User talk:Sofianichols

Eric Arnoux
Hi! You seem to be removing well sourced information that is relevant to the article. It would be great if you could explain your edits at Talk:Eric Arnoux. Thank you! Sjö (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir, first of all. I make an investigation and can provide you a letter of Mister Arnoux lawyers who attest that the amounts discussed on the trial have nothing to do with 200 or 300 millions.

Mister Arnoux has been released beginning of june 2017 and for example "Le Temps" says it but it is always removed as you can see. If you can notice only fake profiles with fake names and only for Mister Eric Arnoux.

If you can i can put online what i allege.

All what happened with Mister Arnoux is completely unbelievable. A creditor contacted a journalist "PATRICK MONAY" of "TRIBUNE DE GENEVE" on 2015 to make articles of eric arnoux.Swiss authorities suspect this person of the beginning of anonymous blogs discriminatory Mister Arnoux. The goal was to destroy Mister Arnoux reputation and after to use it (the same person Patrick Monay) in a real newspaper like "Tribune de Genève" who can be used for the swiss authorities to arrest him.

70 blogs have been done and most of them removed legally with lawyers.

Le point is an article completely defamatory on the amounts. And the title doesn't respect the presumption of innocence ( Human right).

And this article is only used today to discriminate Mister Arnoux. At this day Mister Arnoux hasn't been sentenced yet. And they write it like if he has been already sentenced.

As you can see a lot of movement on Mister Arnoux page, fake profiles as sarahmitchel or Albertpagis for example. or rabordfred (anonymous blog), swiss authorities suspects the same Patrick Monay, putting dead links, blogs links (anonymous persons).

Why these persons are against me on wikipedia because i respect human rights and have the proof that the amounts discussed are not real because I DID real investigation. I put positivity as well based on the same newspapers but fake people removed it. As you can see the profile of mister Arnoux has anormal activity. I think wikipedia rules need to be changed to respect the humans rights and verify better who writes it and where the sources are based on. If you want more informations doesn't hesitate to contact me.

sofia nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofianichols (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello 331dot,

thanks for your message that i read very carefully. You know i LOVE medias and internet but internet has a lot of bad sides as well. And this case is one of them. I agree with you concerning the fact of the threats. But if you read i'm threatening nobody. Just telling the truth. And if you read carefully the Wiki's policies, Its prohibited to make such defamatory articles based on some sources with no verification and zero investigation.

Im not planning to sue wikipedia but instead asking for help. The problem of wikipedia is that everybody can change anonymously (im not the only one who says that) and for me its missing some verification about the persons. Why not send a passport photo to verify that the same person does not various profiles. If you go on Mister Eric Arnoux in fact you can see various Fake profile only did for him and changing putting blogs and etc.

I think wiki should be only manage by real persons and for example if someone really owes 200 millions euros as is said in some medias why the person concerned can not send a decision about the fact that its not true. Because revenge on internet is very serious. Its calling bullying. If you want to block me do it but i think it's not the good way to resolve the problem. i will not be the only one who thinks that. You should more be careful about some of these issues to make internet more clean and define limits. Specially you (me) are talking about people lives. I tried to reach administrators but no one answer me who i can contact directly and send proofs. I think in my advice you should go and see that various profiles "fake" have been made only for Mister Arnoux. These persons made 70 blogs until today why you think most of them have been removed? Mediapart etc Because its a very serious case and its totally fake. No justice decision have been given yet. Mister Arnoux is free. And as i know for now the numbers have nothing to do with these crazy numbers. One of the journalists is under investigation by swiss authorities. Give me the details to send you and the wiki administrators real papers that proofs what i am alleging.

I hope you will understand my point of view and instead talking about blocking trying to find a good solutions for wikipedia and people on it.

I stay at your disposal.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofianichols (talk • contribs)


 * Leaving your views on the structure and operation of Wikipedia aside; you cannot make legal threats or warn of legal consequences either to Wikipedia itself or to Wikipedia users. Please see WP:NLT.   You told one user "Be careful internet is not the place to revenge and laws exists." If that is not exactly a legal threat, it is close.  You also need to stop attempting to get people to reveal their identity.  Users are not required to reveal their identities.
 * That said, we are very concerned about defamation and if you have a genuine concern that an article or parts of an article are defamatory, we want to know about it. Mr. Arnoux or his representatives are free to use the email address at WP:LIBEL to contact Wikipedia and provide the necessary information.  If you don't represent Mr. Arnoux, then you will need to continue to discuss the matter on the article talk page, as you have done to some degree already. Please understand that in general, Wikipedia contains most information found in independent reliable sources, as long as it is consistent with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. If you feel some aspect is inconsistent with that policy, please bring it up on the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

Thanks for your help really and thank you for you link above i really appreciate. As i told you i did an investigation because im really concerned about bully and defamation on internet that many many people suffers from it. Im absolutely not representative of Mister Arnoux. But for some reasons i had to investigate during the last 3 years on the topic about defamation on internet and the topic Mister Arnoux was very interesting because very hard and for proof all modifications i did, i wasn't taking off the fact a trial is being done in contrary of all the others fake profiles only done for Mister Arnoux in one year. The goal is only to make the truth going out and for proof the many anonymous blogs have been most of them deleted by "the hosts" because it was defamation (it has been proved). i can certify with proofs with real sources that the two principals articles (la tribune de Genève and le point) that the last fake profile sarahmitchel82 refers have been made without any investigation without any proof, to ask really if the real sources exists? These articles have been made without any real investigation and contrary as what is written inside no real source have been met contrary what it has been written, the jobs of these two journalist are only complacency for some discriminatory for Mister Arnoux and his family. Actually different cases are open against these two journalists. i can prove all the informations that im talking about with documents. Contrary to sarahmitchell82.

Today you want to revenge someone you go on internet with fake ip address and fake profiles and can tell what you want about a person. I had cases where children tried to kill themselves. so i take this topic very seriously. because it destroys people and lives. As i told you im not representative of Mister Arnoux but i did an investigation about his case because i didn't understand why suddenly many blogs many articles which such these amounts where on internet.

Thank you very much for your help and time that you spend on this file i appreciate.

Sofia

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Sofianichols. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Eric Arnoux, 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. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  21:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

Thanks for your comments below that i read carefully. In fact, I dont know why i am more in conflict that all the others fake profiles for example SarahMitchel82 made specially for Eric Arnoux.

I think SarahMitchel82 is if we follow your comments as same as me COI. Because when we see that for example she goes to see children's of mister arnoux putting names on them it means she knows specially the names of mister Arnoux and she is related to him. If you see the references it is ski competitions that i tried to find on internet but without putting the full name is impossible to find.

taking off what i change for example the fact that he lost 55 millions ( i dont lie) is in the same newspapers as what saramitchell refers but she doesn't put all the article. or all the version of it. You dont seem reading french but i do and sarahmitchels as well. for example why taking out the fact that no sentence is given today? You can see clearly in her suggestions for the article that he (she) wants clearly to describe Mister Arnoux as someone comptetible even bernie maddof his wikipedia is not so awful. and i can give you many many examples of that. So if you read carefully your comment sarahmicthell is the same way COI as me.

I dont threat anyone but You can't defame and write things in the way as this person does.Because this is the same who is writing the blogs and articles believe me once again instead of sending me the fact to no threat people. try to help me and help the people living bullying on internet that kills people.

So now i want one of the administrators of wiki to contact me and to fix this issue properly together. Wikipedia has a chart but this chart can't ignore the real laws and human rights.

Im not threatening but i take this problem seriously the same as bullying for kids at school. Wikipedia believe me its amazing and i love the fact that the informations are accessible for free. But please do the exercice see : Mister Arnoux is no one not political not famous nothing. Have you seen so many changes about a normal person only with fake profiles just for him. If this person (sarahmitchell) is so against me is because she (he) because she is related to Mister Arnoux. She has conflict of interest. And for proof she knows mister arnoux personally because she knows apparently mister arnoux kids name.

So i think wikipedia should take seriously this issue. And im here to help you guys so all together any issue we have. We will manage it together.

thank you.
 * I've told you how you can proceed, above. You are welcome to do so, but you must stop warning of legal consequences. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * HI Sofianichols. I work on conflict of interest issues in WP along with my regular editing. Would you please describe any connections you have with Eric Arnoux ‎or any of his companies?  In addition, please be aware that if you are being paid to represent Arnoux or expect to be paid for doing that, you must disclose this. But please disclose any connection you have with him or his companies, directly or through a third party.  Please do not write further here about the content or your disputes with other people. Please just address these questions.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, i have absolutely no connections with Mister Arnoux or his companies, and not being paid or representing him. I work on protection of minors and for some reasons i am obliged to manage this file. And to investigate on it. Wiki is not the only website concerned by this issue. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofianichols (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying.  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what to whom and when.


 * Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).


 * I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second...


 * On the substance.... Please explain what you mean by "i am obliged to manage this file". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Jytdog,

Thanks for your kind advices. I will do my best for that.

Concerning your last question, As i already told you. I'm working on the minor protection. For some reasons i can't tell you more unless we can speak privately.

Sofianichols (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to add one more colon than the person above you did, and you have to do it for every new paragraph. Please fix your indenting above.
 * OK, I will take it that you in the real world, you are representing some unknown minor's interest, and that you are in some way "obliged" to be involved in the Arnoux ‎ page. You are therefore a paid editor.  You therefore must disclose your employer and your client. This is not optional; it is policy.  See WP:PAID.
 * If for some reason you feel you cannot disclose your employer and client, then you cannot be involved in the subject matter. That means you cannot edit the page, or the talk page, or interact with other people here.
 * There is a system by which the public can ask for help on pages where there are actual concerns with regard to the WP:BLP policy. See WP:OTRS. I suggest that you use this method.  Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sir i think you dont understand what i said. I'm NOT PAID by Mister Arnoux or his relatives or companies. IM just protecting minors by cyberstalking. It's associative not paid. I think you dont understand but can i ask you something? Why everybody is putting my version in doubt but sarahmitchels who speak about minors and put them in danger by exposing them to cyberstalking no ones cares? i think wiki should see the priorities here. And maybe asking sarahmitchels82 or whatever the same thing you dont think so?

Sofianichols (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * please thread your posts. Please see the note above, here.
 * It doesn't matter who is paying you. What is relevant is that you are being paid for these edits. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add that your edits -- this series and this series and this series do not solely deal with Arnoux's children - they deal with far more. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I said im not paid for that so please stop saying that. dont say what i didn't say. Thank you.


 * If you go to wikipedia in french for example they delete Eric's Arnoux page. For differents reasons but because it is a hoax you are invited to go and see the french wikipedia. They understood whats going on with Arnoux's page and the administrators delete it.

Sofianichols (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not care what happens in French Wikipedia.
 * You are claiming some kind of professional involvement - you wrote "I work on protection of minors" and said you have an "obligation" to protect minors that you must keep confidential.  You are either here professionally or not. Which is it? Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Outing
It doesn't matter if you're right, it doesn't matter if someone is maliciously using Wikipedia to further their agenda. If someone has not disclosed their private information on Wikipedia, you cannot make a link to their real identities. You can debate the merits of someone's argument all you like (there is nothing wrong with that) but if you continue to attempt to make connections between a registered editor and a real-world personality you will be blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Sir,


 * no problem sir, so it means that this person will continue to use Wikipedia Maliciously and wikipedia will continue to protect that.
 * wiki speaks about real world persons its not a virtual game or thing.


 * Sofianichols (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think that there is an issue of personal security with regards to a minor, please email either the Oversight team or one of the Oversighters directly (I am one of them) and we can look into the matter. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir,


 * An email will be addressed to you so you can appreciate what has been said until today.

Thank you very much.

Sofianichols (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)