Jump to content

User talk:Sthubbar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Two things

1) You cannot copy and paste text as that is plagarism

2) The review article in question must mention the disease in question

Thanks

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Also this page gives advice on formatting references WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MOS we typically write in prose not lists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal suicide

you wrote:

Hi, just saw you discussion on Doc James page about the misconception of suicide increasing in winter. Coincidentally I just heard or read a report about how Greenland has one of the highest suicide rates. I assumed they would be higher in winter because of the practically continuous darkness. The article mentioned that suicides were highest in summer. My guess is that in the winter if someone is depressed they simply sleep or go into vegetative state and have less willpower to take the action of suicide. In the summer with hotter weather and constant light it is harder to escape the demons in one's mind and harder to sleep so already being agitated and away, it is a much smaller step to just put an end to it all. Another example of what I thought was common knowledge was backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My reply:

Sthubbar, I have seen the same misconception repeated in movies and in the media. It follows that people that are estranged from their families experience the loss more vividly during holidays. I work with persons diagnosed with mental illness and some of the more brutal suicides I have seen over the years were close to the holidays and often involved rejection by parents and children, which served as an antecedent to the suicide. Despite this, the data is clear, even when examining smaller sample sets, that majority of suicides (i.e. suicide attempts that are fatal) do not occur during the winter holiday season and actually peak during spring and early summer. Thank you for your feedback. Your comments about winter and depression, hotter weather, and insomnia certainly make sense to me and are shared by other mental health professionals.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Typically one only needs one high quality review article as a ref.

Also we do not usually use "patient" but "person with X" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inflammatory arthritis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Still's disease (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

I have posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Alternative_Medicine. Just letting you know, as the issue of the definition should be addressed too. Ryanspir (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


You have made your 4th revert to osteoarthritis

Would advice that you change it back and get consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been warned and yet you are still going. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You've clearly not understood wp:BRD. There's no utility in repeated reverts in good-faith editing. The norm is to discuss after the first revert, which is why it is not BRRD, BRRRD, BRRRRD, or any such. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Osteoarthritis

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Osteoarthritis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Sthubbar reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here What a bunch of crap. The first reference that Zad reported has nothing to do with osteoarthritis and I can't find it anywhere in the history. The second one was due to me not knowing that NEST and TENS are the same treatments. TENS reference was already accepted on Rheumatoid Arthritis page. I only pressed "Revert" twice and "Undo" one time. I was vaguely aware of the 3 edits rule and stopped any "warring" at 3 edits. Doc James, hit the "Revert" button 5 times in quick succession and not a single peep is made about this, despite the 3 rules saying that Admins are not immune from this rule. I have not been making any more controversial edits. I was falsely accused of deleting a Cochrane study when it was simply moved. I removed another study because it was being misrepresented as saying that certain treatments are not recommended and that is not what the article says. The article says that there is insufficient evidence to make a determination. These are 100% different statements. I can say that I don't know if drinking one glass of vodka will kill you is a completely different thing from advising you to avoid drinking a large cup of cyanide. I have stopped making anything that can be considered controversial edits. Zads comment is coming in much later after much discussion on the OA talk and the WP:Medicine talk pages. If this is how Wikipedia treats new authors, I can see why people can get turned off quickly.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, which means for repeatedly making edits that restore, in whole or in part, contents of a page to how it was before. It is therefore irrelevant to bring in arguments about other issues, such as whether or not your edits were "right", whether anyone else has made edits that are "wrong", whether anyone else has also been edit warring, whether you have been falsely accused of deleting something, etc etc. It is also completely irrelevant whether your reverting was done by means of clicking "revert" or "undo", as opposed to manually changing the content. If we ignore all these irrelevant issues that you raise, all that we are left with is your statement that you stopped edit warring at three edits. Even if that were true, it would not be very significant, because, contrary to amazingly popular belief, there is no rule that says that edit warring is acceptable as long as it stops at three edits. However, it isn't even true, as you can see here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (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.

Sthubbar (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My mention of PMID 17437317 was simply a typo in my WP:ANEW comment, I meant PMID 17438317, sorry about that.

Edit-warring is a behavior and is separate from, and counterproductive to, discussion about the content. It should have become clear to you by the second or third revert you made that the kinds of changes you were proposing did not have consensus and required Talk page discussion instead of reverting. The comments you are making in your unblock request are simply justifications for edit-warring behavior, and a dispute over content is never a justification for edit-warring. The action you should have taken was to stop reverting at the article and continue the discussion on the article Talk page only until consensus could be reached. Zad68 13:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, what is the point of a warning? I was given a warning and I stopped all of the "waring". I was only aware of the 3 revert rule and for me that means look under history and see the word "Revert" or "undo" and that counts as one incident. I can see how you are counting it different, great. The point is, I was given a warning and I stopped. After I had already stopped, you come in again and make other claims that were already addressed in the various talk discussions. Now I get this stupid ban. Nobody has ever explain how come Doc James is able to press the "Revert" 5 times with no warnings or repurcussions.
What is the point of warning me, if I'm going to be banned after I've stopped the "bad" behavior? No warning is necessary, just ban me right away and be done with it.Sthubbar (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The ref stated "many" yet you removed that here [1] stating that you require a definition. The fact that the ref in question uses many is good enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Doc James, I don't have access to the article and I can't find it on Google scholar. The summary has no mention of the word "many" so I will just take your word.Sthubbar (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sthubbar, let me try to help out: You're still exhibiting a misunderstanding. You received the warning 00:17, 8 April 2013 here and followed that up with the same bad editing behavior three hours later 03:30, 8 April 2013 here. You need to please read WP:3RR carefully. I'm not 100% sure but I think the problem is related to misunderstanding one or more of the following ways Wikipedia works, hopefully by my listing them here we can clear it up:

  • A "revert" is undoing the action of another editor, in whole or in part. It does not matter if you re-add stuff someone else deleted, delete stuff someone else added, or change back something someone else changed, they're all counted as "reverts".
  • It does not matter how you do the revert - whether you click "Undo" or "Rollback" (if you have that available) or "Edit". If the end result is the same - you have undone the work of another editor - it's a "revert".
  • It does not matter if you do a slightly different change each time, it's still a "revert". If someone puts PMID 12345 into the article, and then you delete it the first time, it gets put back, and then you replace it with PMID 67890 the second time, you have done two reverts, each revert removed PMID 12345 from the article.
  • It does not matter if you undo the work of other editors in completely different areas of the article each time, they are still "reverts". If the first time you remove content someone else added to Effects and then the second time you undo content someone else added to History they are still both reverts.
  • Technical exception: If someone makes multiple edits in a row (no intervening edits from others), they are all counted together as one "revert", even if each individual edit undoes something.
  • Most importantly, you can be edit-warring even if you don't technically breach WP:3RR. 3RR is the 'bright line' rule, and almost always draws a block, but it's up to administrator discretion: you can be found to be edit warring if you are reverting instead of discussing on the Talk page, even if you don't violate 3RR.

Bottom line: Talk, don't revert. If someone undoes your work, don't revert it back, take it to the Talk page. This is the essence of WP:BRD. Zad68 15:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Zad, thank you for this. Yes, I agree I did not have a clear understanding of the rules. I am not arguing about that. What I think is ridiculous is that I got a warning, I started talking/learning on the talk pages and was not waring. After the war had been started and you could have continued to educate me with posts like the one above, I get banned anyway. Why give me a warning? It was pointless. It was a bureaucratic ploy. I don't disagree that I violated the rules. Great, I broke the rules, I'm more educated about them. I had already stopped the "waring" why go ahead and ban me? And still, nobody, nowhere, at no time, has explained why Doc James is immune. I thought the rule says clearly that Admins aren't immune. Why wasn't he requited to take it to the Talk page? Oh, I get it, because he is right and I'm wrong, just by definition. We're all equal, just some are more equal than others.Sthubbar (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Glad it was helpful! (Semantic point: you weren't "banned" [a ban means you as a person have been expelled from Wikipedia], your account has been temporarily blocked [prevented from editing certain pages].)

I looked over the history and I agree you got a bit of rough handling here, especially for a relatively new editor, and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia, to the extent it's possible for me to do so... There's definitely a learning curve here at Wikipedia.

The one thing that you really should have done differently, and which might have gotten you a different result, was to respond to EdJohnston's offer to you ("I recommend that you agree to stop editing this article until consensus is reached on the talk page. If not, your account may be blocked.") at the Edit Warring noticeboard discussion, instead of talking about how to count reverts and what Doc James might have done, and then continuing to edit the article. That series of actions is surely what drew the block.

Maybe now isn't the best time to go over this, but if you apply the rules above, you'll see Doc didn't violate WP:3RR. But honestly I'd suggest not worrying about this, going down the path of "that's unfair because technically so-and-so violated WP:3RR too" will never help you. You'd be better off just waiting out the short block and then go to discussing proposed content changes at article Talk pages and moving on from there. Zad68 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I find the talk pages to be mostly useless. Doc James has his opinion and much more power than me. What he says rules. If I feel like it, I'll just make edits and let him change them once. Or, I guess, as you suggest above, I'm probably prohibited from many any further edits on the OA page without first trying to get approval on the talk page, which I find less than satisfying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry to say, but based on what you are saying, you're probably going to find contributing to Wikipedia endlessly frustrating. Doc's sourcing philosophy is not unique to him at all, I can name dozens of very active medical article editors who agree with it in general, including myself. Nobody gets to edit and keeps articles exactly as they'd wish to see them. Talk page collaboration is essential, and if you really hate doing it, you're going to hate editing. It's up to you what you'd like to do from here... Another suggestion is to wait a few days and see if your mood changes. Or, consider editing in a completely different part of Wikipedia; I don't think I've ever seen Doc edit outside of the medical article area.Zad68 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Possibly. :)Sthubbar (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reduction of block length

I have reduced the length of your block by 12 hours. This is because I have considered what you have written above, have checked the relevant history, and have decided that, although you were given warnings of a sort, those warnings were not explained to you in a way that will have made their meaning clear enough for a new user. If you have not already done so, you may like to read Wikipedia:Edit warring. I also think that Zad68 has done a good job of explaining some of the relevant points to you. I will also look at the history to see how much, if any, justification there is for your criticisms of Doc James. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, furthermore, when Doc James made his major revert of almost all of my changes I happened to be online at the time and have his gmail chat account. I was able to contact him via live chat and I simply asked him to not undo everything I did and to be more surgical about what specifically he was objecting to. I did not disagree that the work I did could be improved on, I objected to the sledgehammer approach and I was talking to him live via chat. I simple asked him to stop reverting everything so we could create a list of issue and hear my point and I could hear his point. Live chat instead of slow talk page. He flatly refused. BTW, I'll say again, as several times, his original reason was WRONG!!! He says I deleted a Cochrane review when it was simply moved. The second review I removed was not to remove the review, I removed the whole discussion of an unproven treatment NEST. I had an already accepted reference for TENS and I did not realize that NEST=TENS. I can understand from his perspective it appeared that I was removed evidence against TENS(NEST) to push my agenda and in reality it was nothing of the sort. Here is the chat log for full disclosure:

me: Hey, you there? Let's try to avoid a revert war. You are undoing tons of work, for one simple reference without even checking on the talk page. I have justified on the talk page and don't accept undoing everything I've been doing for this one reference. 

Sent at 4:05 AM on Monday
me:  We are going to have a problem if you are going to start editing the version that removes all of my abbreviation changes.
James:  You have removed a number of high quality references.
me:  Let's try and settle this before you start making good changes.  I agree that the glucosmain can be rewritten.
James:  With insufficient justification
me:  James, I have not.

I checked the difference and it was small. You have gone back to a much older revision. 

James:  No I have gone back before you removed the reviews in question
me:  Let's try and agree a little
James:  You did not discuss this on the talk page
me:  James, hold on one second...

Please look at this link in your talk message https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteoarthritis&diff=549151111&oldid=548850075 and then compare to this which is the result of your revert... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteoarthritis&diff=549205098&oldid=549204503 Your revert removes all of the abbreviations as well as other edits. This is the definition of heavy handed. If we want to fix the "Alt Med" section, then let's just revert things there, not for the whole article. 

Sent at 4:10 AM on Monday
James:  Okay will do

I will restore the abreviations 

me:  No

You reverted to remove everything I did That is completely unacceptable. Let's restore everything I have done and only address the alt med section. No revert. I don't accept this revert, 100% Let me please undo that revert and then we can just edit that Alt Med together. OK? You are also trying to undo everything I have done in alt med. I don't think you have checked that reference on glucosamine, because the text is wrong that says that it doesn't work, that's why I moved the reference to the first sentence. I don't remember removing any Chochrane review reference, so we will just check that together because I have no problem including that. 

Sent at 4:14 AM on Monday
me:  You have still completely removed all of the references and info I have provided about Alt Med

And you still didn't restore one of the abbreviations. Please, just restore everything from where I left off and then you can do small corections. I agree that you can updated the glucosamine text and writing I'm not happy with that either. I'm talking editing, not reverting. 

James:  No you need consensus before making these changes
me:  What changes????

All of these changes are secondary articles. I removed a primary source. Why does that require consensus? I removed statements about ineffective treatments. We don't do that for traditional medication, why does that require consens? 

James:  Removing the Cochrane reviews and using a poor quality review rather than the higher quality one with respect to Condroitin sulfate
me:  I provided secondary articles.  Why does that require conens.

James, I have already said that if I removed a Cochrane review, it was by accident and not intentional. 

James:  Because you removed the previous secondary source that was of better quality
me:  We can put that one back, in.

Great, put it back in, but don't revert. If I removed a better secondary source it was unintentional. You are heavy handed removing everything I have contributed, and not just editing, and improving. I still don't see the Cochrane review you are talking about, but please, revert to my last edit and just add in one review, or tell me the review and I'll add it. I did a text search for "Cochrane" and can't find this ref so I'm not positive which one you're talking about, but be more specific and I'll maybe be able to tell you why I removed it if it was intentional. I'm not stuck on removing any Cochrane stuff. Can we please just revert to where I left off and add back this one review? 

Sent at 4:21 AM on Monday
me:  You are referring to 20847017

Did you read the article? They are including the hydrochloride and sulfate versions together. It is well documented that sulfate works and hydrochloride doesn't. They even say in that article "could not exclude the possibility of a clinically relevant effect of glucosamine sulphate" It is way too strong to say that this meta-analysis is against glucosamin sulfate. Their conclusion is not included by their data or by the quote I put directly from their analysis. This analysis just reinforce what I had previously put that the controversy about glucosmine is also clouded by investigators included the HCL and sulfate versions together as well as the heterogneity of preperations. Can we please revert to where I left off and I'll add back in this reference 20847017? 

James:  I have added back some content
me:  Some, but not all of what I added.  You have no justification for removing all of my additions.  You are tying to use the justification that 20847017 was removed to remove all of my edits.

Is that right?!! 

James:  No many of the rest of the changes were also poor
me:  Let's go back to where I left off and simple add back in 20847017.

Why can't you accept this? Where poor? 

James:  You removed the statement "there is little evidence supporting benefits for most alternative treatments"

Why? 

me:  They are all secondary sources, multiple in some cases.
James:  Yes and none of them provide more than tentative evidence of benefit
me:  Because it is biased.  It is not "little".

Great, we can put some evidence. 

James:  And the research base is poor
me:  That doesn't justify removing all of the secondary sources.

James, I have provided secondary sources for everyone treatment. This are reviews of several RCTs 

James:  Sure and some of the secondary sources are poor and some simply find poor quality evidence
me:  You read every secondary source?

Let's talk about each one at a time if that's what you want. Some of these are the same sources that were accepted on RA. 

James:  Sure how about this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=19836480
me:  I seriously doubt you check every secondary source.
James:  It states "may be beneficial"

It does not state "is beneficial" 

me:  OK, great, we can remove this one if you want.  I will accept that.
James:  Why because the research base is poor and thus the results are tenative
me:  No problem agreed, I can keep searching.
James:  We have it summarized with tentative wording but still
me:  Fine, how about all the others?  I agree to remove it.
James:  Okay this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19836480

Also states "may be" 

me:  These are both for curcumin
James:  Sorry wrong one

I meant this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=21553931 

me:  Sure, it says promising
James:  Animal studies and pilot clinical trials support the potential of B. serrata gum resin extract (BSE) for the treatment of a variety of inflammatory diseases like inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and asthma.

This is from "pilot studies" and animal studies 

me:  For me promising is not the same as little, but I guess for you it is.  Half empty versus half full

James, I still suggest, we return to where I have left off. If yo uwant to remove Boswellia and Curcumin, that's fine. 

James:  If there are only pilot and animal studies that means that their is little clinical evidence
me:  That is a much less drastic change than removing all my other edits.

Great, I agree to going back to where I left off. Removing Boswelis and curcumin, or putting them on a line that says "promising" and then add the Cochrane study back. This is a total different edit strategy than undoing everything I did. Can we please revert to where I left off, and then start editing, instead of reverting? Reverting is sloppy and going backwards. Editing might take more work, and moves the project forward. 

Sent at 4:38 AM on Monday
me:  Furthermore, your statement "Glucosamin was once believed to be effective" is contradicted by the 2012 review that I submitted.  Also, like I said above, you totally ignore inside the study where they specifically say that they can't rule out the sulfate version.

The current state of the article is misleading and inaccurate. Can we please agree to revert to where I left off? You can then remove or edit boswellia and curcumin and add the cochrane review back. 

James:  Which 2012 review?
Sent at 4:42 AM on Monday
me:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1759720X12437753
James:  Ah yes
me:  There is a free pubmed of it
James:  A meta analysis is better quality than a simply review

And the BMJ is a much better journal than what this was published in So the meta anlaysis generally takes precedence 

me:  The meta anlysis can't rule out sulfate

Reviews support sulfate. Most recent reviews. Reading all of the negative reviews, they seem to combine the HCL and sulfate and have heterogenious perperations, hence the negative or unclear outcome. The evidence for heterogeneous 1500mg glucosamine sulfate at a minimum is compelling. Anyway, can we please just revert to where I left off and make updates from there? 

Sent at 4:47 AM on Monday
me:  "Other glucosamine products are available in different formulations, or as other salts, or with varied dosing regimens: they have never been shown to be effective in clinical trials nor bioequivalent with crystalline glucosamine sulfate."

I think they also refer to your Cochrane review "This might explain the poor clinical results obtained with glucosamine hydrochloride in the GAIT study, but probably also the similarly poor data with all other glucosamine formulations compared with crystalline glucosamine sulfate, as described in the Cochrane Review [Towheed et al. 2009]." 

Sent at 4:49 AM on Monday
James:  t is still uncertain whether a genuine difference exists between glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine HCl preparations, or whether the apparent heterogeneity among trials is a result of inadequate concealment and industry bias
Sent at 4:51 AM on Monday
James:  From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220090
me:  Can we please just revert to where I left off and improve the article with all this discussion?
Sent at 4:52 AM on Monday
James:  No we are not removing the current review articles
me:  James, I don't want to remove them.

Please pay attention. 1) Revert to where I left off 2) Add back in the single Cochrane review that was lost. 

James:  That would be removing the review articles
me:  That's it.

You now say "articles" plural. We have only talked about one review that was inadvertantly removed What other review? 

Sent at 4:55 AM on Monday
James:  You removed the 2010 meta analysis from the BMJ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=20847017
me:  Nope, sorry, I'm looking and it is right there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteoarthritis&diff=549210891&oldid=549206298 

James:  It is now
me:  Nope, when I reverted it was still there.

BTW, when I left off it was still there. I think you have gotten confused because i moved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteoarthritis&oldid=549203856 That is where I left off 

James:  Okay it was moved
me:  Please search for 20847017 and you'll find it nice and cozy

Great, can we please restore to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteoarthritis&oldid=549203856 since this whole revert war is started by a misunderstanding and missing of this reference that was still there? I was confident I hadn't removed any references. Please let me do the revert. Thank. 

James:  No
me:  What!!!!!
James:  That would be edit warring again
me:  You started this revert on a mistake.
James:  Your wording was no an improvement
me:  What war, you made a mistake.
James:  No I was reverting your removal of the Cochrane review
me:  James I made many more changes than just wording.

That was a mistake The review was never removed. 

James:  And reverting your change of wording
me:  We just proved that it was always there.
James:  Yes the Cochrane review was removed
me:  Now you are changing your story.

No not removed 

James:  The second review was moved
me:  Never removed

What second review? You have always been talking about 20847017 which we now prove was never removed. Please tell me what second reference you think I removed. 

James:  Ah no
me:  No what?

No second reference? 

James:  But get consensus for your changes on the talk page
me:  Wait a second.

Now we are changing the story again. First you complain that I removed a cochrane review which was wrong. You completely revert most all of my changes with this justification. Now when you are shown to be wrong, you now want me to get approval on talk page for all my changes. 

James:  we will need to take this up latter
me:  This is getting crazy.

No, let's revert to where I left off. You made a mistake. Plain and simple. You want to update and edit my work great. I accept. I do not accept a mistaken revert that removes all of what I did. I will revert to where I left off. If you revert again, we can take it up on the WP:medicine talk page. 

Sent at 5:05 AM on Monday

James is offline. Messages you send will be delivered when James comes online. Continue this chat over SMS.

Holy crap! Do you have permission from Doc James to publish this chat conversation? If not directly illegal, it's certainly unethical to do it. It's the same thing as recording a telephone conversation and then broadcasting that conversation. Keep things that happen off-wiki there. Don't bring them here. I suggest you delete this, unless you have his permission. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I enjoy your talk page and agree with everything I read. I'm surprised with such a strong stance that pretty much says that "Alternative Medicine" is almost synonymous with quackery that you are not more forcefully supporting my position of getting proven scientifically based, double-blind placebo controlled, secondary review article dietary supplement treatments out of this quackery category.Sthubbar (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Did not agree to its inclusion but do not really care. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

We must paraphrase else it is copyright infringement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing at osteoarthritis

Hi, I see you're making changes at OA. Some I don't find problematic, but some I do. For example, the current article content stating "Cat's claw[51], capsaicin gel and S-Adenosyl methionine are practical OA treatments" is not supported by the sources and will have to be changed. Go ahead and finish your changes but please do expect to see them edited in the near future. If you don't like the edits, let's discuss on the article Talk page ("Talk, don't revert.") Sound OK? Zad68 17:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649, alias Doc James

First of all, two apologies.

  1. It is over 23 hours since I said I would check the editing history relating to "Doc James", and for various reasons I have only now got round to doing so. (I now find that his username is in fact Jmh649, although he signs as Doc James.)
  2. Re-reading what I wrote, I realise I am guilty of careless phrasing. I wrote "I will also look at the history to see how much, if any, justification there is for your criticisms of Doc James," but what I meant to write was "I will also look at the history to see how much, if any, justification there is for your claims that Doc James was edit warring and has not received even a warning, let alone a block". I came to your talk page only for the purpose of assessing your unblock request, and I decided to extend that to checking whether there was any substance in your claim that the same reason for a block applied in even greater measure to another editor. I never intended, and I still don't intend, to become involved in any other aspect of the dispute between the two of you, and I apologise for using wording which appears to say that I will look into the broader issues.

I have looked at Doc James's recent editing of Osteoarthritis. I did see several reverts, spread over several days. However, I did not see him repeatedly making the same, or partially the same, reverts, several times, as I did when I looked at your editing history on the same article. It is possible that, in the course of looking at an edit which made various changes to different parts of the article, I failed to notice that part of the changes was the same as another edit I had looked at previously. However, on the basis of what I saw I see no grounds for your claim that he was edit warring on a larger scale than you.

Just one more point. You are quite right when you mention that administrators are not immune to the policy on edit warring. I see no reason to think that the fact that Doc James is as an administrator is in any way relevant to anything at all that has happened in this case. It certainly has not affected my assessment. If you are prepared to spend your time through my editing history, you will find that I am perfectly willing to criticise other administrators when I disagree with them, and if you search long enough you will even find that it is not unknown for me to block an administrator who has been edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thanks for following up and the detailed response.Sthubbar (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE

Please pay attention to WP:MEDDATE, in this edit you added (three times) a source from 2004. Here's a rule of thumb: If the PMID is less than 20000000, stop and double-check, it's probably too old to add. Zad68 13:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Zad, thanks. The more I do this, the more I learn.Sthubbar (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I will have to remember "Zad's rule of 20000000", =D this is useful. Lesion (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bruxism

Hello, hope you are well. I am working on the above article and several dietary supplements are mentioned (mostly unreferenced). In a protocol of the medical management, I found no mention of these supplements [2] I was wondering if you were interested in expanding this section/finding some good sources for these? No worries if you are too busy. Lesion (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Very much appreciated. This source [3] seems to be the last time the magnesium link is mentioned in a journal, and sounds like it is expert opinion, "the lowest form of evidence". Might still be worth a mention, even if it is to just say there is no real evidence. Thanks again. Lesion (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess you could call it defensive editing, to anticipate that people will want to add their links to non medrs blogs etc back to the wikipedia page when they read that what worked for them is not mentioned, and they will think they are helping by doing this. It's like a cycle, someone wades in and removes all the stuff with no evidence every few years, then it all slowly gets added back. It could be argued that it is better to leave it in and describe it in terms of having no evidence to prevent this time wasting cycle. However you make a compelling argument for this sections removal, and even before you made these points I proposed moving the content about magnesium to the history section Talk:Bruxism#Magnesium. See what the consensus is, probably it will get deleted you are right. Lesion (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporomandibular joint dysfunction

Hello again. This time I'm working on TMD, very close to the topic of bruxism. This secondary source states "a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, and vitamin C may offer protection from TMD because of these nutrients' anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties" citing this study [4]. I've also encountered acupuncture in relation to TMD, and I'm guessing that chiropractic is also used to treat TMD although I haven't come to this yet (this article is going to be extensive, I didn't realize until I started work on it how much was left out). I'm thinking to include acupuncture and chiropractic in a section of management called "Complimentary and alternative medicine". What is your opinion about omega-3 and vitamins E and C for TMD? I think they probably should go in the medication section with a note explaining how much evidence there is for their use. Wondering if you are interested in this, and much appreciated if you can provide any help. Lesion (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

If I am logged in, why is there a need to block any IP? I live in China and because of the strong restrictions, I most always use some sort of proxy. Has Wikipedia not learned a lesson for Wikileaks or NSA? I understand blocking anonymous edits, just can't understand why blocking from logged in users? How can we change the policy to remove these proxy blocks from logged in users? The block does not seem to appear in my Block log. Here is the block message "Editing from 50.87.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by Timotheus Canens for the following reason(s):" Furthermore, I just realized that this block is even more ridiculous because I'm just accessing Wikipedia from my webserver, so it is no different than any other client IP. This is a fixed IP that I've paid for and could be easily traced to me for any legal reasons. Is accessing Wikipedia from Linux shell accounts restricted? I have read further and found that there are many people in my situation who agree that this type of blocking is counterproductive. Anyway, as per Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption please add this IP block exemption flag to my account. Thanks. Sthubbar (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request at a time, please (see below). EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2013 (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.

The reason that these type of addresses are blocked is because many vandals and disruptive users have a long history of abusing these type of IPs. While it may inconvenience users, this is done to protect the project and prevent the exhaustion community resources. I am not able to verify that you are editing from a location that has governmental firewalls. As a result, I'm not 100% comfortable with granting the exception. I'm not going to decline the request though. I'll leave this up for another admin to decide. Elockid (Talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, how often is it registered users using these proxies for vandalism? I am under the impression that 99.9999% of the vandalism from proxies is either from anonymous users or from recently created accounts. It seems elementary to restrict edits from anonymous users and from newly created accounts and not impact the registered, long term users.

You did not provide any method to confirm or deny what I say is true. Options are 1) Assume good faith and see that I have had this same account for a long time and have contributed to Wikipedia and provided the exception as per the documentation. 2) Provide details needed in order to provide such an exception.Sthubbar (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite often, actually. You're right when you say that a large part of the vandalism is from newly created accounts. However, those accounts are operated by the same group of people who are not new. For example, a well known vandal named Grawp is an example of a user who uses IPs similar to yours. Vandalism by them is both caused by being logged in and logged out. Please note that there many others. Elockid (Talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, What am I missing here? If a logged in user is vandalizing, then what is the challenge to restrict that user account? What difference would it make if they are logged in from a proxy or from some other IP? What is the difference? The only thing that I can guess is that you mean that Grawp logs in anonymously using proxies and vandalizes and then we are back to the first case of not allowing anonymous users from proxies to edit. Please explain to me why it is even remotely challenging to ban a registered user based on user account, no matter what IP they log in from? Sthubbar (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sthubbar, sometimes it is necessary to block certain IPs and accounts from those IPs due to proxy editing, etc. If you would like to have an exemption, please read Wikipedia:IP block exemption and advise if you agree to the conditions listed at that page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Please add the exception.Sthubbar (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Nothing seems to be done about this. I see on Elockid's talk page some discussion with Singularity42, and no result. Some clarifications 1) I am not access from an anonymous proxy. I am accessing from my private web server. This is probably behind a NAT that may be shared with other services, though it is not a public anonymous proxy. Therefore, this block is overbroad and doesn't even apply to me. 2) I am a logged in user. None of the discussion, even the talk about JarlaxleArtemis address the point that as long as I'm logging in with my username, there is 0% reason to block anonymous proxy editing. JarlaxleArtemis did not use his personal account logged in from an anonymous proxy to do vandalism, this user took advantage of anonymous proxy to conceal their identity and produce multiple account names. This is a different issue that would be addresses by requiring some minimum account age to use anonymous proxy. There is 0% reason to prevent well established, logged-in users from using anonymous proxies, which by the way again, I'm not using one. 3) There has been a request for me to prove myself. I don't deny or agree to that request, though no opportunity has been given for me to do such. If you want, you can purchase a plane ticket to Beijing and I'll take you out for a drink and you can see for yourself. How can we get this resolved?Sthubbar (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The webhostblock of 50.87.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is still in effect and my guess is that it won't be lifted. So we are left with the question whether you should be granted WP:IPBE so you can edit with your account through the rangeblock. Now we usually expect that a checkuser is needed to endorse granting this permission. Elockid has commented above and he is not comfortable granting it himself. He leaves it to another admin. But since I observe that you are successfully editing with your account even today, I'm not seeing the need for IPBE. So I'm declining to grant it, without prejudice to your making a new request in the future if there is a stronger reason. Your claim that you are not using an anonymous proxy is hard to understand, since you are editing through a webhost. We routinely block webhosts since they conceal the true IP from which the edits originate. See {{webhostblock}}. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2013 (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.

Unblock please

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

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

Request reason:

EdJohnston, the reason I am able to edit without problem now is because I am on vacation in Cambodia. When I am at my residence, I am also sporadically able to make edits. This doesn't negate the fact that I am often unnecessarily blocked. As far as I understood, there is no issue allowing the unblock request as long as I can show that I am in China. Nobody has either investigated the source IP of all my previous edits, which should prove some of them are from China, or given me some other method to verify this information. I, again, offer to you, or any other administrator, the option to come to Beijing and I can prove in person my existence there.

Accept reason:

IP block exemption granted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You can wait to see if another admin will be more favorable to granting IPBE. Meanwhile, I've made some further suggestions at User talk:EdJohnston#Please review block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because (your reason here). Please restore this exemption. I have previously had this because I live in mainland China and use proxies to access the open internet.

Accept reason:

Since the only reason given for removing IP block exemption was that you were an inactive user, and you are not currently inactive, there does not seem any reason not to restore IP block exemption. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please use review articles rather than primary research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious mistake

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).

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

Request reason:

There is some obvious mistake. I have no idea what the investigation for those other accounts or why Bbb23 has giving my account a lifetime ban. Please restore the account and the IPblock exception.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This case involves private information, so it should be delt via WP:UTRS. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:22, 27 September 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.

  • The user sent me a private e-mail but it did not say much more than what they've said here, essentially just a denial that they are a sock puppet. This is not an issue of an IP exemption. It's an intentional block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The inquisition and witch trials are based on the premise of accusation and then the accused must prove innocence. Is that what Wikipedia is becoming? What ever happened to Assume Good Faith? Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, I simply deny this false charge and the extreme burden of proof is on Bbb23 to show overwhelming, undeniable evidence. The only thing that I have seen is that I may have used the same public proxy as another user. Yes, I can image that is completely possible as the public proxy I use is a paid public service, with, I assume, many thousands of customers. What other overwhelming evidence of sock puppetry is there against me? I am not a sock puppet. This is my own individual account and you can look at the pattern of use. What evidence is there of me doing anything evil or wrong on Wikipedia? The burden is on you Bbb23, not on me.Sthubbar (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Vanjagenije, BTW, how exactly am I supposed to discuss this with Bbb23? I can't write on his talk page. I can send email, with no record, and no response from Bbb23. He just responds to your comment. Does he follow my talk page? Do you follow my talk page? This is the most ridiculous, "Let's get that guilty son of a bitch in here and give him a fair trial." It's all "Guilty until proven innocent". I was given no warning. There was no attempt to contact me and ask for my defense. There was no presentation of evidence to me. Nothing, just an unannounced lifetime ban. Have you all never heard about "It's better to send 10 guilty people free rather than put 1 innocent person in jail" This philosophy is the "Kill em all and let God sort em out" philosophy.Sthubbar (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • We don't send anyone to jail here, and we don't kill anyone. We block users to prevent further disruption. You have a wrong perception that block is a punishment, while it is not. It is just a mean to stop disruption of this project. We barely have enough people to control sockpuppetry even this way. Lengthily "trials" that you describe would be time consuming and probably useless. Our policies do not dictate that the suspected sockpuppet should be warned, and they never had. Thus, I don't understand what you mean by "Is that what Wikipedia is becoming". The process of WP:SPI has not been changed for years. You can contact the blocking admin here, using WP:pings, you don't need access to his talk page. As you probably found out (here), it was confirmed that your account is "technically indistinguishable" from two other accounts. That basically means that those accounts were operated from the same computer. If those accounts belong to different people, then it means that you failed to follow WP:SHARE. So, it is now your burden to prove that accounts do not belong to you. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, thank you for the lengthy reply and let me clarify a few of the points you made. 1) "We block users to prevent further disruption." There has been no evidence presented or even hinted at that my account has caused a single disruption. 2) "it was confirmed that your account is "technically indistinguishable" from two other accounts. That basically means that those accounts were operated from the same computer." The only evidence that seems to be presented is identical source IP addresses. Again, I state clearly that I access Wikipedia using public proxies that clearly can be used by other Wikipedians. Identical source IP addresses are not confirmation of identical computers. Again, I state again, emphatically, any "evidence" that my account is being used by the same computer as another user is either 1) False evidence or 2) Unknown hacking of my computer. I have no evidence or reasonable reason that my system, or any system I have used to access Wikipedia has been hacked. We are again in the position of "Guilty until proven innocent." There has even not been a single bit of evidence presented to me to even refute. It is simply a case of "Inside our sealed evidence vault, we have conclusive evidence that you are guilty. Please prove your innocence." How in any way can that be rational or fair?Sthubbar (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • First of all, I am WP:watching this page, so you don't need to send me e-mails. As I already explained, WP:CheckUser tool was used. It can be used to check technical evidence like IP address and user agent string, and it was confirmed that your account's information matches that of two other accounts. I don't understand what kind of evidence you expect. That's the evidence: your technical data is identical to that of other accounts. We are not allowed to publicly reveal private data like IP address, so if that is the evidence you expect, it will not be revealed. As I said, if you were sharing IP address with other people, then it was your duty to follow WP:SHARE and to disclose that connection. Now you have to prove your innocence, but only because you were not following Wikipedia policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I have not shared my computer. Period. I can't prove innocence because I haven't done what I'm accused of. Can you provide any pathway where I could prove my innocence? You are telling me 1) The Checkuser tool is infallible. 2) Checkuser says you are guilty. 3) We won't provide any information of how Checkuser determined your guilt. 4) Now prove your innocence.

Look, I go back to the inquisition and witch hunt and any other monkey trial. All of the prosecutors in these situation were good people, doing "good" work. No prosecutor wants to have to prove guilt. Proving guilt is a pain. It is much more expedient and easy to just reach a quick verdict and then put the burden of all the hard work on the accused. Well, history has shown that this methodology leads to many innocent people being convicted, exactly like in this case. I am innocent. I have not shared my computer or account with anyone. I am the only one who should know the password to this computer as well as this Wikipedia account. The only suggested evidence is identical source IP. No other evidence has even been hinted at. An identical source IP is not evidence of identical account as it has been stated repeatedly that a proxy was used, and the purpose of a proxy is specifically to hide identity. I sent you an email with further detail.

Again, even in this ridiculous, Orwellian world you are putting me in of "Guilty until proven innocent", what pathway, methodology, or evidence would you accept as innocence?Sthubbar (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16604 was submitted on Sep 26, 2016 23:32:57. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, thank you for your continued attention to this issue. BTW, I also sent an email to the Arbitration Committee.Sthubbar (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, please check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It clearly says "CheckUsers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sock puppetry is also submitted'". In the block that I saw, the only thing mentioned was the use of the CheckUser tool and that supposedly, I used the same IP as some other bad actor. What "clear, behavioral evidence of sock puppetry" has been submitted by Bbb23?Sthubbar (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I have some free time to look at this right now and I found this page: http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/UserCompare/Kauffner.html which appears to show that my account had 3 edits on the same page as this Kauffner person. Please look carefully at how weak and irrelevant this "evidence" is. 1) It is on a Admin's talk page. 2) It is 3 edits happening 3 years ago. 3) The content of the 3 edits is purely procedural to get the IP Proxy exception that I have mentioned over and over. If anything this evidence supports my position because it coincides with everything I have been saying. This is definitely not evidence of bad/disruptive behavior to the Wikipedia project.Sthubbar (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, thank you for your attention to this issue.Sthubbar (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To whatever admins may still be following this. Please read Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This is exactly what has happened to me. Bbb23 jumped to the conclusion that I am a sockpuppet and has refused to consider the fact that I am a real person. The very beginning of this page states "Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sock puppet investigation." As of now, I have seen no mention or suggestion that anything I have done is even slightly disruptive. There was a technical similarity between my account and another bad actor. This has been explained many times that I had an IP Proxy exception and it is very understandable that another person can use the same proxy. Absolutely no other consideration seems to have been given besides this technical similarity. This is in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies as mentioned above that there must be behavioral reasons and from this new page, there must be "extremely disruptive" editing. Quite frustrating.Sthubbar (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I deluding myself or is this another clear statement that what has been done to me is against Wikipedia policy? Please check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It says "The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected." This is the first requirement. Where is this evidence? Where are the diffs? They don't exist! Furthermore it says "CheckUsers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sock puppetry is also submitted" Where is the bahavioral evidence? No behavioral evidence has been proposed.

This false accusation is solely based on an output from the CheckUser tool with no behavioral or other evidence of bad behavior. Why won't any admin respond to this?Sthubbar (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Response to your email

Hello Sthubbar, in response to the email you sent to the 'crat list - on the English Wikipedia bureaucrats are not part of the dispute resolution process - as was already indicated by Vanjagenije above - to appeal a functionary block you would need to appeal to the functionaries or to the arbitration committee. — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser misuse

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).

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

Request reason:

A CheckUser result of Technically indistinguishable is insufficient evidence to convict a user of Sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet says "Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sock puppet investigation." Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations says "CheckUsers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sock puppetry is also submitted'" and "The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected.". Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kauffner&oldid=732699872 shows that behavioral evidence suggested that H. Humbert (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) was a Sockpuppet of Kauffner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). So far, this is a proper investigation. The CheckUser tool was run against this account and this is where things go wrong. My account comes up as Technically indistinguishable to H. Humbert (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). Without access to this evidence, I assume it is accurate. This is not evidence of sockpuppetry. The CheckUser tool is fallible. There are many technical reasons why my logins may appear Technically indistinguishable to H. Humbert (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)), in particular, the fact that I had an IP Proxy block exception. The proper procedure at this point would be to go back and see if there is any "clear, behavioral evidence", in particular, "extremely disruptive" editing to indicate I am a sockpuppet. There is no clear behavioral evidence or extremely disruptive editing done by my account. Please follow Wikipedia policy, realize that CheckUser is a fallible tool and that this is a case of an innocent user getting caught up in a large multi-year battle with Kauffner.Sthubbar (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Technically indistinguishable" is pretty clear. You have already filed an appeal with ArbCom, where the matter is being discussed. Now, please don't email me asking me to review this independently and asking for the evidence; "CheckUser data is never accessed or released except in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy policy and the additional restrictions placed by this policy", quoting Wikipedia:CheckUser. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 30 September 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.

Bbb23, as suggested by Vanjagenije above, I am attempting to use WP:ping to open up a civil dialogue with you to discuss this issue. If you receive this message, would you please let me know, as I don't want to bother you with unnecessary messages. Hopefully we can rationally resolve this issue.Sthubbar (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say. Please don't ping me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I apologize that you misunderstood my request. My request was to open up a dialogue. You clearly are declining. ArbCom did not inform me that they are discussing this issue, so I assumed they are ignoring my like you and Bbb23 are doing.Sthubbar (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@CheckUser Admins, please check out CheckUser_policy#CheckUser_status which supersedes the Wikipedia CheckUser Policy and it clearly states "Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." Now, I continue to state, emphatically, that I am not Kauffner and know nothing about this user, and even if that were true, this account is still perfectly acceptable as there is absolutely zero evidence of any disruptive edits or violation of policies. If the ArbCom committtee is really looking into this, then why did the admin deny the unblock request instead of leaving it open with a message "Under ArbCom review"? Why won't anyone address this issue of absolutely no abuse done by this account? I am not Kauffner.Sthubbar (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, you have been the only admin willing to at least have a dialogue about this case, and I really appreciate it. I understand you aren't a CheckUser admin and can't override any other rulings. Can you at least do me a favor, and as an experienced admin confirm the following:

  1. No "extremely disruptive" editing by sthubbar
  2. No "violation of the policies" by sthubbar
  3. No "clear behavioral evidence" showing any relationship between sthubbar and Kauffner or any of the associated sockpuppets.

Is there some evidence I'm missing, or do you agree with the above three statements?Sthubbar (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Sthubar, you're missing the point. First you're arguing that you shouldn't have been checked, and now you're arguing that the CU information should be set aside so you can then argue that this account was not disruptive. (You've also said that it was stated that "Behavioural evidence needs evaluation"--but that didn't concern this account.) But the point is rather that CU (Bbb23, in this case) was asked for a valid inquiry and found this account, then blocked it as a sock. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, thank you for talking. I don't think I have ever suggested or mentioned that I "shouldn't have been checked". In the most recent unblock request, I state clearly that the investigation of H. Humbert appeared to start properly with supporting behavioral evidence and much discussion. A CheckUser was performed on H. Humbert and it was only then that my account got caught in this net. It is only the actions after that point that I object to. After that point, there is absolutely no discussion about my account. There is an immediate assumption of guilt and 100% trust in the CheckUser tool. "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust"Sthubbar (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, the logic used by Bbb23 is as follows: Premise

  1. User A is a sock puppet
  2. User A and User B are  Technically indistinguishable

Conclusion

  • User B is a sock puppet

This logic is faulty on many levels.

  1. CheckUser is not magic wiki pixi dust
  2. Sock puppet is defined as "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose"
  3. Multiple user accounts are permitted.
  4. If User A and User B use the same public IP proxy then  Technically indistinguishable is possible from completely different and geographically separate users
  5. If User A and User B use dynamic IP address than  Technically indistinguishable is possible from completely different users

I am not Kauffner and am not trying to imply that I should be allowed to keep this account for that reason. I am a long-term user of Wikipedia, and financial supporter for over 6 year. The logic is faulty and against Wikipedia policy.Sthubbar (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sthubbar/Archive_1&oldid=1142799717"