User talk:Claudioalv

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)

Decline reason:

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

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 ([email protected]) 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)

Decline reason:

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

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)

Decline reason:

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

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

---

Blocking administrator: JzG (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=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)|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 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=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  @JzG: Which other accounts have this person been using? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  @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)

  {{checkuser needed}}: Can a checkuser check those accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)