User talk:Let's Have Some Science

Welcome!

Hello, Let's Have Some Science! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of DavidPatrick70 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Guerillero | My Talk 00:29, 9 December 2014 (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).

Let's Have Some Science (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see that WP:INVOLVED admin User:Guerillero has done this at the request of a POV-pushing person, User:Elaqueate. There is no evidence to support the block, and it is painfully obvious that a history of such blocks all at Elaqueate's request are being done to win a content dispute by abuse of admin buttons instead of discussing any questions on the talk page or following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I respectfully request my account back to formally file complaints against the abusers involved.

Decline reason:

Block evasion is not permitted and will see the IPs and/or accounts used for that purpose blocked, too. Huon (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2014 (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).

Let's Have Some Science (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no "block evasion", the reason for the decline is inappropriate as is the block itself. I respectfully, per policy, request to be unblocked in order to pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution regarding the false allegations made.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not an activist platform, and your wikilawyering is unconvincing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 9 December 2014 (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).

Let's Have Some Science (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

you keep coming up with nonsense terms. It's very simple: the block is out of policy. There is no vandalism nor is there any disruption, nor do I intend any. If plain, simple discussion of terms and sources for an article is grounds for admins to block people, it is the admin and the user they tag-team with who are violating WP:OWN policy. From your policy page: "You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators: that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or: that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block" -- That the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption: this is self-evident. I have not engaged in any damage or disruption. -- That your conduct is not connected in any way with the block: again, as the block is made out of policy for purposes of winning a content dispute by abuse of admin buttons, this is self-evident.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:23, 9 December 2014 (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).

Let's Have Some Science (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reply to Yunshui: I addressed all your points above, so the dishonest decline is quite insulting, but I'll humor you and do it again. "*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia"

I have not, in any way, damaged or disrupted wikipedia. You can review my edits and it is clear. I have engaged in respectful discussion of sources and policy in order to improve a page.

As for the other points, I understand completely the reason for the block. It is an out-of-policy block placed by Guerillero on behalf of Elaqueate, because neither wishes to engage in respectful, collegial editing on the page in question. The block is out of policy.

":#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and

will make useful contributions instead."

As I have not caused any damage or disruption to wikipedia, I intend to continue not doing so. As I have been making useful contributions in respectful discussion on the talk page, I intend to continue to make useful contributions.

Decline reason:

Your behavior plus CheckUser have provided compelling evidence that you are committing sock puppetry. Any more requests violating WP:NOTTHEM will get your talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2014 (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).

Let's Have Some Science (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The response to the "address the points" question remains the same: #1 - I understand what I am accused of. As I am not guilty of it, the accusations are without merit. #2 - I have not committed disruption nor do I intend to in the future. #3 - I intend, just as I have previously, to make meaningful and helpful contributions. I do not know how much clearer I can be. I do not feel it is a "violation of WP:NOTTHEM" to point out that the reason for the block is invalid when the policy says that I am to show "that the block violates our blocking policy."

Decline reason:

You could write the entire collected works of Shakespeare at this point in your unblock request and it wouldn't matter, because you have totally and thoroughly exhausted our patience with your continued "I didn't hear that" non-responses to the primary accusation (sockpuppetry) against you. This was your fifth such request. That is, to me, two more than you should ever been allowed. So I'm going to make it the last one. Not only is this request declined, your talk page access will be revoked so that we may focus our energies on possibly more deserving requesters. Have a nice day. In fact, have a nice life. Somewhere else. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2014 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, the evidence for which is fairly compelling. Unblock requests which do not address this will simply be declined out of hand; hence the templated response. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The response is simple. I have not done so, and no "evidence" to the contrary exists beyond the say-so of someone involved in the page. The block is still in all ways invalid as written in the policy. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Fluffernutter, while I would love to respond to the discussion, I am currently unable to due to this inappropriate block. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post your comments here (I advise brevity) and someone will copy them over for you. The above is a standard template that perhaps could do to be altered to cope with situations like this. Peridon (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that after asking me to comment, Fluffernutter has both blocked me and then closed the discussion before I or anyone else could possibly have written a response. This does not seem civil or honest. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peridon, I have now found out that Huon and other involved administrators are using the excuse of others having started that discussion in order to claim I am "directing sockpuppets." This has all the hallmarks of conspiracy theory thinking - no matter what I do, they see it as "evidence of guilt." I am being left in a literal no-win situation with no way forward because they see honesty and compliance with policy as evidence of guilt, much in the way a kangaroo court works. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is decidedly not "pro-woo." We have stringent guidelines for WP:Reliable sources, and even a sub guidelines for medical citations, WP:MEDRS. However, Wikipedia also has a firm WP:BLP policy, as well as WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH guidelines. The article on Hari already contains a substantial amount of criticism with links to reliable sources. The editors you are accusing of being "shills" or whatever for Hari are merely enforcing BLP and similar guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used the term "pro-woo", that is a term used by User:Andy Dingley. This is an example of what I mean, trying to falsify a case against me by dishonestly blaming me for the acts of others. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "woo" comes from the Texan IP, and it seems to have been adopted by Drmies. I'm just quoting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]