User talk:Kodasnap
References
[edit]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
- While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
- Then click on "templates",
- Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
- If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Kodasnap response:
Those sources I added for naltrexone are fully registered charities which have to comply with US and UK laws, so they are reliable sources. Other health-related charitable organisations are used on Wikipedia as sources, for example Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery (which even have their own pages). The other link I added was to a TEDx Talk which, as your username suggests and profile claims you have strong connections to academia, you should be aware has a very high degree of credibility and are used in academic institutions.
Alcoholics Anonymous page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous
Moderation Management page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation_Management
SMART Recovery page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_Recovery
Alcoholics Anonymous is referred to on five separate occasions on the alcoholism page alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism and is used as a direct reference twice.
As registered charities, the C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe have to comply to exactly the same requirements and regulations as Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery.
There is no good reason for Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery to have their own pages on Wikipedia and for them to be used as sources on medical-related pages and for C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe to be barred. This is biased editing as The Sinclair Method is a medically tested, with strong evidence of efficacy, treatment option for alcohol use disorder and is, with the exception of Moderation Management, a clear favouring of the abstinence model.
I am quite happy to create a The Sinclair Method page on Wikipedia but advocacy groups like C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe should be included on such a page as they have no less validity than Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery. It also warrants statement that both C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe are national organisations as they are answerable to US and UK national legislation.
Also, I do not think it is correct that you edit medical pages using the name "Doc James" as this is clearly an attempt to appropriate a level of credibility which until you make publicly available, in a verifiable format, your qualifications and medical registration is misleading at best. You may or may not favour an abstinence model but the information I added was not misleading, had verifiable and trustworthy sources and Wikipedia should not be used for biased editing by someone calling themselves a Doctor but providing no verifiable proof that they have the right to claim this status.
I am prepared to provide you with reasonable time to respond but failure to provide a response or a continuation of the same bias will result in my pursuing this case further with official Wikipedia representatives. I would also like to receive an explanation of the validity of your username as this is of particular concern to me and I will certainly be registering my concern with Wikipedia directly should a valid explanation not be provided. I am aware that you claim on your user profile to be medically qualified but claiming this status does not qualify as proof.
C3 Foundation
[edit]By the way what is your relationship to this group per WP:COI? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Kodasnap response
I have no relationship to nor conflict of interest with this group. I do have knowledge of The Sinclair Method and its efficacy and am aware that the C3 Foundation advocates for its usage. It is very interesting that you should choose to immediately move to discussion of conflict of interest. What is your conflict of interest in not having the C3 Foundation featured on Wikipedia?
You have not addressed the fact that the C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe are registered charities in the US and in the UK and subsequently are subject to stringent legal requirements in both jurisdictions. You have also not addressed why you consider Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery to be reliable sources despite them also being registered charities.
I have also taken the time to research your credentials. Given that you claim to be an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, it is peculiar that a search for staff members at that institution produces no results for James Heilman.
Quoting from The University of British Columbia website: "Sorry, but no matches were found. Refine your search by changing the parameters in the form and/or search within all campuses. You may start over, review our Help Section. If you still need help, call UBC Directory Services at 604.822.2211 for further assistance."
I wonder should I call them to inform them of a potential fault on their system so that they can further investigate?
Also, when searching for doctors called James Heilman, I do admit I found one, based in Seattle, but the last time I checked Seattle was close to but not actually in Canada, where you claim to be based and the photo of that Doctor James Heilman doesn't resemble the "James Heilman" in your photo. (I found a second; in Cincinnati, in the USA, not Canada). Again, I wonder should I inform Wikipedia so that they can investigate a potential issue in the coding of their website as it appears not to be rendering images properly?
Also, and I am casting no personal aspersions upon you other than to say that there is something which jars strongly with a person on the one hand claiming to be a qualified physician and an associate professor on the one hand and stating they have problems with grammar on the other. Generally doctors and professors have an extremely acutely developed understanding of grammar as do the vast majority of those working in academia.
As a courtesy:
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --—Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Kodasnap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have tried to add valuable and relevant information to a Wikipedia page. This was immediately removed by a user called Doc_James. I was accused of using unreliable sources and attempted to enter into a discussion whereby I gave evidence for the veracity of these sources and also compared their relevance to direct equivalents which were in use in several instances on Wikipedia already. None of this was remarked upon, there has been no parity of esteem to equally reliable sources with Doc_James (a)refusing to discuss this and (b)leaving certain sources intact which bore no greater or lesser veracity than the ones I used. He then launched into a personal assault trying to claim I had a conflict of interest. When I pointed out that the credentials which he uses, claiming to be a doctor, are subject to speculation and informed the institution he claims to work for, but which has no record of him, and Wikipedia of the same - no different to him launching into a tirade about conflict of interest - and which, if his credentials are indeed factual he should have no concern about, this is the result. Specifically, I have tried to open a discussion as to why certain registered charities are seen as reliable sources but others are not. Doc_James ignored this. When asked again, he explicitly stated that he was aware that the sources I cited as being the same as mine are used, that he considers them unreliable but has continued to treat them as reliable by not removing them despite being on a personal mission to remove mine. There is something very underhand about treating extremely similar sources in such a starkly contrasting manner and is an example of partisan editing. Of course, your attitude is to get rid of the new user and trust the more experienced one in the spirit of keeping up a cartel of editing and to maintain an explicitly partisan approach to your editing. I would like to state that I have been harassed, defamed and implicitly threatened by Doc_James. Also, two charities, one registered in the USA and one in the UK have been defamed by his comments. Again this is a sign of double standards in terms of Wikipedia's editing policy.
Decline reason:
If you do not understand how creepy it is to contact someone's employer about their conduct on Wikipedia, then it's better to leave you blocked; this is not the project for you. Huon (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2019 (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.
I was in the process of saying: You were not ignored, you were told here that just because some inappropriate sources might exist here does not mean more can be added. See WP:OSE as well. As this is a volunteer project with tens(if not hundreds) of thousands of medical related articles, it is possible for inappropriate sources to exist, even for years. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate sources. They can only be removed if detected by volunteer editors like yourself or Doc James. It isn't always possible to do this all at once and have that be the end of it- it is a continuous effort that doesn't really end. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Kodasnap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you think it is OK for a user to defame two charitable organisations which seek to help people in dire crisis with alcohol and which are registered under the laws of the United States of America and the United Kingdom, two of the most respected legal systems in the world, then the morality of this decision is clearly questionable in the extreme. By defaming both charities by deeming them not to be worthy of parity of esteem with other charities Doc_James has clearly and deliberately gone out of his way to attack the work they do. Also, I did not go to James' employer about his conduct, I informed them that he claims to work there when he does not appear on any staff record according to the staff search facility at the institution he claims to work for. In terms of somebody potentially claiming to be a fully qualified medical professional and a representative of a highly respected academic institution, I would consider this the action of a good citizen because of the clear inherent dangers in somebody potentially purporting to be a medical professional and an academic but in fact not holding this status. In certain circumstances purporting to be a physician whilst not being qualified is a criminal offence. If you came across such a person, would you consider it good citizenship to report this? Also, when said person has deliberately tried to defame other providers of medical advice, would you consider it important to challenge their credentials if they appear to not possess them? It is also noteworthy that you accept editors going around challenging people on conflicts of interest. The only creepy behaviour is the mafioso style behaviour of Wikipedia who would rather shut down life-changing treatments so that supposed doctors can maintain their false reputations. I state again that these were creditable and reliable sources as they are charities registered under two of the world's most respected legal systems and it is therefore also creepy that Wikipedia, or at least its editors, have no respect for the legal systems of the Unitedf States of America and the United Kingdom. 21:59 24 April 2019
Decline reason:
You have no business contacting any organization about any of its alleged personnel and what they may or may not do here. It is clearly best to leave you blocked, and you are in my opinion coming close to losing your access to this page, too. I would suggest that any hope of you being unblocked involves staying away from that subject matter and finding some other area to edit in. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2019 (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.
Kodasnap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The NHS (of course, you won't pay any attention to that because, according to you, the UK's laws aren't worth zip) would disagree with you about whether unqualified doctors should be reported or not: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1053035/doctor-nhs-fake-qualifications-general-medical-council In all honesty, you can ban me from the entire site for all I care. A website which thinks that doctors who appear to be deceitful about where they work should be free to carry on unheeded is obviously hardly creditable. I presume the fact that I am now going to inform the media that Wikipedia, or at least its editors, think that its members should be above the law in terms of being able to pass themselves off as holding very senior posts in the medical profession will lead to me having a perma site ban. It's no wonder Wikipedia is seen as the most unreliable source of information on the internet. Because it is run by clowns who would rather protect their cartel than have transparency in the field of medicine.
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. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 24 April 2019 (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.
April 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
(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 the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
I would further add that Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)