see how you've learned anything from the last block (or at least having been able to put such lessons into practice). El_C 14:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace, I don't know why you think it's appropriate for (or helpful to) you to remove my response to the claims you made about me, as the blocking admin, while your unblock request is outstanding — but please desist. El_C 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace, if you remove my comments again, I will revoke your talk page access, again. El_C 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Please respect talk page policy and the under construction tag. The "section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring." It is common curtesy to not cause edit conflicts will someone is working on a section actively.

Instead of an edit war with me, WP:3RR applies to even admins correct? (I want to note that you are at 2 reversions now.)

Please instead, share with me the talk page policy that

I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked. This was the reason you blocked my talk page editing 2 weeks before

WP:DELTALK -Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons or because of harassment, threats, gross offensiveness, and other serious violations.

I am allowed to ask people not to post on my talk page. Correct? You have blocked me, now let me collect my evidence, and let an impartial (LOL) admin look over my unblock reason.

As we both know, there is a 99% chance that your block will be upheld, no matter how blatantly one sided you use your admin tools User:El C. Infinitepeace (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Infinitepeace, your unblock request is currently live, so that's on you. Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests, my response to claims you make about me, as the blocking admin, are important for the reviewing admin to, well... review. You are not allowed to remove these, to bolster your own case, or for any other reason. Also, I think it's 99 percent the other way. El_C 14:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am still working on the reason!!! Infinitepeace (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock - will return to this later

Please do not post in this section, post in the section below, thank you.

{{unblock|1=

I was blocked because yesterday I pointed out that one of the editors was only 2 months into editing yet knew so much about wikipolicy. I asked him directly whether he was a legal sock on the Talk:Nightingale College.[5]

[[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish]] are you a sockpuppet of another account? Your understanding of policy is amazing for an account that is only 40 days old. Of course, not all sockpuppets are illegal, there are cases were you can have one than more account within the rules. Infinitepeace (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. Especially because I was explained "Of course, not all sockpuppets are illegal, there are cases were you can have one than more account within the rules" and linked to policy.

Nightingale Collage has a history of paid WP:COI (Talk:Nightingale_College#Some_proposed_changes) and numerous one or 2 edit anons and editors attempting to make the Nightingale College into an WP:ADVERT.

This was the ammunition that this small group of likeminded editors needed as an excuse to block me again. User:El C has now blocked me for a month with a threat of a permanent block next time.

Wikilawyer finds friendly admin to block and silence me for a week

The worst wikilawyer, is User:Morbidthoughts a self proclaimed wikilawyer on his own user page. He first reported me to WP:ANB approximately 2 weeks ago. Their these POV warriors personally attacked me on the administrative noticeboard. They then found of course, an admin who was sympatric to their POV, User:El C. El C then blocked me for a week. He blocked me from editing my own talk page.[6] with dubious (but potentially true) claims that he did not quote policy for.[7] (That I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked)???[8] He then deleted portions of my talk page against talk page policy.

Self-proclaimed Wiklawyer User:Morbidthoughts then deleted a huge section of Talk:Nightingale College - where I was keeping all of the arguments in one place, all of the frequent templating my talk page. etc.[9] "cleanup on aisle 4".

I may note that lawyer User:Morbidthoughts uses WP:ANB regularly as an edit war tool. It is amazing looking through his edits at how often he posts at WP:ANB.

Bottom line

No criticism is allowed in the Nightingale College now

These same 2-4 editors editors then whitewashed Nightingale College. No criticism is allowed in the Nightingale College now. None. That is the bottom line. And that is what User:El C is indirectly supporting.

Since the unblock I have been cordial with no personal attacks at all.

It is to the point that these editors are considering putting Nightingale College up for deletion rather than have criticism of Nightingale College.

The bottom line is that well researched material is being removed from wikipedia by WP:Wikilawyering creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND and supported by one administer. (Who I am sure has friends who would do him a solid and confirm this block - there are certain things you can't talk about on wikipedia, and biased established admins is one of them) Infinitepeace (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)}}

Not allowed to post on my talk page

This request is well within policy.

Editors who deletes well referenced information on Nightingale College critical of the college.

• User talk:ElKevbo
• User talk:Morbidthoughts
• User:Woodroar
• User:Bonadea
• User:ScottishFinnishRadish - new editor
• User:Beeblebrox
• User:Guy Macon

Thank you.

Infinitepeace (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Per policy, can an editor make edits of an article on their talk page while they are blocked?

Please provide the policy. Thank you!

User:Fences_and_windows is this current policy? thank you very much. Infinitepeace (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Fences_and_windows Thank you. Infinitepeace (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't see a blanket ban in policy on a blocked user using their talk page to prepare article content, though someone who is indef blocked or banned should really only use their talk page to appeal. What's the specific example? Fences&Windows 17:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're blocked for a month. I can't see you're prohibited under policy, but we should discuss with El C and perhaps we can take it to WP:AN? However, you're probably better off just leaving Wikipedia alone until your block expires and coming back refreshed and not repeating what led to the block. Fences&Windows 17:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much fences. So User:El C reason for blocking my talk page, was false, egregious and punitive.

The bottom line is this:

• Nightingale College reads like an WP:ADVERT, all criticism is deleted.
• There is a history of WP:COI and paid editors. It is very hard to prove a paid editor. Because I have insisted that the critical information be in the article, I have been banned.

First one week ban for personal attacks by User:El C (when the WP:AN were just as ferocious, one by a self described "wikilawyer"), and the second time by User:El C because I ask an editor if they were a sockpuppet.

Everyone knows that admins have POV and they support certain editors over others. I have read the history of Wikipedia and I am rather disgusted about the history of WP:BLP and how so many admins now support deletion of well documented material, WP:BITEing other good faith editors.

Again, if an editor does not like the content, they attack and WP:BULLY the character of the editor, in violation of WP:NPA - in this case the editors use WP:AN and blocks as attacks creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I am infuriated that I now have two big blocks on my record because of editors who refuse to allow well referenced criticism in the article Nightingale College.

Again User:Fences_and_windows thank you for your time in answering what I suspected all along. I really appreciate your edits, and good luck helping editors whose well documented contributions are added to WP:BLP

Infinitepeace (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:COI on Nightingale College?

User_talk:Xeno#Paid_editing_and_Nightingale_College on User:Xeno:

User:MarioGom wrote:

I'll have a look. There seems to be activity possibly related to a UPE sockfarm I have on my watchlist. Infinitepeace: in the mean time, since you're blocked, I'd suggest that you step back from this, rather than risking making things worse for yourself. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am. I will step away now, thank you sir!!!

Wikipedia_talk:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Top_COI/UPE_articles

User:MarioGom/TOPCOI

how do you alert someone that you mentioned them on your talk page? What template?

You guys are great! lots of love ( ＾◡＾)っ ♡

Infinitepeace (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You cannot post here unless it's to appeal your block. Please, do not mention or quote me while your block is in place. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will not quote you again. thank you for your time mario. Infinitepeace (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Out of sight out of mind: Removal of information by WP:ADVERT editor User:Woodroar on WP:COI about Nightingale College: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=1014736870

Infinitepeace (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightingale College revising

See: User_talk:Infinitepeace#Per_policy,_can_an_editor_make_edits_of_an_article_on_their_talk_page_while_they_are_blocked?

{{Short description|Nursing college in Utah, United States}} {{Multiple issues| {{Advert|date=March 2021}} {{COI|date=March 2021}} {{Primary sources|date=March 2021}} }}

Nightingale College

Nightingale College Utah Logo.png
Motto	Confidence, Competence, Compassion
Type	For-profit
Established	2010
President	Mikhail Shneyder
Vice-president	Jonathan Tanner
Provost	Jeffrey Olsen
Director	Audrey Auer Director, Nursing Education Services
Academic staff	212 (source?)
Location	Salt Lake City , Utah , USA
Language	English
Website	nightingale.edu

Nightingale College is a for-profit college, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The college offers four nursing programs, the Associate of Science in Nursing, the Bachelor of Science in Nursing, the Registered nurse-to-BSN Program, and the Master of Science in Nursing Education Program. As of 2021, the college has satellite locations in 12 states. In the first 10 years of operations, more than 1000 student graduated. The College has consented to no longer admitting students into its associate degree program.

Nightingale voluntarily withdrew and lost their Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) accreditation on March 15, 2021.

History

Nightingale College was formed in 2010, and was originally "training students while seeking accreditation". In its 10 year history, the college has graduated 1141 people.

In April 2011, the college began offering the Associate of Science in Nursing (ADN) Program. The following year, the college was acquired by Nightingale College, LLC, a private Delaware limited liability company that was formed by Palm Ventures, LLC., a private-equity firm.

Expansion

Nightingale has 18 "cohorts" in 18 different "markets" (states). It is rapidly expanding through out the United States.

In 2020, Nightingale Nursing College started its first program in Alaska.

Criticism

Defamation case against a whistleblower

In 2020 Nightingale Nursing College filed suit in Utah against a whistleblower who had created a website against Nightingale claiming defamation. A second case was filed in Federal Court on February 19, 2021.

Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education

The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.

From 2009 to approximately 2012, Mikhail Shneyder worked at California's Heald College as the Vice President. Due to findings by the Department of Education of misrepresented job placement rates at certain programs of Heald College from July 2010–2015, the department made students eligible to have their debts canceled. Because of a lawsuit alleging that "Heald College...misrepresented job placement rates for certain programs". Heald College was shut down on April 27, 2015.

Accreditation

Although the official Nightingale website aggregates the NCLEX passrate, the NCLEX first time pass rate is well below national accreditation benchmark of 80% at 48.65% for the second quarter of 2017 and 54.5% for the first quarter of 2017. UPDATE: 3d Quarter 2019 = 46.34%, 2d Quarter 2019 = 50%, 1st Quarter 2019 = 63.38%, and overall 2018 = 53.01% [10].

Other accreditations

The school holds institutional accreditation or is approved by:

• Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES),
• Utah State Board of Nursing.
• Nightingale College's BDN and RN-to-BSN programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE).
• Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education.
• National League for Nursing Commission for Nursing Education Accreditation (NLN CNEA).

• Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.

Unlike other more established nursing colleges in the region, Nightingale College is not regionally accredited.

Former accreditation

Nightingale voluntarily withdrew and lost their ACEN accreditation on March 15, 2021. Inc (ACEN), formerly National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission, Inc. (NLNAC). But it has since been lost.

In the Spring 2016, the official status with ACEN was "Affirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Warning", which is explained as a "Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners."

In September 2019, Nightingale College had a "Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause", which ACEN defines as the "nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period". ACEN found that "There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met."

The low NCLEX pass rate was one of three failed standards that put Nightingale on continuing accreditation with warning with ACEN.

See also

• For-profit higher education in the United States
• Post University in Waterbury, Connecticut - A second for profit college also owned by Palm Ventures, LLC.
• Heald College
• Stevens–Henager College

External links

• Official website

{{Utahcolleges}} {{Coord|41|11|16|N|111|57|1|W|display=title}} {{authority control}} [[Category:Nursing schools in Utah]] [[Category:2010 establishments in Utah]] [[Category:Educational institutions established in 2010]] [[Category:Private universities and colleges in Utah]] [[Category:For-profit schools in the United States]]

Sockpuppet of Okip

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked for the evidence by email, and this was the response:

My note said that CheckUser's can email for the evidence, not anyone else. You may appeal on your userpage, I do not generally take communication via email.

I would like the evidence against me in some form please.

Filing for posterity, as Okip hasn't been spotted in some years, but they're back at it. Current focus is Nightingale College. Based on CU and off-wiki evidence, CU's email me for deets if you need. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:CaptainEek.

Infinitepeace (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. Checkusers can request the off-wiki evidence, presumably, as we are the only ones able to review this block. It isn't available to us without request, and presumably if I requested it, I would then be bound by my non-disclosure agreement not to share it. In any case, I do not have the evidence you seek. --Yamla (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Yamla [ I HAVE ARGUED FROM THE BEGINNIJG THAT HIGH PAID WP:Sockpuppets for Nightingale College are editing the wikipedia article, which have made the article a whitewashed WP:ADVERT. you can ask User:CaptainEek for this false information. To see if could have come from a COI sockpuppet.

At the very least I ask that you review Nightingale College for the blatant bias of the editors please. Infinitepeace (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Dok-Tok

Can someone review the speedy deletion of User:Woodroar one of the editors that was protecting Nightingale College as an WP:ADVERT? I know the deletion is within the rules, but the article content is notable. Infinitepeace (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)