User talk:NootherIDAvailable

Welcome

Hello, NootherIDAvailable! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Verbal chat 07:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi

Hi, have you previously edited Homeopathy or related articles under a different account? If so could you provide a link to them or name them here. Be aware that homeopathy and other pseudoscience articles are under special editing measures, as detailed on the talk page. All the best, Verbal chat 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No to which question? Verbal chat 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited the article on Homeopathy (because of the controversies) nor have I had a different account here. I haven't even had time to edit much on Wikipedia.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Please be aware that Homeopathy and other pseudoscience and fringe topics are under special measures, as described on the talk page, and that large or controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page first. Also, please familiaries yourself with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. I'm afraid homeopathyworld.com and similar meet neither criteria. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy, quackery and consensus

"Not wedded to" doesn't mean that I might not side on including "quackery" in the lead. You shouldn't leap to conclusions on consensus like that, and immediately trying to make naturopathy follow your lead on removing quackery is not good practice, nor is it logical. Fences and windows (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please do not paste in text, as you have done on at least two occassions:

This is a copyvio of http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html, and this inserts text from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy.

This is in violation of WP:COPYVIO, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding the POV tag in Homeopathy

You have now added the tag in 23 March[1], 25th March[2] and 28th March[3]. It should be clear to you now that it's not going to stick unless you give a convincing explanation in the talk page, which you have not done.

If you keep adding the POV tag I'll report you as doing disruptive editing, understood? Go to the talk page and give some compelling reason of exactly what is POV in the article, and give some good sources to support your point. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom

An arbcom request is the last step in WP:DR. What other steps have you attempted? Also, there currently is no homeopathy ArbCom request, so please stop placing notices on talk pages - it is disruptive. Read WP:DR and follow the steps there (such as an RfC), and remove your incorrect notices please. Verbal chat 10:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestion. I di'n't know what else to do. I'm trying to stay as cool as possible.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not outline what you think a neutral article should look like? section headings, summary of content, etc. Verbal chat 11:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be like the articles on chiropractic or osteopathy.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you've now posted an WP:RFC. You need to give these things time, people aren't going to respond immediately! Be aware of forum shopping too. I'd like a bit more detail if possible on what you specifically want changing - please provide it on the Homeopathy talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to homeopathy are becoming disruptive, please slow down and preview your edits. It is good to discuss an RfC on the talk page before starting it to ensure the correct issues are addressed, and RfCs take place on talk pages not in articles. Verbal chat 11:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Verbal says, it's better to discuss the RfC in the talk page before starting it, to test the waters. Also, lol, that's the first time I see a RfC tag on an article page, that made my day. RfC tags go in the talk page because people are supposed to place their comments right below them; don't worry, many people get tags placed in the wrong place when they use for the first time. (lol, while I was writing this I realized that had also opened an arbitration case in the article page. Seriously, you have to read way more carefully the instructions on the pages)

That being said, it was very disruptive that you restored the tag twice instead of going to the talk page of Verbal and ask him why he thought that it was a mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy POV tag and Arbcom

Hi, personally I think the POV tag on the homeopathy article is a borderline case. The article has severe quality issues that should be addressed by adding additional information and removing some unnecessary repetitions. But the only thing I am strongly concerned about is the last sentence of the lede, which frames the entire article. I would support a POV-intro tag, but not a POV tag for the entire article. So it looks to me as if you are starting a fight that you can't win.

Arbcom has a function somewhat analogous to the Supreme Court in the US. Formally, before you can go to Arbcom you must exhaust the other formal dispute resolution methods such as WP:RfC. Look at the section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" here to see an example of what is not sufficient. Note that there was an Arbcom case about the homeopathy article last year: WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Apart from some funny "discretionary sanctions" the only outcome was that Dana Ullman got a 1-year ban from Wikipedia.

I believe Wikipedia has a systemic bias against homeopathy and similar practices for the following reasons. There is a lot of advocacy for extremely fringe topics going on here, prompting a large number of editors and admins to adopt a general fringe-fighting mindset that can lead to throwing out the child with the bathwater. Obviously there tends to be a lot of solidarity between them. There are probably more "pro-fringe" editors, especially if we assume the extremely inclusive definitions that some here like to use. But solidarity between a homeopath, someone who believes Gödel's incompleteness theorem is false, someone who believes in cold fusion and someone who believes in ra (channeled entity), is much less likely, and they are overall more likely to restrict their editing to small areas. Both points make them vulnerable, and it seems wise not to overplay your cards.

I hope this helps to get some perspective. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've followed all the rules, so I hope they don't block/ban me. How and where do I appeal if I'm blocked/banned?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is something that can hit you because of technical violations, miscommunications etc. Whether fair or not, some editors will hold it against you afterwards. If it ever happens, you will find instructions on how to appeal here on your talk page. (If not it's a procedural error.)

Banning is much worse and takes either a community discussion or and Arbcom decision. You shouldn't think about what happens afterwards, but about how to avoid it. I am not sad that Dana Ullman isn't here any more, as I didn't like his approach at all. But the case against him looked superficially unfair.

By the way, I am sure that you didn't follow all the rules – it's impossible because they are inconsistent. Also some of the most important ones are unwritten, e.g. the rule about crossposting. The attention of the community is a valuable resource, and if you complain about the same problem to several noticeboards etc., or repeatedly to the same noticeboard, some influential people will get very angry. I recommend being a bit more careful in the future, and ideally beginning to edit in some other, uncontroversial areas to get a feeling for how Wikipedia usually works. It also makes you immune against the accusation of being a WP:SPA. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That is good advice from Hans. Verbal chat 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good advice. There are two fundamental "rules" that you haven't followed, and that is to avoid confrontation and to edit collaboratively. Turning Wikipedia into a battlezone isn't a good idea. When more experienced editors object to your edits and caution you, the wise thing to do is to stop and listen. Maybe they know something you don't. There is no rush here. There is no certainty that even your best edits will be there tomorrow. The surest way to have your edits stick and be there next year is to seek consensus on the talk page. When you have succeeded in making the necessary compromises and creating a consensus version with other editors, including those on the "other side of the table", even they will defend your edits and you'll be able to sleep well at night. Be patient. Right now you have pushed so many buttons and offended so many people that we are requesting a topic ban or worse. You should have listened, and it may not be too late. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think y'all hadn't realised that I haven't even edited the article on Homeopathy for some time now. I'm gonna now avoid posting on that article till things are clear.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You edited it yesterday. Brunton (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think adding a tag can be considered an edit.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's an edit to the article page. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#NoOtherIDAvailable

I'm sorry, but I think this necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This may need to be reinforced with a complete topic ban. This professional homeopath is misusing Wikipedia for advocacy, a practice forbidden here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Please understand that noone wants to ban you from Wikipedia: At most, you'd simply be asked to edit some other things for awhile, to get a bit more used to Wikipedia before continuing with the controversial parts.

It's hard being new to Wikipedia, and the article Homeopathy, a place with a long history of compromise and discussion, is a particularly difficult place to start in. If you spent some time editing, say, articles on history, geography, or the like, you'd probably be fine - and noone wants to stop you doing that.

The only recommendation I have is to be very careful to avoid copyvio - pasting things in from other websites, etc.

Good luck! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope we can collaborate well when I start editing the article on Homeopathy.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I second SH's comments and wish you luck. I suggest you get a couple thousand good (not minor) edits under your belt before returning to that subject, or any other alternative medicine subject that is controversial. Then you will be much better prepared to do some good without ruffling so many feathers. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mailing me!

I have been getting mail privately, but it took me some time to figure out how to do it privately, so for the newcomers, if you want to e-mail me, please click on the 'E-mail this user' link, under the toolbox heading in the column on the left to e-mail me privately through wikipedia. I'm not gonna post my e-mail address here!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

"You guys aren't allowing me to mention the positive studies"
I now oppose it being a Good Article as well, for the same reasons-mainly because every sentence/statement is criticised and no defense is being allowed
I have not taken the time to look at all of your previous edits. Could you briefly describe an example of "the positive studies" and the type of "defense" you would like to see in the Homeopathy article? Maybe you have already done this; if so, please provide a link. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this or this? Brunton (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brunton: I had previously seen this. It seemed like a suggestion for changing the order of page contents, but I was (and still am) puzzled about what was actually being proposed and why. "writing for the enemy" <-- I do not understand who "the enemy" is. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the first edits by this user were WP:POINT violations from a user who had obviously been familiar with the ongoing discussions and was planning to game the system. Their real intent soon became clear, and they admitted to being a professional homeopath who objected to the sourced use of the term "quackery", and to the well-sourced objections to homeopathy that are in the article. They then proceeded to advocate very vigorously for homeopathy and canvas for support, as well as misusing notice boards. POINT violations and gaming the system should not be ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I inserted a WHO document which showed that professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries, which was accepted and that's why I asked that the term, "quackery" be removed. I haven't edited any article here (on wikipedia) for more than a month now, after I was given a chance (read the posts above), so stop spamming my user page.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with Homeopathy#Regulation and prevalence and Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy or do you think more needs to be said about licensing and government regulation of homeopathy? We live in a world where both: #1) people are trained to practice medicine using homeopathy and governments allow such medical practice and fund research on homeopathy, and, #2) some people argue that homeopathy is quackery. It seems to me that Wikipedia should report all these facts when describing homeopathy. It seems to me that the existence of #1 does not mean that Wikipedia readers should not hear about #2. Millions of people do not seem to care if there is solid scientific research documenting the efficacy of homeopathy....given that apparent indifference, does it really matter if Wikipedia discusses such things? --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Banned user User:Dr.Jhingaadey. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

What Jhingaadey? That isn't me! I haven't even edited any article on wikipedia for more than a month now and so I don't think a ban/block is in order

Decline reason:

Per diff linked below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2009 (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.

we've seen and indef blocked this homeopathy related spammer before - can't recall the account, though <-- this does not sound like a valid reason for a block and Georgewilliamherbert never gave an explanation for the block on User talk:Dr.Jhingaadey. I want to know the identity of the checkuser who linked "NootherIDAvailable" to a banned user and the identity (previous account(s)) of the banned user. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you're not familiar with Dr.Jhingaadey, who has a long history of disruptive sock puppetry, including elaborate lies and denials of sock puppetry. A CU is in order. If the CU is totally inconclusive, then at least a complete topic ban would be necessary, and other sanctions for gaming the system and POINT violations, as detailed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited any article here (on wikipedia) for more than a month now, after I was given a chance (read the posts above), so stop spamming my user page.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, but was supplying admin JWSchmidt with information. This isn't your user page, and even the talk page is not exclusively "owned" by you. And lastly, I wasn't "spamming" the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't edited any article here (on wikipedia) for more than a month now"? I think you may be mistaken. Brunton (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Brangifer: if you are familiar with "Dr.Jhingaadey" can you tell me what account(s) that editor used used before creating the "Dr.Jhingaadey" account? --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here are some links:

• Some of the IP socks he has used.

• The confirmed usernames Dr.Jhingaadey has used as socks, and he vehemently denied they were socks of Dr.Jhingaadey. He is a liar, deceptive in other ways, and has a single purpose here, and that is to misuse Wikipedia for the promotion of homeopathy. He has always shown a gross failure to understand NPOV and its content inclusion requirements.

I hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen those pages and a related checkuser page, but as far as I can tell, none of them mention a user account or IP address linked to "Dr.Jhingaadey" that would account for the reason given for blocking "Dr.Jhingaadey": we've seen and indef blocked this homeopathy related spammer before - can't recall the account, though. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe I was too close to the situation to understand what you're not seeing. He was blocked for linkspamming and multiple block evasions. All those username and IP socks were evading blocks for disruptive linkspamming. He was also advocating constantly, but linkspamming was the reason given here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Jhingaadey Look at the blocking admin's wording.

Don't focus on Herbert's wording so much. Many others were involved in the intense sock hunting Dr.J necessitated. No matter what anyone did, he'd just pop up again with the same behavior and linkspamming. He was often identified by the duck test, and then CU. I hate to say it, but he's one of the dumbest socks I've ever encountered. (Others like Signsolid [4] [5] have been much more sophisticated, and I helped bust him.) After all the lies the Dr.J told and then was clearly busted, I'm surprised he would dare to show his face here again, but he did it repeatedly. He has no shame. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This block was based on both my familiarity with Jhingaadey's previous contributions, and evidence given to me in confidence via e-mail. I've emailed a checkuser to both look over the e-mail evidence and run a CU on this account. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Under what policy is "evidence given to me in confidence via e-mail" a possible reason for a block? --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Brangifer:"He was blocked for linkspamming and multiple block evasions" <-- the reason given for blocking was: we've seen and indef blocked this homeopathy related spammer before - can't recall the account, though. What account(s) were indef blocked "before"? "multiple block evasions" <-- If so, what blocks were evaded by "Dr.Jhingaadey"? Blocked for link spam? What links? Where is the warning to "Dr.Jhingaadey" that he would be blocked for link spam? Banned user User:Dr.Jhingaadey <-- On what page is User:Dr.Jhingaadey listed as a banned user? How was the ban imposed and for what? --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you be patient and AGF. The CU might help. Right now a block is preventive and is stopping the current disruptive behavior. To get an idea of the full extent of Dr.J's history, you'll have to start with the links to the usernames and IPs and check their edit histories carefully. I can't do that for you, and I've given you a sketch of the problems we had and for which he (through his socks) was repeatedly blocked. I can't do much more than that. You'll have to do the homework. I AGF that all those involved in the sock hunting, CUs, blocking, and reblocking were all doing their jobs properly. This current situation is very, very similar to what we've seen before. It's got DUCK written all over it and prevention needs to happen immediately. An unblock can always occur if a mistake has been made, and then a complete topic ban can be used instead. Considering the deviousness and deception of Dr.J, nothing would surprise me. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit would seem to be related and block evasion diff. Verbal chat 09:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Dr.J is obviously active at this time and once again evading his blocks. It will be interesting to see if this or a similar IP is one of those currently being used by NootherIDAvailable. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser query on this user and his IPs overlap closely with the ones listed at . If the behavior is the same, then I'd say it's near-certain to be a match. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)