User talk:NootherIDAvailable

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#NoOtherIDAvailable

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I ran a checkuser query on this user and his IPs overlap closely with the ones listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. 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)[reply]

"Banned user User:Dr.Jhingaadey" <-- I'd still like to know how this editor was banned. Where is this editor listed as a banned editor and how was the ban imposed? The earliest evidence of this editor I can find at Wikipedia suggests a newbie editor who was blocked without adequate warning (the block). There was a warning given on the editor's talk page at 21:55 saying, "Please do not paste a bunch of stuff into talk pages". At 21:55 the editor was also indef blocked. At 21:56 the blocking admin added this to the editor's talk page: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." The talk page was marked by the blocking admin as being in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and a day later the talk page was deleted. This looks like a bad block. It looks like "Dr.Jhingade" was a newbie editor with no understanding of Wikipedia and he was not warned before being indef blocked. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want him unbanned/blocked, then take it to ANI. With his history of WP:THETRUTH, sock puppetry, attacks and spamming I don't think that he'll be unblocked. Even if there were "procedural errors", wikipedia doesn't work like that. NootherIDavailable was this users least disruptive incarnation so far, and he was still very disruptive and would have been blocked anyway. While he denies it though (and I've seen the evidence, it is the same person) I don't think anyone will unblock him, and if he admits it then he should request unblock on his main account and list his other accounts. I'd still doubt he'd be unblocked. Verbal chat 18:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAN#Community_ban "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned.". You could ask at ANI to see if you can find an uninvolved admin who is willing to unblock him. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AND there better not be any unblocking without an RfC/U. The community's input must be heard. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's already been back. Brunton (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What next

The editor who created this account apparently intends to continue editing Wikipedia. I will refer to this editor as "Dr.Jhingade" because as far as I know, that was the first account used by the editor. That account was blocked for "spamming Wikipedia articles" according to the blocking administrator. This initial block was a block of indefinite duration that has become a community ban. When I look at the edits of Dr.Jhingade I see a Wikipedia newbie editor who stated that he was unhappy about the information provided by Wikipedia about Homeopathy. I do not think "Dr.Jhingade" was functioning as a conventional spammer. I think "Dr.Jhingade" was making a good faith effort to improve the content of the encyclopedia, but "Dr.Jhingade" has no idea about how to participate at Wikipedia. At the same time when the "Dr.Jhingade" was being indef blocked, two other editors went to his talk page to explain what he was doing wrong, as is general procedure at Wikipedia where we "should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking".

The terse message left by the blocking administrator on Dr.Jhingade's user talk page said that he was blocked for vandalism. I do not agree that "Dr.Jhingade" was a vandal and I do not think he should have been indef blocked without warning. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". In addition, the blocking administrator placed User talk:Dr.Jhingade into the category Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and the page was soon deleted, preventing anyone from using the page as a place to help "Dr.Jhingade" learn about the correct way to edit Wikipedia. "Dr.Jhingade" has expressed to me directly the sentiment that he does not feel he was treated fairly at Wikipedia by being blocked without warning. I have investigated the blocking administrator's actions and I feel that this was a poorly handled way of welcoming a new editor to Wikipedia. Further, the harsh response from the blocking administrator appears to be part of a pattern of difficult to understand actions related to Homeopathy. For example, about a week after the block of "Dr.Jhingade", the Homeopathy page was under probation and administrators could impose topic bans on editors. The rules for this probation period said that "Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. As documented at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, User:Georgewilliamherbert, the administrator who blocked the "Dr.Jhingade" account, imposed two editing bans ("infophile banned from talk for 24 hrs" and an editor from 213.200.67.154 was "indefinitely banned from Talk:Homeopathy for disruptive comments") early in February without warning either editor. This indicates to me a pattern of actions by User:Georgewilliamherbert in which he was too quick to impose blocks and bans without first giving warnings. In explaining his failure to warn "Dr.Jhingade" before imposing a block, Georgewilliamherbert made the point that: "We have finite time and attention". By his own words, Georgewilliamherbert agrees that "If the policy said "must warn" and I didn't due to time constraints that would be an abuse of power". I think the record shows that "Dr.Jhingade" is justified to feel that he was not treated fairly when he first edited at Wikipedia. Rather than welcoming a potential contributor and explaining to him how to participate, "Dr.Jhingade" was just given reason to think that Wikipedia was unfairly preventing the whole story of homeopathy from being told.

I agree that "Dr.Jhingade" is a difficult case, but his recent edits indicate to me that he is interested in improving Wikipedia. I am willing to mentor "Dr.Jhingade". If he is willing to restrict his editing at Wikipedia to the user space of a single account, then I will discuss with him his suggestions for how to improve Homeopathy and other Wikipedia articles. If he limits his editing to making useful suggestion on his userpage, then it might be possible for him to contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting other editors. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His recent edits appear to me to be an attempt to get wikipedia to adopt his version of WP:THETRUTH. He'd have been blocked for other reasons by now were he not already blocked. If he came back with an account that didn't engage in disruptive behaviour we'd have no reason to suspect it was a sockpuppet, and no reason to block him. Continued poor behaviour, despite being given the benefit of the doubt (we didn't block him as NootherID when he was taken to WP:AE for example), justifies this account and all other obvious socks being blocked. I'm afraid I would oppose your mentoring him, but might reconsider if a suitable third party is nominated, and he accepts a homeopathy topic ban until he shows he is a good editor. Verbal chat 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, I think you should reread JWSchmidt's last two sentences. They may not say what you expected after what came before. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after rererereading the last two sentences, I concur with Verbal. Dr.J's intention was not to improve the encyclopedia, but to use it to get the "truth" about homeopathy out there, and without any criticism in the article, or at least a censored version controlled by homeopaths. He wants the article to be a censored sales brochure. I oppose any unblocking. Since it is a community indef ban, an unblocking will of course require a community RfC/U consensus to unblock. Nothing less will do. To do otherwise will be an act of bad faith against all involved parties, and that's an awful lot of people. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

JWSchmidt wasn't very specific about the details of his offer, but it seems to range somewhere between talking with the blocked user on his talk page and unblocking under a strict rule of no edits outside the user's space. This seems to be designed to stop the sockpuppeting and anonymous edits from Bangalore.
Can you give me a pointer to the ban discussion? I was under the impression that this was a "no admin willing to unblock" ban that started with a procedurally questionable block.

--Hans Adler (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have already seen how Dr.J has misused his and other's userspace to house promotional lists of poor scientific research that supports the use of homeopathy, all as part of his attempts to get meatpuppets to do his work. He has done quite a bit of forum shopping and directly canvassing meatpuppets in order to get others to do what he was not allowed to do. His multiple blocks have occurred after repeated violations of policies and the ignoring of multiple warnings and advice. We currently don't have any policy that allows banned users to set up shop here with a big signboard in their own userspace where they are allowed to essentially flaunt the rules and attempt to canvass for others to be their meatpuppets. IIRC his long list was allowed to remain on only one userspace.

I don't recall any ban discussions that sought to protect Dr.J from the consequences of his actions. He has been universally opposed with the exception of a couple editors like Whig, who share the same POV. The discussions between JWSchmidt and GWH can be found at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/July#Dr. Jhingade, and I think GWH makes his case satisfactorily. Even if there was any slight deviation from some ideal with the first block of the one account, the rest of the history of Dr.J's actions here, the many warnings and advice given, and the multiple blocks given, more than amply reveal the Dr.J is only interested in misusing Wikipedia. GWH was not the only blocking admin. All the others who blocked him in his various guises would also need to participate in the RfC/U. Dr.J still, after all this time and many explanations, fails to understand NPOV. That can only lead to trouble, and it certainly has. I would think that JWS would have better things to do with his time than mentor a user who has shown so little capability or desire of understanding or following our policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be very clear I have not been an exception in this case, as you should well know. I have asked you before to stop trying to falsely associate me with this individual, and your continuing to do so is not appreciated. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you assume I have done so. Your objection seems to imply that I have done so, and in an improper manner. I have indeed associated your POV with his, and for the most part that seems to be true. It is also true that you have defended him, which is no great crime, but an inconvenient fact since it has later become clear he was a notorious sockmaster who was evading an indef ban. I have not said you were in contact with or actively in collusion with him. That would have been very active and serious meatpuppetry, and not the common type of meatpuppetry where one merely continues to carry on the battles of a banned user without directly acting on their behalf. You have many times uttered statements that reveal you believe in homeopathy, and he does too. Are you denying that or ashamed of it? One time I was notified that you had objected to his statement that homeopathy could cure cancer. I then noted that difference, but interestingly you said in the same statement that you also believed homeopathy could cure cancer, so the difference wasn't all that big: " It is completely false and irresponsible to say that homeopathy cures cancer, even if it might cure a particular patient of cancer. The distinction is important, because homeopathy does not cure diseases but patients on the basis of their particular symptoms and no one remedy is correct for all patients with a cancer diagnosis."[6] It appeared your objections were more concerned with an irresponsible public pronouncement ("irresponsible to say...") that could put homeopaths in a bad light, and that such statements could lead some patients to fail to seek effective treatment, but you still held that it might cure cancer in some people. I certainly hope you change your mind, considering there is no evidence for such a belief. Whatever the case, while you and I may not always agree, I haven't been harassing you as another user has, so there is no reason to continue this discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are again lacking in factual accuracy, and you bring my name up repeatedly to make misrepresentations about me. I am asking you to stop. This is not the place to argue about homeopathy, and I have not defended this user. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that an unblock is appropriate - assume good faith runs out when you have solid evidence to the contrary. We have had plenty of evidence, from the first edits on through nearly all the most recent stuff with the sockpuppets.

With that said, there's nothing wrong with someone trying to mentor the user or improve the situation. Indef blocks are not permanent - we can revoke them with good cause, at any time.

If JWSchmidt is willing to mentor the user and work with them, in the manner suggested, that can happen without any unblocks. They can edit their talk pages now.

Normally, we prohibit other users from proxying for banned users (Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users), and multiple reblocks for block evasion and an ongoing problem reaches into the definition where a community ban may be in effect.

However, if JWSchmidt is willing to take responsibility for any edits made by him, including for content he is proxy-editing as suggested by Dr. Jhingade, and feels that this can improve the situation, I don't see any harm in BOLDly ignoring the proxy editing restriction for a while to see how things go.

I am willing to make a note to this effect on the selected one Jhingade user talk page (please specify which one you want to use) and on WP:ANI to alert other admins that we're trying an experiment and not to treat these as proxying edits.

JWSchmidt, please be aware that this is an exception to normal policy, and if you or Dr. Jhingade are abusive as a result it will almost certainly be revoked by myself or another administrator. You are responsible for anything you do, whether it was your idea or Dr. Jhingade's idea or words. As long as you're willing to take that responsibility and work constructively, that is fine by me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this suggestion in an attempt to prevent further cycles of account creation and blocking. I have no confidence in our ability to reform "Dr.Jhingade"...it is up to him to decide that he accepts Wikipedia's rules. If he agrees to restrict himself to constructive edits on one user talk page then I'll certainly let everyone know that he has agreed to these restrictions. Personally, I'm not holding my breath, but I am hoping for the best. I'm no expert on homeopathy and I don't intend to make edits to the homeopathy article (or any other article that is of interest to "Dr.Jhingade"). However, if "Dr.Jhingade" brings to my attention useful reliable sources related to homeopathy that Wikipedia is not using, I'd be happy to discuss them at Talk:Homeopathy with other editors. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr.Jhingade" has posted a statement at User talk:Avathaar. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

[| Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return]

If anyone has an interest in the matter, they are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]