User talk:Let's Have Some Science

Unblock request
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter 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) 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)
 * 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&#39;s Have Some Science (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at 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)
 * Dear @Fluffernutter, while I would love to respond to the discussion, I am currently unable to due to this inappropriate block. Let&#39;s Have Some Science (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#39;s Have Some Science (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@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&#39;s Have Some Science (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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&#39;s Have Some Science (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)