User talk:Sthubbar/Archive 2

Unblock
Following a successful appeal to ArbCom, this account is unblocked. Please note that in no way the committee endorses the claims made about checkusers or the process. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies, thank you. I'm going to assume I can remove the false sock puppet banner as my user page.  I would also like to go to every other location where I am accused/convicted of being a sock puppet and either remove or at least update the information.Sthubbar (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * user page, sure--I think you've done that already? Good. You're on the SPI page too; I'll place a note there. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Restore account to before false conviction

 * xaosflux, thank you.Sthubbar (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to drop the stick
It appears check user dropped the ball (or something -- pretty much everything decided by ArbCom is inscrutable to the rest of us because of all the stuff that is discussed behind closed doors) and you were blocked unfairly, and you have my sympathies for this. I too have been blocked unfairly several times, once even on a trumped up sockpuppetry charge.

But going around editing archived SPIs, altering the CU's words, using overly aggressive legalistic language in your edit summaries, using overly aggressive legalistic language in section titles on your talk page, and apparently editing the SPI archive talk page to the point that it had to be deleted, is not helpful, and if you continue with this kind of behaviour you look set to get blocked again for non-sockpuppetry-related reasons.

At the time of your block you had only made nine article edits in the previous eleven months, and they looked to several experienced editors like obvious Kauffner edits. At this point you have made more than eleven edits since your unblock attacking those who thought you were a sock and apparently demanding nothing less than a full apology for what happened. The simple fact is that you have this account for the purpose of improving our encyclopedia, and you have now (apparently -- again, god only knows what the Arbitrators' motivations are) been unblocked for the purpose of improving our encyclopedia: you should focus on doing that.

Again, I appreciate that you are frustrated at what happened to you, but if you must vent, you should keep it to your own userspace, not attack specific editors, not alter other editors' comments (even in your userspace), and keep in mind that we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. If you have any concrete proposals for improving how the SPI process works, I am sure the community would be willing to hear you out. This is not a concrete proposal, and your request to be allowed alter re-alter User:Bbb23's statement without his consent doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and this is also unlikely to pass muster -- editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and if an account's edits look like sockpuppetry enough to merit a CU being performed and CU then finds that the editor is likely to be the same person, blocking is usually taken as a reasonable measure. Altering the wording of the policy to be even more stringent than it already is (it doesn't say that all editors whom CU indicates to be similar will be blocked -- it says that no action shall be taken unless there is strong evidence) seems unlikely in my opinion.

Anyway, all the best, and happy editing!

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know why, but I didn't get your ping. I only noticed you mentioned me when I went through your recent contribs while writing the above. I noticed you made edits to the now-deleted Kauffner SPI archive talk page because it's on my watchlist and I was emailed, but I don't know what you wrote. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the feedback.Sthubbar (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Lepin-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Lepin-logo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Indef
I see your proposal that was shut down on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. My suggestion is to have indefinite blocks not be infinite as it is black and white stated that it should not be. Since indefinite blocks are almost never undone, they are infinite. Therefore, if the user requests, an indefinite block should be reversed after a year. If there is bad behaviour, another indefinite block could be enacted. Lakeshook (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , it sounds like we are of a similar mindset. It seems obviously clear that lifetime bans/blocks are obscene.  They should  never be used, or only used in the absolute rarest occasions.  I was lambasted by trying to make an analogy to the criminal justice system, but humans have made major mistakes over the course of history when disciplining members our societies and I would hope the online community could learn some of those lessons.  It appears my efforts are fruitless. Sthubbar (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason a lot of indefinite blocks are not undone is because the blocked users are not interested in appealing, or they appealed and their appeals were rejectedfor any of a number of (usually very good!) reasons. I wouldn't say that they are hardly ever undone -- my indef block was repealed after one day. There seems to be some confusion between an indefinite block (which any admin can undo on appeal) and site ban. The vast majority of people (not accounts) who are indefinite blocked for disruptive behaviour in the article space could probably appeal successfully if they convinced someone that they understood why they were blocked and wouldtry to do better.
 * And Sthubbar, you were indef-blocked because CU determined your account to be a sockpuppet of a site-banned user. Illegitimate alternate accounts are not allowed, period: arguing the difference between indefinite blocks and infinite blocks in relation to accounts that were already banned before they were created is meaningless. You were unblocked because you were somehow able to convince ArbCom that you were in fact not a sockpuppet (the details are not public, which is why I say "somehow"). But to argue that real socks should not be blocked indefinitely or that the word "indefinite" is inappropriate because those accounts are unlikely to get unblocked does not seem helpful.
 * Lastly: I strongly urge you to just forget about this whole incident and work on improving the encyclopedia. You were unblocked for this purpose (editors who aren't here to build an encyclopedia can be indef-blocked for that reason alone), but for several days after being unblocked all you did was talk about how unfair it was that you had been blocked, and then when told to stop you disappeared for almost two months. Then when you came back in December, complaining about he blocking and banning policies continued to be your main activity. I don't know anything about the topics in which you have been making apparently unrelated edits (I'm assuming they are constructive), but you really, really should just focus on them and not mention this issue again. My reading of User:Drmies's comments back October (although I may be wrong) was that ArbCom hadn't conclusively ruled that you weren't a sockpuppet, just that the CU evidence used to block you was insufficient. In this light, making arguments that could easily be construed as "You should unblock Kauffner's main account because sitebans should be the exclusive prerogative of the Arbitration Committee" doesn't make you look very good.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was surprised to see you responding to this conversation. I have dropped the idea of influencing the blocking/banning policy on Wikipedia.  This topic was brought up, unsolicited by  .  I was simply being courteous and responding to the message.  Sthubbar (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. That is good.
 * As for how I came across this: I was somewhat frustrated that none of my questions on WT:BAN were getting any attention, and when I checked I noticed that the only thread on that page that was getting attention was yours. It's not archived yet, and I didn't look carefully at the dates. Remembering my last interaction with you, I checked your contribs and saw that your most recent edit was here, on essentially the same issue. So I decided to chime in and remind you that not talking about it would be good.
 * If you are making constructive edits to encyclopedia, that's even better. Keep it up.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, before replying to Lakeshook I really should have checked his contribs, as should you have; he had already been blocked as a sockpuppet before you responded. Note for future reference: if a mysterious account you've never interacted with before and was created earlier the same day shows up on your talk page and says that they think all blocks should have term limits, you should report it to an admin, or perhaps open an SPI if you have even the slightest inkling of whose sockpuppet it might be. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , as you have noticed, I am an infrequent Wikipedia editor. I responded to, and then checked the user page, realizing it was listed as a sockpuppet.  I did feel a little regret, that I had possibly been deceived and had just publicly agreed with a "bad" person.  Then I thought, "Come one, nobody read's sthubbar's talk page, so no big deal."  I guess that thought was proven wrong..

Predatory publishers
Both MDPI and Betham are listed as predatory. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? As I understand the Beall list is removed and even at that 1 out of 5 of the organizations on that list are falsely accused.Sthubbar (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems a unreasonable to categorize all 300 publications of MDPI as predatory. In particular International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences has an impact factor of 3.687, which according to this page seems to put it in the top 20% of journals.  Can you provide specific evidence that this particular publication is predatory?Sthubbar (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Lepin-logo.gif


The file File:Lepin-logo.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Dietary Supplements
Some updates to WikiProject Dietary Supplements, see message. Jerm (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Dozens
Hello, Sthubbar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Dozens, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Dozens


Hello, Sthubbar. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Dozens".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)