User talk:Strot

Citing Steffen Roth

Hello, Strot. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Logo ESC Rennes.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Logo ESC Rennes.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESC Rennes School of Business and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Hello,

as far as I know, you describe yourself as a Juniorprofessor an die École supérieure de commerce de Rennes, so I strongly advice you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before stating that your school is a world class business school. Note that this also applies to the German and the French Wikipedias.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

That's why I am referring to the Financial Times ranking in order to corroborate my supposedly biased statement.

Best, Strot (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking is not about the school, it's about one, and only one, of its M.A. And that's the FT's point of view, NOT a fact. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then please indicate rankings that you would consider more appropriate? Strot (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COIADVICE before editing any articles related to your employer. Even when statements are added with sources and good faith, your decision to single out your own school but no others may give the article an unintentional element of bias. --McGeddon (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Strot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #18507 was submitted on Jun 13, 2017 17:35:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

See information given in my email request Strot (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We can't, because individual admins don't have access to it. You will need to present your reason to be unblocked here in an unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Shall actively avoid any suspicions of COI, autobiographical edits, or abuse of multiple accounts in the future. Strot (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Part of the problem with abuse of multiple accounts is that it avoids editors' scrutiny. Saying you'll be an angel in the future is not enough when you at the same time continue to try to avoid scrutiny. If you have used multiple accounts in the past, you'll need to list them. Huon (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2017 (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.

The block message says you are blocked "for abusing multiple accounts", which this request fails to address. I suggest you amend it before it is reviewed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you said in your UTRS appeal: "I suppose that I am accused of using multiple accounts to work on the article Steffen Roth, which I believe is an error."--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is an error to use multiple accounts to work on COI or autobio articles, which is why I said that I shall actively avoid any suspicions of COI, autobiographical edits, or abuse of multiple accounts in the future. Strot (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you acknowledge having other accounts or not? If so, name them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said I will be an angel in the future, that's what counts. Strot (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have nothing to confess. Goodbye then and CU soon in a different context.Strot (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not seen your evidence and therefore cannot properly defend myself. I should say that I should not be treated as confirmed sockpuppet until I had a chance to understand what actually is the case and to properly defend myself. So what precisely tells you that I, personally, held and misused several accounts? Strot (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have seen the evidence, since I just ran a CU on this account. I've rarely seen a more compelling CU case; normally there's a degree of investigation required, but this is absolutely obvious. You have used multiple accounts on Wikipedia, and having seen the IP and useragent data, nothing you can ever say would convince me otherwise. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:10, 20 July 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for your comment, Yunshui. Yet, I have not asked for your or anybody's opinion. All I have asked for is to be propoerly informed about the evidence on which you base your verdict. That's a standard in a non-totalitarian and non-kafkaesque context, isn't it? I am positive that the evidence allows for alternative interpretations once it is made transparent Strot (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser has confirmed the use of multiple accounts as above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2017 (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.

Checkuser evidence is not made available on Wikipedia, and only rarely is it made available through private channels. The policy is here. You did indeed ask for my opinion, by posting an unblock request. It is evident now that you are simply trolling, so I have removed your access to this page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LOGO ESC Rennes.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LOGO ESC Rennes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]