User talk:ISTCC

December 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Perry Expedition, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things wrong with your request for arbitration

but one of the most important is: you do not appear to have ever talked to David Epstein with this account. Is there another one you've been using? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you were User:45.50.231.56 but then made an account. That explains it. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your case has been declined

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Please don't try to use Wikipedia to publicise your own ideas. JBW (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since receiving the message above you have made another attempt to get Wikipedia to publicise your paper. If you continue to edit in violation of Wikipedia's policy against use of Wikipedia for promotion, or any other policies or guidelines that you have been informed of, you are very likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because of your persistently trying to get Wikipedia to publicise your work and, in order to do so, your endless hammering away at trying to persuade editors to accept the place where you have published it accepted as a reliable source, your attempt to personalise your campaign by representing it as a behavioural problem of an editor who explained your mistakes to you, your endless forum shopping... in short, because of endless unconstructive editing which wastes time of editors who could have spent it on more worthwhile tasks, and which also wastes your own time, because you are never going to achieve what you are tying to achieve.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

All actions I have taken to challenge a decision by an editor were dictated or required by the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Any communications directly with a person were in response to the commentor’s statements. All my comments have been civil and fact based. ISTCC (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Arbitration is not the first step in dispute resolution, it's the last after everything else is exhausted. As noted, you're not going to achieve what you wish to achieve- this isn't the place to publicize your work. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Clarification

@JBW: Please give specific information. What specific edit(s)? What specific page(s). ISTCC (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of your editing history, both from this account and from IP editing without using an account, is visible: none of it has been deleted. Therefore you can check there and find the relevant edits as easily as I can, so I see no reason to spend my time finding them for you. However, here is a link to a talk page section in which you openly admit to part of your endless persistence in plugging your campaign, including your persistent harassment of an editor. JBW (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion if the responses contain inaccuracies, opinion and fabrication. I will state the facts and if you think differently, then you can cite to specific items for further discussion.

1. The reason given by @JBW: for the block was fabricated: "Persistent unconstructive editing". [I checked with JBW to confirm they were not referring to something unknown to me.] At that time, I had not made any edits to the Collatz page or any other page concerning the dispute. None, nada, zip, zero edits. Therefore, this reason is impossible and untrue. “Persistent”– false, no edits. “Unconstructive” – false, no edits. “Editing” – again, no edits. Even the most liberal definition of “editing” does not include the statements I have made in support of the dispute. It is hard to believe JBW does not know the difference between “editing”and the statements I made in support of the dispute. My statements can be grouped in 3 categories– statements, notifications and discussions with editors to file the various dispute resolution methods; responses to comments by unrelated people (they sought me out, I did not begin the conversation) and the initial statement on the talk page suggested by the Wikipedia information on beginning a conversation on possible edits to page (note: I did not make any edits to the page, nor did I have the ability to make any edits).

The only edits I have made during the entire time on Wikipedia started about 2 weeks ago to make the account active so I could request arbitration. These edits were only various minor edits to correct spelling and grammar.

2. The dispute is whether an editor has fabricated criteria not part of the Wikipedia definitions of a reliable source or predatory publication to block the scientific journal. The dispute concerns the journal, not any content, and whether it is a reliable source and/or a predatory publication. I believe it is irresponsible to block this journal just because an editor is biased against it even though it qualifies as a reliable source and is not a predatory publication.

In order to emphasize my statement, if TMA is determined to me a reliable source (which it is). I state on the record I will not make any edits to a Wikipedia page citing TMA as the source of the information.

3. I have not and did not try to publicize my paper. The only statement for the general public which included information on my paper was the initial statement on the Collatz talk page. This information was included so people who would be making the decision whether to add the information could read the original information. No one, either pro or con, should be making comments on a subject without reading the information first. Also, this statement was before I knew anything about the editors. I thought they would want to know the facts before deciding whether to include the various proposed facts.

I do not need to publicize my paper. Anybody interested in this topic can find the paper with a GOOGLE search or attend a math conference where I am presenting my work. JBW has suggested that statements required for requesting arbitration was somehow my attempt to publicize the paper, when the information was required by the process of dispute resolution.

4. It is confusing to me to have an editor say my request for arbitration is premature or “not the first step in dispute resolution” and then have an editor say I am forum shopping. Therefore, if my request for arbitration is premature, please tell me what steps/process/communication I need to do before requesting arbitration. If I am forum shopping, please tell me what I did that is not permitted by the escalating dispute resolution process, I will apologize, not do it again, and then request arbitration again.

5. I do not believe I have done anything prohibited by the ethics of Wikipedia. My comments are civil, fact-based, and required if I am to pursue the dispute resolution. If you believe I have done something unethical, please be specific, point it out and I will apologize.

6. I believe I have the right to dispute conduct by an editor which I think is not ethical under Wikipedia rules and definitions. If I do not have that right, please tell why.

7. If and when I am unblocked, I will only pursue the dispute concerning the TMA journal until I receive a definitive decision. ISTCC (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to drop the stick and give up on this journal. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ISTCC (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have received a "definitive decision"; the problem is that you stubbornly refuse to accept it.

If you waste administrators' time again with another tirade masquerading as an unblock request, expect to have your ability to have this talk page revoked. JBW (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block/Unblock

@331dot: – please review my response and reasons for removing the block, so we can continue our discssion. Neither comment from the other people has addressed the issue of why I was blocked and how to get unblocked.ISTCC (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]