Jump to content

User talk:Infinitepeace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Infinitepeace (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 29 March 2021 (→Post on User:CaptainEek). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please read WP:NACADEMIC and then amend the article to include references that clearly indicate how Levin meets the criteria.
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.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Control copyright icon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
This wasn't marked as a quotation. The quotation mark was missing— Diannaa (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. 🙏 Infinitepeace (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sigh. thanks for the prompt response. Infinitepeace (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
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)[reply]

Unblock request - March 27 2021

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)[reply]

Decline reason:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Infinitepeace, if you remove my comments again, I will revoke your talk page access, again. El_C 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
I am still working on the reason!!! Infinitepeace (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request - March 29 2021

Please review the unblock of the 1 month. Despite my indefinite block. I am going to appeal my indefinite block here later. Please allow me to continue to edit my talk page. I want to acquire the external evidence that was used against me.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I was blocked on 27 March 2021 because for the FIRST TIME (invalidating User:El C's WP:ASPERSIONS argument) pointing out that [User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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)[reply]

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 College 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.

As User:MarioGom wrote about the editors on Nightingale College: "I'll have a look. There seems to be activity possibly related to a UPE sockfarm I have on my watchlist."

This comment to User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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.

Admin User:El C blocked me from editing my own talk page.[6] with false policy claims that he did not quote policy for.[7] (That I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked)???[8] (See confirmation that this is NOT policy on the page, per User:Fences and windows.

Admin User:El C 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:AN regularly as an edit war tool. It is amazing looking through his edits at how often he posts at WP:AN.

Every long term editor knows that Wikipedia policy is selectively enforced. Every long term editor knows that there is a strong group of editors that are very WP:BITEy towards new editors. The editors that are attacking me fit within this group. Along the line, criticism of a very shady Utah nursing college, that has a history of stealing from the poor, prospers.

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)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was blocked on 27 March 2021 because for the FIRST TIME (invalidating [[User:El C]]'s [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] argument) pointing out that [User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nightingale_College&diff=1014413247&oldid=1014401220] :[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, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses|there are cases were you can have one than more account within the rules]]. [[User:Infinitepeace|Infinitepeace]] ([[User talk:Infinitepeace|talk]]) 22:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC) This is not a [[WP:NPA|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 College]] 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]]. As User:MarioGom wrote about the editors on [[Nightingale College]]: "I'll have a look. There seems to be activity possibly related to a UPE sockfarm I have on my watchlist." This comment to User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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. Admin [[User:El C]] blocked me from editing my own talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&diff=1012029157&oldid=1012029053] with '''false policy claims''' that he did not quote policy for.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&diff=prev&oldid=1012028879] ''(That I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked)''???[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInfinitepeace&type=revision&diff=1012028785&oldid=1012028766] (See confirmation that this is NOT policy on the page, per [[User:Fences and windows]]. Admin [[User:El C]] 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nightingale_College&diff=1012033775&oldid=1012026478] "cleanup on aisle 4". I may note that lawyer [[User:Morbidthoughts]] uses [[WP:AN]] regularly as an edit war tool. It is amazing looking through his edits at how often he posts at [[WP:AN]]. Every long term editor knows that Wikipedia policy is selectively enforced. Every long term editor knows that there is a strong group of editors that are very [[WP:BITE]]y towards new editors. The editors that are attacking me fit within this group. Along the line, criticism of a very shady Utah nursing college, that has a history of stealing from the poor, prospers. ; 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:Wikilawyer]]ing 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)'' [[User:Infinitepeace|Infinitepeace]] ([[User talk:Infinitepeace#top|talk]]) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked on 27 March 2021 because for the FIRST TIME (invalidating [[User:El C]]'s [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] argument) pointing out that [User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nightingale_College&diff=1014413247&oldid=1014401220] :[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, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses|there are cases were you can have one than more account within the rules]]. [[User:Infinitepeace|Infinitepeace]] ([[User talk:Infinitepeace|talk]]) 22:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC) This is not a [[WP:NPA|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 College]] 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]]. As User:MarioGom wrote about the editors on [[Nightingale College]]: "I'll have a look. There seems to be activity possibly related to a UPE sockfarm I have on my watchlist." This comment to User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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. Admin [[User:El C]] blocked me from editing my own talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&diff=1012029157&oldid=1012029053] with '''false policy claims''' that he did not quote policy for.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&diff=prev&oldid=1012028879] ''(That I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked)''???[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInfinitepeace&type=revision&diff=1012028785&oldid=1012028766] (See confirmation that this is NOT policy on the page, per [[User:Fences and windows]]. Admin [[User:El C]] 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nightingale_College&diff=1012033775&oldid=1012026478] "cleanup on aisle 4". I may note that lawyer [[User:Morbidthoughts]] uses [[WP:AN]] regularly as an edit war tool. It is amazing looking through his edits at how often he posts at [[WP:AN]]. Every long term editor knows that Wikipedia policy is selectively enforced. Every long term editor knows that there is a strong group of editors that are very [[WP:BITE]]y towards new editors. The editors that are attacking me fit within this group. Along the line, criticism of a very shady Utah nursing college, that has a history of stealing from the poor, prospers. ; 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:Wikilawyer]]ing 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)'' [[User:Infinitepeace|Infinitepeace]] ([[User talk:Infinitepeace#top|talk]]) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked on 27 March 2021 because for the FIRST TIME (invalidating [[User:El C]]'s [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] argument) pointing out that [User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nightingale_College&diff=1014413247&oldid=1014401220] :[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, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses|there are cases were you can have one than more account within the rules]]. [[User:Infinitepeace|Infinitepeace]] ([[User talk:Infinitepeace|talk]]) 22:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC) This is not a [[WP:NPA|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 College]] 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]]. As User:MarioGom wrote about the editors on [[Nightingale College]]: "I'll have a look. There seems to be activity possibly related to a UPE sockfarm I have on my watchlist." This comment to User:ScottishFinnishRadish 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. Admin [[User:El C]] blocked me from editing my own talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&diff=1012029157&oldid=1012029053] with '''false policy claims''' that he did not quote policy for.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&diff=prev&oldid=1012028879] ''(That I cannot rewrite the article on my talk page while blocked)''???[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInfinitepeace&type=revision&diff=1012028785&oldid=1012028766] (See confirmation that this is NOT policy on the page, per [[User:Fences and windows]]. Admin [[User:El C]] 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nightingale_College&diff=1012033775&oldid=1012026478] "cleanup on aisle 4". I may note that lawyer [[User:Morbidthoughts]] uses [[WP:AN]] regularly as an edit war tool. It is amazing looking through his edits at how often he posts at [[WP:AN]]. Every long term editor knows that Wikipedia policy is selectively enforced. Every long term editor knows that there is a strong group of editors that are very [[WP:BITE]]y towards new editors. The editors that are attacking me fit within this group. Along the line, criticism of a very shady Utah nursing college, that has a history of stealing from the poor, prospers. ; 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:Wikilawyer]]ing 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)'' [[User:Infinitepeace|Infinitepeace]] ([[User talk:Infinitepeace#top|talk]]) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

Please provide the policy. Thank you!

I suggest that, instead of trying to continue editing Wikipedia by proxy, you spend your one-month block trying to understand what you did wrong and making a plan for not being blocked again. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Sockpuppet of Okip: indefinite ban

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Okip&oldid=1014732578

Published online evidence:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello User:Infinitepeace. At present there is no unblock request here, so there is nothing for me to accept or decline. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much User:EdJohnston for your reply. I would like to see what I am accused of first, and what off-wiki evidence before making a feeble unblock request. this is a pretty bold claim, that I am a sockpuppet of a very old editorOkip account. The online evidence seems very weak and circumstantial at best. I fear if I make a unblock request now:
1. I will never ever know what was said about me to connect me to this editor
2. I will only have one shot at asking for an unblock. (I dont know)
typing out loud, I know i am not supposed to mention ****. So I will not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I just don't know what to do at this point. Appeal to arbcom for the information? thanks a million for responding though. Peace and love man. Infinitepeace (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a matter of time before those supporting WP:ADVERT of Nightingale College ask that my talk page privilege's be revoked. Infinitepeace (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post on User:CaptainEek

Awaiting the rules on this issue: [10]

User:Guy Macon writes:
Not sure what the rules are on this one. Are the requests to proxy edit Nightingale College on the talk page of Infinitepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) allowed? WP:PROXYING says that "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor" but I couldn't find a policy that says that a banned or blocked editor cannot ask others to edit material at their direction. -- User:Guy Macon User talk:Guy Macon 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Has this been decided?
  2. how can I get information on the off-wiki evidence What are the steps? Thank you in advance.

Infinitepeace (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infinitepeace&oldid=1014883451"