User talk:Claudioalv

Bold text

How does Wikipedia policy work?

I am an Italian attorney doing a legal training in the U.S. I was aware on the Wiki world more than two months ago when I tried to join to community to raise some arguments. I found that an article was not reflecting the real world, so I decided to post some contributions on the article talk page. I still have to learn a lot about Wiki policy, so if you are reading this talk page and you want to suggest me some effective method to find consensus you are welcome to write it at the bottom of this page. I opened 3 Rfc, a mediation, an arbitration, a ANI but I was ineffective. I know that the attorneys are not so welcome in Wiki because they advocate rather than discussing, but I found very hard to discuss with someone. Even editors agreed with me were not taking into consideration so their opinions were worthless. However, the editor who blocked me and built the article I find unfair was successful by imposing his thesis which is currently reflected on the article. I do not want to argue because I am not in a court of law, but I want just to understand more about Wikipedia policy

I find the claim that you want to learn to be inauthentic. I tried to teach you, and all you did was argue with me. You do not understand this place and the more you argue and write fake statements like this, with great urgency and intensity, the more you make it clear that you don't actually want to understand it. Yes you followed Every Little Procedure there was, but you did none of it with WP:CLUE and you did all of it with an overwhelming COI that keeps you from actually seeing WP for what it is. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unblock requests

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not well understand the reason why I was blocket. I think that is unfair that the article cannot be edit anymore and the inaccurate information are presently guiding the Wikipedia users. I provided three different external links to support my edit and the consequences was JzG blocked me. If the best way is to work with the Wikipedia community, as Wikipedia staff advised me, to be polite and to mantain a friendly discussion, the JzG's behavior is not understandable. Again, there is a misleading link related to a State of Michigan :</ref> http://www.abahe.co.uk/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf</ref>". That link is from the Arab British Academy for Higher Education and it is inaccurate to refer it as a Michigan Department of Education official statement. By posting this information, JzG has blocked me rather than address the issue. It is my fist time I edit something on wikipedia and I have never used multiple accounts. Instead of blocking people, volunteer administrators should verify the information contained on Wikipedia. thanks. ClaudioalvClaudioalv (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear case of sockpuppetry based on previous accounts with the same edits. only (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I disagree with that reason as I have never used multiple accounts. However, Wikipedia information team (info-en@wikipedia.org) kindly explained me that reason: "The evidence used to determine sockpuppetry relies on technical data regarding the editors connections to the Wikipedia site as well as behavioural evidence regarding similarity in editing of content, language, tone and several over factors. The information that would have had to be similar to draw this conclusion is quite lengthy. Your options would be to either request the exact edits you wish to make along with sources to confirm these or to provide explanation to the similarities in technical and non-technical similarities to the other accounts or IP address ranges that have been used to carry out the same pattern of editing previously." I have already clarified to Wikipedia info, Wikipedia legal counsel, user "only", user "JzG" Beeblebrox (English Wikipedia Administrator) the reasons for my edit. No one seems to address the issue I raised so far. Moreover user "JzG" and user "only" blocked my account as a "clear case of sockpuppetry" even if I have never user multiple accounts, I registered few days ago and I posted my first post two days ago. Wikipedia information team advised me that "if you would be willing to provide these changes and links to evidence them I would be wiling to review and amend as necessary (within the bounds of policy) the article in question". At this point, if Wikipedia does not want to review my block I am fine with that (this case is showing that WIkipedia Enclicopedia is not so free as it is stated in its policy), but at least I kindly request they remove the misleading link and take into consideration my requests on the grounds of verifiable and external sources and links I have already provided them and I am providing them again in this further appeal. My question is: Why does Wikipedia EGS article host on a misleading external link which does not have anything to do with the Michigan Department of Education? The current information is based on a link of Arab British Accademy for Higher Education and does not come from Michigan Department of Education. In particular, by reading the EGS Wikipedia article: "The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications". This statement is based on the external link [1] that does not have anything to do with the Michigan state. Indeed, the official Michigan state website is the following: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf. By clicking on that link, does not appear the EGS as a non-accredited school. Therefore, the current information contained on Wikipedia is inaccurate. I politely request Wikipedia users, administrators, JzG, Only, and Wikipedia Staff to check this information. In conclusion I am requesting not to "change X to Y", but to remove X (The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications").

Moreover, I request that the current "Accreditation in the United States" would be removed for the following reasons. European Graduate School is currently accredited in the European Union. This contribution con be verified at the following link: http://www.ncfhe.org.mt/news-item/the-european-graduate-school-accredited-by-the-ncfhe-239370240/. In addition, European Graduate School is a European University (and not a U.S. School). In other words, applicant students are aware they are applying to a European University, therefore is not correct that the majority of information contained on Wikipedia is based on a U.S. Accreditation. Lastly, I do not find correct the the article contain the following information: "degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States". In fact, only two States appear to not recognize them, meanwhile no reference to the remaining 48 States is made. I assume that 48 States recognize EGS degrees so it is not correct that information. Therefore, please change X ["degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States"] in Y [48 States recognize EGS degrees and two States (Texas and Maine) don't.] Claudioalv (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

More tiresome wikilawyering about the European Graduate School's (lack of) accreditation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Why you do not want address the issue I raised? [User:Ohnoitsjamie] I was advised to work with the community in order to achieve my goal. I provided verifiable sources and external links but user "Jzg", user "only" and you just do not want address the point that EGS Wikipedia article is hosting a misleading link and the current information is inaccurate. I am not asking for an unblock, but I am asking to check my contributions. Will it be possible? Thanks. ClaudioalvClaudioalv (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Max Semenik (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I would like to cite this Albert Einstein quote "Insanity:doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". I politely request an unblock because I am not a "sockuppetry case" and I am not a tiresome Wikilawyering. I am only an user who would like to update EGS article with more accurate contributions. When I signed the Terms of Use, I read that "you are free to contribute to and Edit our various sites or Project". I am requesting a block because the information I provided in my edit are based on verifiable sources and updated external links. On the contrary the present information on EGS are outdated and not corrected. I provided robust reasons in this talk page each administrator can check and verify. If an administrator can dedicate a couple of minutes of his time to verify them I would be totally glad. I would love to share these contributions with other users and editors with different ideas, but with the block I am not able to do. I find outrageous to be called "sockpuppetry case" or "tiresome Wikilawyering" just because I raised an issue supported by verifiable sources and official external links (for example: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf). thanks for reading my third unblock requestClaudioalv (talk) 12:23 am, 14 February 2016, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

The reason for blocking is sockpuppetry, but it seams there is no sockpuppetry here. This is probably a case of meatpuppetry, but the editor was not disruptive and was only commenting on the talk page without attempting to edit the article. That is certainly not a reason for indefinite block. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward for your kind replyClaudioalv (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you put your request inside the unblock template. I will do that for you this time for ease of reading. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks —Jeremy v^_^v for reading my request.I would like to update EGS article with more accurate contributions. When I signed the Terms of Use, I read that "you are free to contribute to and Edit our various sites or Project". I am requesting a block because the information I provided in my edit are based on verifiable sources and updated external links. On the contrary the present information on EGS are outdated and not corrected. I provided robust reasons in this talk page each user, editor and administrator can check and verify. I raised three different issues. 1) the following external link is the only Michigan Department of Education website: </ref>http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf. However, the current information on EGS article is based on the following not official website </ref>[http://www.abahe.co.uk/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf)</ref>; 2) EGS is a European Accredited School. This contribution can easily be verified:</ref> http://www.ncfhe.org.mt/news-item/the-european-graduate-school-accredited-by-the-ncfhe-239370240/</ref>; 3)In the U.S. 48 States recognize EGS degrees so it is not correct the current EGS article: "degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States". It should be accurate to say that 48 States recognize EGS degrees and two States (Texas and Maine)not. Lastly, EGS is NON-U.S. School, so it not correct that the majority of the current information contained on the EGS Wikipedia covers the U.S. accreditation issue and there is no contribution that covers the E.U. accreditation. Thanks for reading this request.claudioalvClaudioalv (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some clean-up here. Please, stop posting new unblock requests while the old one is still open. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Which other accounts have this person been using? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: to answer in JzG's place...some of the socks include Techlibrary (talk · contribs), Pboshears (talk · contribs), and Contextualist (talk · contribs). only (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{checkuser needed}}: Can a checkuser check those accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time, since this is a duck test block and the user may just be intelligent enough to make it *seem* as if they are different. Oh well. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pboshears and Techlibrary are Likely.
Claudioalv and Contextualist are Unrelated to the above two accounts and to each other.
In response to Guy's comment, technical evidence is just that and can be overridden with a strong behavioral determination. Also, there is limited data available to check, which often makes it harder to confirm relationships.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention in this talk page. I can swear I do not know the above users you are checking if they are related to me. I was not familiar with Wikipedia edit policy till two weeks ago. When I registered one week ago I made my contributions you have currently blocked without reading them. What I am looking for is to have an administrator who verify my contributions and my sources. As soon as someone would verify it and accept or deny my edit request by providing me an explanation I would be happy.thanksClaudioalv (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudioalv, how did you know about this "accreditation problem"? Have anybody told you about that? Did anybody ask you to join discussion? Do you have any personal or business connection to the European Graduate School in real life? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije thanks for reading this talk and address my request. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc legal counsel advised me more than once to work with the Wikipedia community to solve my problem ["Wikipedia does have high quality standards and there are ways for an article subject to help fix errors or provide sources in the case of an article that contains mistakes (for example, discussion in the article talk page or an email to the help link on the Wikipedia sidebar). However, where there is a legitimate editorial dispute about article content, phrasing, or sources, the best way to resolve it is through civil discussion with the editors involved"]. I can answer your question by revealing my personal identity, the Wikimedia Foundation Legal counsel and Wikipedia Information Team representative identity who replied to my e-mails. I do not have any problem to do it, but I am aware that Wikipedia policy is not favorable to show user identiy. No one asked me to join the discussion. I just thought that could have been beneficial working and discussing the accreditation issue in EGS talk page than in a court of law. However, rather than addressing the Accreditation Issue I raised (misleading current external links, omission of E.U. Accreditation, inaccurate information of U.S. Accreditation), administrators blocked me and refused to read my contributions. I also have robust evidence I do not know the users which administrators attempted to relate with me and Wikimedia Foundation Legal Counsel and Wikipedia Information Team representative are well aware of this. Lastly, Wikipedia Information Team representative replied me "Dear Claudio......As per my previous reply if you would be willing to provide these changes and links to evidence them I would be wiling to review and amend as necessary (within the bounds of policy) the article in question". So far no one amended the article because they refused to read my contributions. Thanks again for reading this postClaudioalv (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudioalv. What we need is a very simple to follow change X to Y. We don't need any of the lengthy explanation that has gone on above previously. Provide reliable sources to back up your claims per WP:RS and it is possible they may be included. Were after something like Change Red to blue because this reliable source says so.

Adding in large amounts of unnecessary additions to why it should shouldn't be included wont help. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

Thanks Amortias. However I am not a Wikipedia expert user and I am not sure If the concept of "change X to Y" or "WP:RS" is clear to me. What I can provide is the reliable sources everyone is able to find in this talk page. Change {X} The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."[8] to {Y} European Graduate School is not included in the Non accredited School according to the Michigan Civil Service Commission ^[1]. Change {X}The European Graduate School / EGS is a cross-disciplinary institution of higher education awarding Masters and Doctoral degrees within its two divisions: Arts, Health and Society (AHS), and Philosophy, Art and Critical Thought (PACT) in {Y} The European Graduate School / EGS is a cross-disciplinary institution of higher education awarding Masters and Doctoral degrees within its two divisions: Arts, Health and Society (AHS), and Philosophy, Art and Critical Thought (PACT). European Graduate School possesses a European Union Accreditation : ^[2]

References

-Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Sources describe it as unaccredited, Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. The school would be better advised to actually pursue legitimate academic accreditation, rather than asking us to draw novel inferences based on its preferred interpretation of primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudioalv, you still did not answer any of my questions. I asked you if you have personal or business connection to the European Graduate School. I am not asking you to reveal your identity, or to reveal exact nature of your connection. I'm just asking if you are connected. Also, you did not answer my question about how you came to this subject. You say that "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc legal counsel advised me [...] to work with the Wikipedia community...". But, how did you come to the Wikimedia Foundation? Have anybody asked you to solve this issue? I don't need names, just yes or no? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This almost certainly means OTRS, which in turn almost certainly means that the user is associated with the school - which is in any case pretty likely given the edit history. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"guy" thank you for your reply. However you say "Sources describe it as unaccredited". Do you mind tell me which sources are you referring to? Does Wikipedia not recognized The National Commission for Further and Higher Education of Malta? If so, may you please provide me an explanation for not recognizing the National Commission for Further and Higher Education? May I ask you if you have any biased with EGS? Vanjagenije I do not personally know EGS but someone was asking me to solve the problem by doing something different than working with the community. However, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc counsel and Wikipedia Information Team advised me that could have been beneficial to join the EGS article civil discussion and to explain and support my argument. I was wrong. By solving the problem my approach is to read and analyze the documents people provided me and I reached the conclusion that EGS article is inaccurate because it currently hosts misleading information. No one so far replied to my detailed requests, except "guy". Now I am aware that user like Guy, JzG, Only will never change their positions so amending the article would be really utopian if the final EGS article decision is on their judgment. "Guy"'s reply is an example because he did not mention any of his "sources". Vanjagenije now I hope I answered your question. At this point can you please answer my following question: why this source is inaccurate: </ref>http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf</ref> and why the following </ref> http://www.abahe.co.uk/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf</ref> is accurate?Claudioalv (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble: Guy and JzG are one and the same. (JzG's signature just uses "Guy" instead of his username.) Also, the Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, not a corporation, and the "Wikipedia Information Team" is staffed by volunteers. I will also point out that everyone on this talk page that has been talking to you is also a volunteer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You novel synthesis from the Malta listing has already been addressed on the talk page. As I have said before, if this school wants Wikipedia to stop identifying it as unaccredited the only valid route is proper accreditation. We have endless experience of questionable schools trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" the "problem" of their being widely identified as unaccredited or in other ways questionable, it is very firmly not our problem to fix, the route to validity in education is solely through formal accreditation and the more you try to wave that away and present other things as if they are, or are equivalent to, accreditation, the more you end up looking like a diploma mill. Fix the real world first, then Wikipedia will follow. Not the other way round. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

− Jeremy v^_^v Bor thanks for your quibble. I am aware that Wikipedia project is based on the work of volunteers. However, in my opinion, volunteers who promised me to support and to help in facing my issue and then just do not do anything because other voulunteers have their judgment is a bad faith behaviour. In this talk page I provided sources which no one addressed so far. If someone feels to be defamed because of the Wikipedia article should have the right to replicate and to bring proof of demafamation and/or his argument. Being a volunteer is not an excuse for publishing misleading information. When I first wrote in this page I assumed that Wikipedia volunteers acted in good faith, but now I think that some of them are in bad faith because they did not answer to my questions. I can understand that volunteers are busy with many contributions and project, but when they want to block someone or to do research if it is a sockpuppetry case or not they unexepctedly find the time to do it Before saying that someone or something is questionable you should support your argument. "Questionable schools trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" the "problem" ". Wikipedia article is defaming the School because it is currently accredited based on the Malta accreditation you can check on the Website I referred. If Wikipedia does not recognize it or if user "JzG|Guy" does not like it, is not a right way to address the problem. At least someone should tell me why they do not recognize the Malta Accreditation Committion. "the more you end up looking like a diploma mill", again the Michigan reference is incorrect, outdated, inaccurate and not addressing it by removing out from EGS article constitutes clear evidence the volunteers who wrote in this page are in bad faith. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Please, can some volunteer check the following verifible information and update the EGS with the recent accreditationCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/list_hei.aspxCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).? JzG|Guy can you please verify if it is the real world so Wikipedia can follow it. Thanks Claudioalv (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23, I was sent a notice that I was mentioned here and I see that it's because you think that I am a sockpuppet. I'm not. I don't know who Techlibrary is. You can see I've made periodic edits over the last several years if you look at my contribs (a whopping 2 edits before I got embroiled in the current EGS mess). Is there another way I can show I'm not a sockpuppet? Thanks. Pboshears (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your case request

Please move your comments out of our section, which is for Arbitrators only, and back into yours. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your arbitration request

A request for arbitration in which you are involved has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia

hi Claudioalv. By way of introduction, I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing about health and medicine. Your edits to date are all about the European Graduate School and I noticed that you have not declared any relationship with the institution, and you ~seem~ to have one. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Claudioalv. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the EGS or the National Commission for Further and Higher Education of Malta or its Swiss counterpart? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. I note here that you were asked this directly above here and you gave a long answer that didn't answer the question. You were asked again here, and in your answer, all you said was "I do not personally know EGS but someone was asking me to solve the problem by doing something different than working with the community". This is not a clear answer.

Please answer - what is your connection with EGS or those government entities? And a second question, and you must answer this too - are you being paid, or do you expect to be paid, for your work on the EGS article?

After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you respond here before continuing to litigate your case. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog. Thanks for looking at the article and making me clear that I have to reveal my identity. However, I have already revealed my identity by stating that I have connection with the EGS. I have not being paid for joining the discussion by posting some contributions supported by official links. I have only written in the talk page and I was instructed by Wikimedia Legal Counsel and Wikipedia Information team that "Guy" is not the final say of an article and that I could seek further relief (RfC, Arbitraton and Mediation). If I would be paid in the near future I would reveal it and I will post it on this page. As a COI user, am I able to write in the EGS talk page? According the Wikimedia Foundation terms the answer should be yes. I note that "Guy" abused his power as an administrator to look over the article. Is this allowed? I do not want to be disruptive, I want that other administrators check the contribution I posted supported by official and updated link. It should not take longer (as I have already posted you can see that three different editors agreed with my contributions about Maltese accreditation.) I do not have any connection with National Commission for Further and Higher Education. Lastly, you are saying that NCFHE is an official government entity, but according to Guy this info is not relevant and should not be cited in the EGS article. Is this correct? Thanks for your clarification about COI. Claudioalv (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discuss article content with me here, nor Guy. This conversation is about you, and your relationship with EGS. OK? You do not have to reveal your identity. You have to disclose relevant relationships. For example, here is my COI disclosure. I make it clear on what topics I would have a COI, and I also make it clear that I eliminate the COI by not editing topics where that COI would be at play. I do not reveal my identity.

As I wrote above, people with a COI, including paid editors, can be part of the community if they want to be involved in topics where their COI is at play. However you must make a clear COI disclosure, and there are other things we ask conflicted editors to do. But one thing at a time - disclosure first.

Please know that there is a lot of tension around paid editing in Wikipedia, and if there is a reasonable chance you will be paid for your work, you must also disclose that fact. Please see the section of the Terms of Use section 4. Refraining from Certain Activities, the last bolded item called Paid contributions without disclosure. This is not something to monkey around with, especially after all the ruckus you have caused.

Please make a clear COI disclosure, describing the relationship you have with EGS (which may be that you work for the EGS, or someone at EGS asked you to fix the article, or someone at EGS asked your boss if they could do something and your boss asked you, etc etc) Whatever the relationship is - please state it. And please also include in your disclosure whether you have received or "expect to receive" consideration for your work here. If you are unsure how to state the relationship, you can email me and we can discuss it, if you like. But no more dancing around - it is extremely obvious that there is a lot at stake for you in getting your goal accomplished. You have to help the community understand what that "stake" is. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog where can I find your e.mail?Claudioalv (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, you can go to any User's Talk page or user page and look in the left margin - if the user has email enabled you will see "Email this user" under Tools. I have that enabled. But you can email me at jytdog @ gmail.com Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would information about a possible COI or paid eiditng need to be e-mailed privately instead of posted publicly? Jytdog, if you do get e-mail from this user, I would suggest that you reject it. If he admits to a COI or to being paid, but refuses you permission to reveal the contents of his e-mail, you're stuck. Revealing the contents of a private e-mail is deeply frowned upon here, and there is no reason that I can think of that private correspondence should take the place of public information in this instance. This is a very simple matter: does the editor have a COI in regard to EGS or not? Is he paid for his editing or not? That should be (and according to Wikipedia policy must be declared in public. BMK (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken is right--must be his lucky day. Guy, nothing good can come from this person emailing you. They either have a COI or they don't, and they either declare it or they don't. And if they edit as if they have a COI, they can still be blocked for their edits. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies, it is me, not Guy. It was pretty clear to me what was going on here. I have already had a couple of back and forths with Claudioalv and my hunch has turned out to be correct. My goal is that when the offline exchange is done, he will come back and here make a clear COI declaration and start acting differently. If the effort fails, that will be fairly obvious. I will let you all know when the exchange is done. There is no deadline here, so please be patient. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I'm sorry--it's the "y" that always makes me get confused. That and old age. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:) Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Italian attorney doing a professional training in NY. My supervisor has represented the European Graduate School and may represent it in the future. During my training I knew about the Accreditation issue and I voluntarily decided to write in the EGS talk page as I found the information incorrect based on the documents I was working on. Wikimedia Foundation Legal Counsel suggested me that joining Wikipedia could have been beneficial and I read the terms of Use when I registered. I have not been paid for that work (i.e. writing in the EGS talk page), and I do not expect to be. The firm I am doing my training with is aware of my editing here, and I am aware of that. I will not comment on any litigation here in Wikipedia; I will not bring it up, and if you ask me, I will simply not respond to those questions to avoid coming anywhere near something that any one could interpret as a violation of WP:NLT. I have not billed for my time editing Wikipedia, nor do I ever intend to, nor do I expect to be paid for it. I have not directly edited the EGS article and I will continue to not directly edit the article. The above is my current relationship with EGS and I apologize with Wikipedia Community for not having stated since the beginning. As I was not paid, nor I was expecting to be paid for writing my contribution I did not think to state my relationship. I acted in good faith. Thanks to @Jztdog for having explained more about the WC policy and regulation. Now if there is something I do not understand about WP policy I will ask to an administrator. ThanksClaudioalv (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your disclosure, Claudio. As we discussed, please see ANI here . I leave it for you to stand by those statements or retract them, as you like, and the community will do with the statements and whatever you say (or don't say), as it will. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:European Graduate School that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It helps nobody, wastes time, and adds clutter to an already cluttered page if you keep talking about contributors and not content. Just don't do it. Continuing to claim that someone was edtiing in bad faith is a personal attack. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas and the EGS

I agree with you that – if what you say is correct – the Texas situation is unfair, indeed basically a form of extortion. However, Wikipedia can't quote personal correspondence between private individuals and Texas government agencies. I suggest, try to get a friendly journalist interested in this matter, and get them to write an article critical of the Texas situation. Now, depending on how respectable that journalist and their outlet is, Wikipedia might well be able to cite their opinions. SJK (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have this conversation and I will be happy to send you that. However, EGS is not my business and I am saying just what is on my knowledge. I would happy to follow your suggestion if the school wants. But Texas is the only State which does include the school in such a list, probably there is a reason for that. Claudioalv (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf

[2] ttp://www.ncfhe.org.mt/news-item/the-european-graduate-school-accredited-by-the-ncfhe-239370240/

[1]

[2]