Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents

Discussion

Regardless of the probity of adding an editor, they must be added on notification, and as such I consider Vassyana notified on this page regardless of Jossi's reverts. I also believe that editors must be added to this page when notified, and urge other editors to consider this diff. Unlike other editors, however, I will not edit war here. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we appeal if an admin adds themselves and we believe them not to be sufficiently "uninvolved"? I have the first part of the procedure:

1. Ask them to remove themselves.

Now that they've refused, what's the next step?

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? So he's on a list - but I doubt any editors on the "Science" side of the debate would go to him for assistance - he's been offered multiple chances to take adminstrative action in that direction and declined to do so. He wants on the list? Fine, let him stay. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that he's listed under a list that claims to be "uninvolved admins". Lets say a new editor who teaches introductory chemistry starts editing homeopathy articles and has a problem. They come to this page and see him listed as an uninvolved admin. However, I submit that their interaction with this particular admin is likely to be problematic to the point of alienation if they are not aware that this admin has a history that skews in one particular direction. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Solved. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, much better. Now we have to decide whether or not it makes sense to simply list administrators regardless of their involvement. This could open up a huge can of worms. Still, I will assume good faith and hope that administrators will recuse themselves when appropriate, as they are supposed to do according to WP:Admin. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That admin should have enough common sense to recuse themselves in the face of so many requests to do so and comments about them not being "uninvolved." Obviously a number of editors consider that admin to be in involved, and that should settle the matter. I certainly consider them to be involved and not impartial. -- Fyslee / talk 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Modification proposal to probation

Proposed modification to the probation here. Lawrence § t/e 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

I am posting this information on behalf of an editor who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of embroiling themselves in the homeopathy/pseudoscience conflict. (After checking their contributions to be sure, I can verify they are not involved in this conflict and have not been previously involved in conflict with ScienceApologist so far as I can tell.) This is simply being posted so that other sysops who are more familiar with the situation may review the circumstances. I am refraining from espousing my own opinion, instead simply organizing and presenting the evidence and arguments provided to me privately.

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) appears to be walking the border of disruption to make a point and using literalist, and potentially out-of-context, interpretations of the rules. There are also some continued edit warring and civility issues.

Jehochman warned ScienceApologist about edit warring on Rue.[1] SA blatantly copy/pasted the notice back to Jehochman.[2] This is a POINT and civility concern because Jehochman was not involved in edit warring on the article.[3][4] SA reached four reverts on the article.[5][6][7][8] This was reported and contrary to a plain review of the article history and edit summaries judged to not be a 3RR violation as somehow one revert was not a revert, and therefore it was "not a technical violation" of 3RR. (Specifically, the third edit was judged to not be a revert, but it was a partial reversion, which counts towards 3RR.) Levine2112 reverted up to the hard limit of three reverts, continuing and escalating the edit war.[9][10][11]

SA has POINTily framed the homeopathy issue of a plant's usage in homeopathic remedies, based on the known fact that homeopathic products are known to contain very little to none of the original production substance (though it is unquestionable that the original substances are used to create homeopathic preparations).[12][13] To be fair, ScienceApologist has advocated for a centralized discussion of the issue, which may be a productive step.[14][15] Discussion regarding this issue has also taken place at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Deadly_nightshade and Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Deadly_nightshade. SA appears to be dishonest in some of his dismissals, for example claiming that only homeopathic references make the claims (which is contrary to the discussions above and others SA has been aware of and/or involved in).[16]

ScienceApologist created WP:PROMINENCE as a redirect to WP:UNDUE based on the phrase "in proportion to the prominence of each" in that section.[17] He appears to be shifting the sands of UNDUE from the exclusion of extreme minority viewpoints to demanding that the claims be prominent.[18][19][20][21][22][23] These are distinctly different standards and the latter is at least a step removed from the meaning of the policy (which is simply indicating that things should be presented in proper proportion to their appearance in reliable sources). Creating a redirect to frame an ongoing argument is almost certainly a POINT violation. Furthermore, considering the ongoing and heated nature of this discussion, it is unlikely that SA was not aware that such a move would raise the heat of the conflict. On a related note, ScienceApologist is pushing principles of his own invention as though they were policy and claiming they are rooted in a "careful reading" of the rules.[24][25]

It looks like SA is extremely dismissive of responses to him, characterizing responses he does not find convincing as essentially a lack of response.[26][27][28][29] He also appears to be exhibiting bad faith assumptions about other editors, contrary to the ArbCom remedy.[30]

This dispute was raised on this noticeboard twice recently (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor disrupting editing with false claims of WP:PROMINENCE and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clarification of Homeopathy Probation Edit Policy).

Please be aware these are not all relevant diffs, simply a random sampling of the most recent. It would probably be worth reviewing the actions and posts of other editors engaged with ScienceApologist, to take into account any possible baiting and to ensure all parties are treated equitably in this dispute. Thanks for your time and attention to this situation. Vassyana (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a series of shocking misstatements in the above writings. I will attempt to adress as many of them as possible, but I'll start with a standard note - "This is yet another in a series of complaints directed by supporters of pseudoscientific claptrap against SA. Over the past 7 days SA has made a distinct and substantial improvement in his civility, which was the concern expressed (again and again and again and again) by psuedoscientific supporters. It appears now that with his dramatic and continued improvement in civility, said supporters are attempting to find another tune to dance to - in this case it's hard to tell if it's revert warring or just being difficult about sourcing. Whatever, file an RFC for your content disputes like every pro-science editor is told to."

1. SA was reverse-informing Jerico of the article probation, which is a requirement for probation-related bans. While he could have changed the phrasing of the note, the technical requirement that such note be delivered excuses his copy-pasting of the notice. The warning was not for reverting. A message on a talk page is not disruptive - as such, it cannot violate WP:POINT (state your point, don't prove it).
2. The third revert was not technicaly or actually a revert. In additon, they were both edit warring, but only one of them was calling non-vandalistic edits vandalism. Calling non-vandalistic edits vandalism is an attempt to anger editors by stating their motive is to disrupt the encyclopedia. This a not a possible violation of civility, it is a directly stated violation of it.
3. Calling SA "dishonest in some of his dismissals" is a violation of good faith. There is the possiblity that there is a failure to communicate, or that he is ignoring what his opposition, who are frequently complaining about him through the various adminstrative pages. Dishonesty requires intent.
4. SA's stating that his understanding of policy is careful is perfectly appropriate. If his opponents do not like his understanding, they can file content RFCs to get further input from uninvolved experienced editors.
5. WP:POINT requres disruption. Redirects, in addition to being cheap, are not disruptive.
6. SA has asked numerous times for his opponents to state clearly and sucinctly that the sources they provide demonstrate the prominence of homeopathy to the plant - they do not do this. He is dismissive of their further evidence that the plant is used by a homeopath, because they aren't willing to show the prominence of homeopathy to the plant.
7. Finally, SA is not creating disruptive sockpuppets to harass his opponents, he is not soliciting editors from outside of wikipedia to come to his aid and he has improved dramatically on his civility. His opponents have not taken any substantial steps to improve their behavior. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be helpful to give ScienceApologist a 30 day break from editing homeopathy articles? Perhaps they could get involved in non-controversial articles and develop better collaboration skills. Comments? Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto for PouponOnToast. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Implimented by choice. I do not intend to edit in science related article space for the month of February persuant to User talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal‎. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, I have made no substantive changes to any homeopathy article since Jan 28. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Then please refrain from making combative remarks on the related talk and project pages. That will be a big help. I recognize you are frustrated, but Rome wasn't built in a day and this dispute won't be ended so quickly either. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A list of "combative" remarks would be helpful. I waive your obligation to assume good faith. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I am hoping that you will calm down, so I will wait a day, and see if there is still any need to provide such a list. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I would find the list useful for personal development. Please place it in my userspace, I will copy it, and then list it for speedy deletion. Thank you. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that this discussion was closed on WP:ANI and then posted to a much less visible page. I don't think any action against SA is justified at this time. I dropped in on Talk:Deadly nightshade last night and I think that what SA is saying about sourcing is sensible. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

People at ANI asked us to "take it outside" because they were getting sick of all the bickering. Anything here that results in a sanction can be appealed to WP:AN. ScienceApologist has been edit warring and disrupting this attempt at resolution. If you could speak with them about better ways to address their concerns, that would be a good thing™. Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between a sanction applied after a discussion at a high-traffic page like WP:ANI and one applied after discussion on a page that few people are watching. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but any uninvolved administrator can apply a sanction with no discussion whatsoever. Talking here is not as good as ANI, but better than not talking at all. I suggest we attempt to resolve problems here first, then go to ANI if more opinions are needed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I get to know the identity of my accuser? Should I refute every diff's characterization point-by-point? What would the people here have me do? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything will be applied at this time, since there is no consensus, so I don't think you need to do anything. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the concise response. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

[31] —Whig (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're accusing someone of POV-pushing? Interesting. Very good edit, I might add. Nice to clean up the Anti-Science POV from this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a warning, labeling anything "POV-pushing" has been enough in the past to be called "uncivil". I was blocked for calling an edit "POV-pushing" in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not warning me are you? I just was repeating what Whig titled this section. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I was warning Whig who seems to be the only one calling any specific edits "POV-pushing". According to some of the more creative administrators at Wikipedia, labeling an edit "POV pushing" is an uncivil attack! However, with the general climate at Wikipedia now, I'm afraid that almost anybody can get caught up in being punished by administrators who think that civility must be preserved over the integrity of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Line up to drink your dose of Civility :-) Shot info (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on admins and probation

Admins who edit these articles, especially those who worked on them prior to the probation, are not exempt from probation. All users are bound, including admins. Lawrence § t/e 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi is an involved editor, not to be listed as uninvolved admin

Per:

• Jossi (talk · contribs) [32] Lawrence § t/e 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (Per Jossi's edits to Dana Ullman[33], "homeopathy's foremost spokesman"[34], and Strychnine tree[35]).

Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to argue that someone is involved or not involved is a fools game. Let's just have a list of admins willing to use buttons or mediate. If it turns out an involved admin uses buttons, we'll escalate at that time. No use fighting over it now. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a bit bizarre that this is a point of contention. Not being listed as willing to mediate or provide enforcement doesn't exclude one from actually doing so. east.718 at 22:44, February 1, 2008

A variety of users in several pages asked Jossi to recuse, as an involved editor. It would be out of bounds for Jossi to provide enforcement on issues in this case, as an involved party using the tools. Anyone can mediate anything, of course. Lawrence § t/e 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This section has resolved itself. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This probation is becoming a joke, I have advised User_talk:Jehochman#Please_keep_an_eye. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And just note that I get informed of any disruption on these pages, regardless of this probation, and regardless of who the editor involved is, I intend to use my admin privileges if I see it necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

protected admins page

Good idea. One note, however - put the section header (==Admins==) on the protected page so that admins clicking "edit" by the section go to the right part, similar to RFA. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. east.718 at 00:25, February 2, 2008

editor used this probation as leverage in a content dispute

An editor is edit warning me in a content dispute. This probation may have unintended consquences. Quack Guru 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic is on article probation for everybody, so it doesn't give anyone an advantage. The mention of probation wasn't even directed at you, it was a general statement. east.718 at 00:25, February 2, 2008

It was directed directly at me. Hyperbole wrote: And if you remove the material, considering that this article is on probation, I suspect the admins will take a very dim view of that. It was disruptive and smacks WP:POINT. Quack Guru 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, this user is also aware of probation and so has the eye of justice cast upon her/him as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's commenting on the state of the article. An example of commenting on you would be specially pleading to admins by saying "look, he's on probation, he must be disruptive!" east.718 at 00:42, February 2, 2008

Disruption

PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) - Creates this Wikipedia:DELETEHOMEOPATHY page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he's trying to make a WP:POINT, except that I have no idea what point he's trying to make. Is he suggesting that some Wikipedia editors are trying to delete homeopathy (whatever that means) because someone once told them not to?? --Hyperbole (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_1#Wikipedia:PROMINENCE_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.23Undue_weight. Geez. PouponOnToast (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an admin is trying really hard to be offended as can be seen here. Shot info (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

I'd like someone to please take a look at this. —Whig (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin claimed you made a personal attack on him at his talk page; I see that all you added to his talk page was a notification of this probation. That is obviously not a personal attack. Don't worry: Orangemarlin's "final warning" is completely toothless, as he is not an administrator and cannot block you. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong from you, Whig - the notice was obviously a mere formality. That templated notice on your talk page isn't cool though. :| east.718 at 21:04, February 2, 2008

If you mean the notice that Orangemarlin placed on my talk page, I deleted it. —Whig (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for the ambiguity. east.718 at 21:23, February 2, 2008

edit warring at Homeopathy over category

Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of article probation, but I thought it was supposed to stop edits like: [36] [37] [38] [39]. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like editwarring by User:Art Carlson, User:Orangemarlin, User:Dicklyon, and User:FCYTravis to me. Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And now, [40] [41]. I'm starting to regret recusing myself from enforcing the probation. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet, I alone have been banned for taking one side of that arguement. For suggesting since there is no consensus lets move on. Since I've left things have only gotten worse. Imagine that. Hummm? The position I have taken has been supported by a number of experience moderate editors. Anthon01 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nore ironic is I never touched the article page. Anthon01 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Concern regarding Felonious Monk--nothing personal

I am respectfully questioning whether or not the admin Felonious Monk should be on the list of blocking admins given his vote to ban User:Whig here and User:Abridged here. A community ban seems like a pretty serious step, and there didn't seem to be any consensus that those bans were justified. Also, some evidence of involvement in the general area of homeopathy based on these edits: [42], [43]. (I'm not saying I agree with the edits or disagree; they may have been entirely appropriate, I'm just concerned about involvement in the subject area). Abridged ^talk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing your best to ensure that there are no "uninvolved" admins. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I am expressing a concern about an INVOLVED admin. Please AGF. Abridged ^talk 13:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Abridged, the combatants will not be allowed to pick the enforcers. If Felonious Monk does something to you then you will be able to appeal the action. Attempting to eliminate his participation because you fear he might do something is not acceptable, and is disruptive. If you continue on this path, you will be topic banned. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that admins weren't supposed to enforce in areas they have edited in. I am just raising a concern because FM has edited in this area. I not disrupting, I am looking to clarify the rules. I thought I read above that if anyone had concerns that "enforing" admins were involved, they should civilly express them. I was just doing this. There is no cause for threatening me with a topic ban. Abridged ^talk 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Polite disruption is still disruptive. Stop now. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I was not disrupting. I was just doing what is supposted to be allowed. Why are you being so rude? Abridged ^talk 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by MartinPhi

I reverted this addition to the talk page [44] by MartinPhi. I'm not sure what this falls under, but surely it falls under something, ie disruption. What has been doing on at Raymond's talk page has been going on in full view of the WP community, so it is not some big secret to anyone who has been editing over the past few days. That being said, the addition had no implications to further the homeopathy article. And he was already notified, prior to this, about the probation of the article. Prior to posting this, he added the passage back. Baegis (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:TALK--talk page posts are supposed to be for improving an article, rather than general discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and those bit he inserted didn't help the article at all. Baegis (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The section was removed as having nothing to do with the article. However, it was a call for NPOV editing, with reference to a page were Homeopathy was being discussed, and actions concerning Homeopathy were being planned. It was also removed as soap boxing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptions that need attention

I have left messages starting here (in this section), and here. Please do something about these editors. -- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My failure to agree with Fyslee is not a disruption. His threats in my talk page are, however. —Whig (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your continued stonewalling is disruptive and my explanation of why it is improper is not a threat. AGF. This page is made to be used, and it was you who told me to report this matter. You did it on your talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 08:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider this vandalism. [45] —Whig (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that I apparently vandalized my own talk page by placing it there and that everyone else who adds the template to talk pages where homeopathy is being discussed is also vandalizing. Interesting.... You need to AGF of me and of the template. It is a notification template that is good to have. -- Fyslee / talk 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am disengaging as Whig is becoming extremely defensive, failing to AGF, and refusing to accept any helpful advice. -- Fyslee / talk 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But you placed it on his page without asking him or telling him. Anthon01 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It's possible that the talk page of a participant in the discussion might also be a page subject to review. But I'm forced to admit that placing the notice constitutes "telling him" under Wikipedia policies, as you receive notice on edit edits of your talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two things here. I was notified about the article probation some time ago, and Fyslee was not notifying me. What he did was place the homeopathy-warning template on the top of my talk page so that visitors to my talk page would be warned. What he does to his own talk page is his business. —Whig (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax, everybody. Templating somebody's talk page could be viewed as provocation, but not vandalism. I think people can template their own talk page if they desire. Nobody is forced to visit Whig's talk page, so if he wants to make it a battle zone and suffer disruption, that is his business, so long as it is not being used to attack other editors, in which case we have a variety of control measures available. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've slept on it and am relaxed. If I had placed a homeopathy-probation template on the top of Fyslee's talk page, I would have been banned. But since this is a user talk page dispute the Article probation/Incidents page may not be the correct place for this dispute to be. Or perhaps it is, I'm not sure that it matters. —Whig (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to think about it, the template is normally placed at the top of article talk pages, but placed like ordinary comments on user talk pages. I guess that's what I should have done, just like has happened other places, and what Whig had previously done to me. His edit history shows he has been placing warning templates on several other user's talk pages, even before and after I placed the template on his talk page. I have no particular interest in pursuing that matter. If Since he chooses to continue to ignore the warning in the template by continuing his disruptive stonewalling, as well as advocacy of homeopathy on talk pages several places at Wikipedia, then I'll let admins apply the sanctions named in the template. -- Fyslee / talk 04:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing the diffs that support your allegations of 'disruptive stonewalling'. Are your accusations accurate? Dlabtot (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee has already come to my talk page to apologize, I haven't been placing templates, though I have notified several people of the article probation as required to make it applicable. It shouldn't be necessary that I come here to defend myself again after accepting Fyslee's apology. —Whig (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The apology was only as regards my method of placing the template, as explained above. Your's, Anthon01's, and Martinphi's stonewalling are still a problem. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A diff would be helpful. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. It's similar to what's above. -- Fyslee / talk 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and forgive me for not being clearer. I was asking for a diff illustrating recent stonewalling. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me turn the question around. Please present a selection of diffs from your contribution history that show encyclopedic contributions, as opposed to argumentation (often in the form of politely phrased questions), lawyering over the rules, and lobbying for alt-med causes.[46][47][48] You have a very polite tone, but you seem to want to engage people in endless debates (stonewalling) and repeatedly make polite requests for information that is easily found. This all appears to be an effort to advance a content agenda. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The agenda is to make alt-med articles balance using V RS. I will give you an example in a moment. First you diffs. You've posted three diffs. The first one is in response to an editor that deleted someone else post on a talk page. As far as I could tell, there was nothing inappropriate in his post, and I ask the editor not to delete the post.[49] The second one is in reference to an redirect for deletion. I answer Lisa's question and asked a question, that once answered, would allow me to cast an informed vote. The third is a direct result of "stonewalling" by the admin, East718 who banned me. I'll post some examples in a moment. Anthon01 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather then give you one diff, I would like to present at once the result of over 100 diffs on an article. What is the best way using WP software to do that? Anthon01 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I haven't gotten a response I will respond it the best way I know how. I hope it suffices. Here is a diff, provided as a starting point and not as an edit example, that shows the Wheatgrass article about the time I got started, October 2007.[50] Please view the whole article below the edit boxes. Compare that to the current wheatgrass article. Almost all the significant diffs are mine, from October on. Keep in mind that I had just started editing wikipedia at that time. The page needs lots more work, but it was a start. I removed the promotional stuff that formerly populated the page, initiated the creation of a disambiguous page, added peer-reviewed references and tables, expanded the history and the intro, and added the pretty picture of wheatgrass in the intro. 1) On the wheatgrass page I have actively removed promo material. 2) Wheatgrass advocates assert that "1 oz wheatgrass juice = the overall nutrient content of 2.2 lb. of fresh vegetables." I am always fascinated by such assertions but view them with a good dose of skepticism. So I searched the FDA nutrient database and discovered that claim wasn't credible. The wheatgrass page now reflects that. BTW, I drink wheatgrass on a regular basis. In spite of that, I followed the sources. I think that's NPOV? As I have been accused of being a "POV pusher," here and elsewhere, I suggested that a I am, or better yet, have become a Neutral "POV pusher." Anthon01 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this user has been singled out. Presumably he is not arguing against himself. Therefore there must be two sides to this 'endless debate'. You accuse him of trying to advance a content agenda but I don't see how his actions are substantively different from the actions of several editors involved in this fiasco, some of whom are quite explicit in proclaiming that they are trying to do just that. How is 'stonewalling' different from 'continuing to disagree'? Did User:Anthon01 make any disruptive edits? Dlabtot (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference. When there is a consensus, or when Wikipedia policy is clear, those who continue to disagree|argue|stonewall (choose the word you like) cause harm to the project. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not an experiment in unlimited free speech. Talk pages are to be used to help improve the articles, and users are expected to work cooperatively. Those who come here to push an agenda are sooner or later asked to leave. Disruptive editors will be removed when they have exhausted the community's patience. This article was put on probation to facilitate those removals. I am waiting, showing patience, and observing which editors are able to act cooperatively, and which are only here to argue. The argumentative ones will be removed eventually. In looking through Anthon01's contributions I see that they are not building an encyclopedia. They are engaging in advocacy. This is an improper use of a Wikipedia account, and if it continues, they could be banned for a long time. There is no deadline, however. I am wiling to wait a while to see if things improve. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

When there is a consensus, or when Wikipedia policy is clear -- which is pretty obviously not the situation here. Dlabtot (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus does not mean what you think it means. Wikipedia is a clueocracy. All opinions do not get equal weight. The single purpose accounts who are here to promote homeopathy, and do so with counter-policy arguments, wiki-lawyering and endless polite questioning, get almost no weight when it comes to assessing consensus. Likewise, the pro-science edit warriors who oppose too strongly, in violation of NPOV, will also have their arguments discounted. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether I am ignorant of the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS - do you believe there is a consensus? What about this RfC? Was a consensus reached there? If so, was it implemented? Or was implementation stonewalled by those who disagreed? Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of endless disruption and discussion can stop a consensus from forming, and is a serious form of stonewalling. It behooves editors who find themselves arguing against the good sources used (IOW failing to learn and change their POV) and against policies, to stop the objecting and sometimes simply be silent and allow things to progress forwards. Sometimes the question to be asked is "Why isn't there a consensus?" If it's because of contrarian obstinacy and stonewalling, then the lack of consensus is the fault of those who are stonewalling by their endless advocacy and pushing of minority and alternative agendas. Those POV may be allowed (and may even be required) in articles if properly sourced, but the POV are themselves disruptive because they are often denying reality or are against scientifically validated viewpoints. It is often a form of OR for fringe editors to come here and attempt to argue against the scientific majority POV. Another matter is that continually claiming that "there is no consensus" (as a means of stopping unfavorable edits) and then asking "do you believe there is a consensus?" (when there obviously isn't) is not constructive, but is just more stonewalling and is disruptive.

It is important to distinguish between two things:

1. Editing an encyclopedia often requires that we use the "writing for the enemy" tactic when including distasteful nonsense that must be included because NPOV requires even nonsensical realities to be documented and included.
2. Actually believing nonsense is bad enough, but expressing those POV in order to advocate them is not okay. That's not editing, it's preaching and advocacy, and that's disruptive and draws attention away from writing an encyclopedia. If those POV were scientifically documented majority viewpoints it would be perfectly fine to simply assert that reality is reality, which, if done civilly is a legitimate defense against the advocacy of nonsensical POV as if they were reality.

In short, nonsense and fringe viewpoints may need to be included using good sources, but they should not be preached or advocated. Wikipedia talk pages are not mission fields for such POV missionaries. Proselytizing isn't allowed here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that characterizing disagreement as fringe and nonsense is the problem, rather than neutrally acknowledging the fact that people hold a diversity of viewpoints. It is not required that editors share the same or hold purportedly mainstream views, and it seems that you are engaging in the very behavior you complain about on behalf of your own viewpoint. If the NPOV policy is followed and all significant views are included in the article with verifiable and reliable sources and described neutrally, then battle will presumably come to an end. The fact that some editors want the article to present a particular POV, whether that POV is presented as scientific or mainstream it certainly is not the case that everyone agrees, and homeopathy in particular is very much a part of the mainstream in many countries all over the world, even though it has a number of critics who claim it is pseudoscience. It is not stonewalling for editors like myself (who you have accused above) to decline to change our own POV. You do not have to agree with my POV, and I do not have to agree with yours. —Whig (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

expand area blocks

The warrioring is getting out of control. Can we start issuing topic bans instead of article bans, and have that topic ban include these pages, such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents and Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation? Please? I see at least one editor here that is banned from Homeopathy but is all over this page, not helping Wikipedia. If people are actually here to work on Wikipedia, there a million other articles to work on if barred for a week from Homeopathy junk. If they are incapable of working on other topics or areas, perhaps they should be permanently shown the door. Lawrence § t/e 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to cut people off when it isn't necessary. If anybody needs to be topic banned, please post diffs showing disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Get up, get get, get down

major edit without talk page discussion revert revert major edit without talk page discussion revert revert revert revert revert revert. 911 Is a Joke. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Action has been taken. Please do not make inflammatory comments. Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article edit warred over was the main article. I noticed the edit war two and a half hours after the war started. The first action taken was 3 hours later. When is it ok to call 911 a joke? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption on Talk:Arsenicum album

[51] —Whig (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see anything wrong with trying to get input as to a potential merge target before formally proposing the merge. I proposed the wrong target at metalogic, although it still appears that the present article should be merged, although an article on yet another topic by that name might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disruptive, there is no consensus to merge the article anywhere. Arthur Rubin participated in a recent AfD (brought by a since-identified sock of another user) on Arsenicum album, and argued for merging without providing a reason, nor did he respond to a request for clarification. He is seeking to disrupt by any means, per his comment in that AfD: "Do not keep intact." —Whig (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one looks at the section, it appears there is merely a difference of opinion, but characterized by Whig exercising extreme bad faith towards Arthur Rubin, including allegations that are personal attacks. Thus his complaint here is actually a form of forum shopping and is very disruptive. His accusation falls on his own head. Arthur's judgment of his attacks as disruption is quite accurate and should have consequences, especially under the reigning conditions of this article probation which he knew existed when he wrote his attacks. -- Fyslee / talk 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Fyslee, take a look at the Outside, uninvolved opinion from User:Keilana. —Whig (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So Keilana agrees with you. Fine. That's not the point here. I couldn't care less about the subject, just your attitude and comments towards Arthur. You were failing to AGF, which is a policy violation. It's not collaborative and in the situation was disruptive. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic related problems

civility problems and copyright violations and exposed a person's real name

[52][53][54][55][56][57] EBDCM is a newbie but is making uncivil remarks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Safety_issues The safety issues section has a text dump of copyrighted information.[58]

Please take a look here.[59] EBDCM has put a link on the talk page claiming he knows who I am and by clicking on the link at the website exposes a real person's name.

This was reported to the noticeborad but no action was taken. Regards, --QuackGuru (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=191113326 After I made a report here the probation tag was removed without any reason. I do not understand why. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=191813064 Read the edit summary.

I am offended by the edit summary. I want more uninvolved editors and the probation restored. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: EBDCM has apologized and was sorry.[60] QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

insensitive remark using the offense word hate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=191818149 I hate to do this, but I agree with QG.

This is what happens when the probation tag is lifted. Draw your own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to QG misusing my comment above and have edited it accordingly and have strucken out my misused comment above. As to his other complaints, there may well be problems with some edit summaries, but they have nothing to do with homeopathy and should be dealt with using any normal rules that might apply to uncivil edit summaries. -- Fyslee / talk 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I agree with QG... Read the entire comments. Before and after. What in the world does it mean when Fyslee claims I hate to do this, but I agree with QG... QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on misusing my statement? Don't try to make my statement mean more than was intended. I definitely do not agree with you on many other matters, and you seem to be misusing my statement to make it appear I agree with you on this matter. That's not the case, so please leave me and my statement out of this. Please delete it (the "I hate to do this...." link and statement above) immediately or I'll have to take this up the chain of command and have you dealt with in a more severe manner. -- Fyslee / talk 04:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about Fyslee stated: I hate to this, and then went on to say, but I agree with QG. This was an insensitive comment and very offense to me. The statements by Fyslee makes it clear to me he hates to say he agrees with me when he does agree with me on any matter. That is what it appears to me. Please leave me alone with your incivil remarks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I request permission to restore the probation tag. QuackGuru (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that all this time your use of my comment was because you found it offensive? I had no idea! This is a revelation. I had no idea that that was the issue. All my comments above were made under the assumption that you were talking about something else. Sorry about the confusion. It would have helped if you had spelled it out instead of just listing a bunch of links and words from various people without much explanation. (Note that his thread is based on a previous edit that has been moved here and is now out of context.) It looked to me like you were attempting to make my words of support in one limited situation look like words of support for you in all situations, which is not true. As my revision of my comment shows, I thought you were talking about something else.

As to "leave me alone with your remarks", sorry, can't do that. You quote me and apparently are accusing me of something, so I have a right to defend myself. This has nothing to do with homeopathy or the probation. This is apparently about some difference of opinion, and where I actually agreed with you. You cannot force me to agree with you all the time, so just be grateful that I agreed with you that time. If you take offense, that's your problem. -- Fyslee / talk 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would quit your constant refactoring of your comments above, especially since I have already replied to their earlier versions. This one now adds the word "hate". That word obviously has many meanings and my use is perfectly normal jargon of an inoffensive and informal nature, and has nothing to do with anything serious or of great consequence. Please stop making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I took the "I hate to do this, but I agree with QuackGuru" as being not that he hated to agreed with QuackGuru, but that he hated to disagreed with me and User:EBDCM. I took that as an "I'm sorry, but you're wrong" type comment. I can see how QG might have taken it that way, but I don't think Fyslee meant it that way. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee meant something and it was directed at me. I was insulted. Agreeing with me sparks hatred? This was disgraceful. QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are determined to spin this as negatively as possible, and that is disruption. My use of the word has nothing to do with "hatred" in the sense you are using it. Please drop this disruptive use of this page. Even I am getting embarrassed seeing you behave like this. -- Fyslee / talk 06:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With all of things to fight about on this article, why go to so much effort to find additional things to get angry about? This is a non-issue. Drop it, stop going out of your way to pour gasoline on it, and move on. MastCell ^Talk 06:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to Arsenicum album without discussion but with deceptive edit summaries

Neither this edit nor this edit were discussed on the talk page of the article, contrary to edit summary. Editor making said edits is under an unblock-mentorship agreement, though it appears their mentor has taken a break. The terms of the most recent unblock-mentorship was that the editor "may only make significant changes (anything past typo fixes, spelling corrections, etc.) after you have reached a consensus on the talk page." I am unwilling to deal further with disruptive single purpose editors-for-profit with conflicts of interest, so I leave it to someone else to even engage in discussions regarding this. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Information that was not relevant to arsenicum album was removed. Material had previously been added with the intent of "debunking" and discrediting homeopathy in general. That has no place in an article on arsenicum album. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if the edit was right or not. It's been made clear that the order is discuss your major edits before making them. I seem to have missed the discussion. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't disagree with the edit, then placing procedural roadblocks is just wasting everyone's time. Obviously a lack of disagreement is consensus. —Whig (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of my agreement or lack there of, the edit was never discussed. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that there was no discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that PouponOnToast has been making bold edits to the same article and citing WP:BRD as justification, it is hard to reconcile with these protestations. —Whig (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not under an unblock-mentorship agreement, nor ar my edit summaries dishonest. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the opinion of the mentor on this matter? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lame. That's what this is. Lame and ridiculous. I'm semi-breaking from admin duties (not including mentorship) for a few weeks, I'm not on a wiki-break. If there's nothing wrong with the edits, then sit down. Dana doesn't need to be blocked for making constructive edits. There's been discussion on the talk page, I could go read it, but considering it's been stated that it's not a bad edit, I don't see the point. Come to me when he does something wrong. Until then, we've all got more important things to deal with. Lara❤Love 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's a terrible edit - basically removing an just one side of the "dispute" over the effectiveness of the substance. It was definitively something wrong. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(note - links corrected) PouponOnToast (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you and Dana read the same essay. So just discuss the changes and work out a common ground. There wouldn't be a need for probation if you all could just work together peacefully. Work it out. Lara❤Love 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, are you removing the restriction that Dana discuss his proposed changes on talk pages and reach consensus before making them? If you are, please note that on Dana's talk page. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, it seems that some editors here are not reading the Discussion above [61]. Several days ago I posted information about some recommended changes that I was proposing. I then said that I was going to make these changes unless someone suggested otherwise...and I only received support for doing. Not a single person said others. I then made the changes. Why someone would say that I didn't get support is a bit unclear and suggests bias. As for my summaries, I rightly encouraged people to read the Discussion, though I'm surprised that this wasn't done. This is an article about a specific homeopathic medicine, and the information here should focus on that subject, not the entire subject of homeopathy. If the entire subject of homeopathy needs to be in every homeopathic article in wikipedia, should we expect the entire subject of herbology be included in every article on a single herb? Of course not. And to clarify, LaraLove is still mentoring me, and it is strange that some editors above would suggest otherwise even though they also noted specific mentoring from just last night. To me, these complaints against my editing and me are false complaints that do not show AGF. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly did you discuss this? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since LaraLove is no longer taking admin action, the mentorship of Danaullman should be remanded to an admin who has the time and the willingness to use administrative actions. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that the edits were made with deceptive edit summaries, and I'm requesting a review under the proceedures of this probation, whether or not Danaullman (talk · contribs) is on probation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 February 2008

ScienceApologist is incorrect in saying that LaraLove is no longer my mentor, as her comment to me at my userpage simply 12 hours before ScienceApologist wrote his above comment shows (I wish editors would do a little homework before making accusations). Let's [ASG]. Arthur Rubin's recommendation to delete the general information on homeopathy in this [Arsenicum album] article was the precise edit that I made and for which he and I are obviously in agreement. And the initial complainer about this specific edit for which Rubin and I agree was by an editor, Poupon-on-Toast, who has now left wikipedia. Don't we all have better and more constructive things to do? Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking out out LaraLove's User Talk page, it appears that what ScienceApologist wrote above is correct. Brunton (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

However, if you simply look at her contributions and/or on my user-page, you (or he...or anyone) would find that she is still actively mentoring me. In any case, you now know. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

edit war continuing at Thuja occidentalis

The edit war continues. Attempts at discussion are being stonewalled. Dlabtot (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility on Arsenicum album

Could someone try to keep an eye on the Arsenicum album talk page? I have noticed that since Dana's mentor left (wikibreak, see above), he has become increasingly emboldened to push the civility envelope against opposing editors. He also has developed a new catchall of accusing anyone who dares to disagree with him of stonewalling. OfftheFence, Brunton, Arthur Rubin and myself could all attest to this statement, I'm sure. Frankly, it is quite annoying to have to scratch tooth and nail for every minor detail change. He is also in possession of a study that he continues to reference and include in the article (Cazin) but no one else has a copy of said study. Considering his actual profession is homeopathy related, this poses a serious problem for including any quotes for the study. It's all detailed on the talk page. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I welcome people to come to visit the article on Arsenicum album. I think that you'll find the discussion reasonably civil, though I think that you'll also find some editors stonewalling by not accepting RS, V, and notable research. Some editors have real difficulty accepting the fact that there are numerous studies that show positive effects from homeopathic medicines. Please do not blame me if you do not happen to have a copy of a study. As it turns out, some other editors happen to have the Linde meta-analysis (1994) on environmental toxicology which describes this study, adds to its notability, and verifies it as a study as high quality. Then, after some editors find that they are not successful in deleting a study, they attack the authors of the study, as was recently done by Baegis on Klaus Linde (a highly respected researcher AND evaluator of research). To me, it is a tad ironic that Baegis would say that I am "emboldened to push the civility envelope" without providing reference. He then asserts that my mentor "left" which he knows isn't true (I have told him such, and so other other editors). Come and see for yourself. DanaUllman^Talk 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, just above, I added a comment on Feb 17 noting that my mentor is still active. Perhaps some other editors might benefit from having a mentor. DanaUllman^Talk 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume you mean that I need a mentor. Gee thanks. I know full well that Lara may still be editing, but she is not using the mop and on her user page it clearly states that she would will be only writing articles during her quasi-break. And her edits to pretty much anything regarding you stop on Feb 14. Since then, the Arsenicum album page has turned into a veritable battleground. I don't think I need to go into detail about this whole stonewalling mess. The sources you are pushing are questionable at best and you currently possess a study that you insist on including but will not provide anyone any answers about said study. Pretty sure that would be the definition of stonewalling right there. And please, stop appealing to Linde's "authority" on this issue and lets address the actual problems with the article. But yes, I do encourage the admins to come take a look at the page. And watch Dana's behavior here, here, here (Dr 88, sock puppet reference), here, here (yet another stonewall comment), here, or here. Baegis (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think friend Dana was implicitly accusing me of being a sock-puppet of Dr 88. I am not and nor am I a sock-puppet of anyone else. If you look at the content of what I have written it is fairly clear that I have expertise that is different from each of the other editors that have been involved in this discussion. It is a pity that this tactic is employed to avoid dealing with the issues themselves. Playing the man not the ball is a dirty tactic in Association Football, but must be more acceptable to some citizens of one of our ex-colonies where they have developed their own version of the game.OffTheFence (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend Dana, it is only fair to let you know that I now have a copy of the Cazin study. I have not got time at the moment to make substantive comment on its contents versus what has been said about it. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity based on your direct knowledge of the paper to check whether any mistaken impressions have been given of it. Have you actually read it? Whig was sure you have, but you have steadfastly failed to answer that direct question. I think now would be a good time for you to confirm that you have and to produce quotations directly from it.OffTheFence (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ended my mentorship of Dana. I thought that had been made clear by both myself and others. Regardless, if there are issues with Dana, as the banner on his talk page states, they should be brought to me. Regards, Lara❤Love 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana still falls under the restrictions and guidelines of the Homeopathy avec ou sans a mentor. Baegis (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Lara's mentorship of Dana ended on 1 March 2008 [62] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One week ban of Randy Blackamoor

The first two paragraphs below are copied from Talk:Homeopathy, to bring a discussion here rather than continue it there.

It might be helpful to all concerned if you could explain WHY you have banned him? He has not said anything above that he has not said before several times. Irritating though that may be yet he is surely entitled to express his view and has he actually insulted anyone? Furthermore, he has not tampered with the article. Purely from a sociological viewpoint his view, extreme though it is, should be heard IMO. thanks Peter morrell 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, yes I agree he has made a large number of similar comments, and, if you look at his talk page, he has received warnings for these comments. Regarding his 1 week ban, I don't think his conduct was helping to improving the article. Remember, this page isn't a free-for-all debating forum, but is supposed to be civil, productive discussion on how we can improve the article. Finally, in keeping with this page being purely for discussion on how we can improve the article, if you want to continue this discussion could you do so at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents. Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter: I think this ban is appropriate. RB certainly has been insulting in some of his comments, to me for one. He makes sweeping generalizations about the motives of editors he disagrees with. He suggests that civility is a tactic used to subvert the discussion (subvert is my word, not his.) He wildly misrepresents other people's positions. Most seriously, in my opinion, his contributions repeatedly derail discussions that might otherwise be productive. I agree with you that his views should be heard. However, I have read enough of them to last me through an entire week of his ban. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My point simply was about freedom of speech: we should not be banning folks just for their extreme views but more for offending others. Those views certainly exist extreme or not but even if they were true, WP should still strive to describe homeopathy neutrally and fairly, even if it were proved to be some crazy pseudoscience and founded in some weird religious belief, which I know it isn't. Widely divergent views should be welcomed. That was all really. Peter morrell 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. While we do respect different points of view, we require editors to collaborate. Those who battle may be pulled aside for a while or asked to leave permanently, depending on the severity. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, in the case of the homeopathy article, only those who "battle" for the level-headed presentation of scientific fact will be "pulled aside" or "asked to leave permanently." The civility clause apparently does not apply to accusing other editors of being spammers, saying they are making up legislation that does not exist, or accusing them of being paid agents of pharmaceutical companies, just to name some activities of user SmithJones on that talk page that no one seems to care about. What we have on that page is sympathetic, pro-insanity administrators collaborating in an effort to drive all anti-homeopathy people (which, by necessity, is all people with the slightest understanding of science, evidence, reality, etc) off the page, by using the vague, catch-all "civility" clauses as a bludgeon against one side, and ignoring the behavior of their own side. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't go that far. Jehochman was willing to give Arion 3x3 and TheDoctorIsIn bans for their behavior (though it was later mitigated to a 1rr limitation), for instance. This wasn't a civility issue, so it's apparent he's trying to look for other potential methods of disruption. Now, if you see any pro-homeopathic editor being uncivil, you're quite welcome to make a post about it here (even during your ban, I assume (admins are free to correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll redact as necessary)) (Edit: See Jehochman's comment below). Or you could also report uncivil anti-homeopathic editors, even. Or maybe you could even decide that administrator intervention isn't necessary and just discuss the civility issues with them on their talk page and try to come to an amicable understanding. Up to you. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You can spend 7 days compiling a list of abusive edits (I suggest using a text editor offline) and then present them. I am looking for 3 - 5 egregious examples of abuse per editor. Keep it simple and show the best examples of abuse. I would not ban people from using this page, unless they cause disruption here, but it would be good form to avoid this area of Wikipedia completely until your ban expires. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. Ban people for being pro-science, ban them for talking about being banned, then ban them for coming to the page where such bans are discussed. Looks like you've constructed a perfectly closed loop where you can just snuggle up with the other [ADJECTIVE] folks and [VERB] until barnstars come out, and anyone who disagrees is banned. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the above comment be removed? You were not banned for any of the reasons you provided here. You were banned for repeated incivility, and for no other reason. What is next for this editor. He doesn't seem interested in community input. Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't goad. We are trying to work together, not create a sports competition where we try to get each other banned. Randy is upset. Let him vent. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF. I am not trying to compete for banning. I didn't know lewd comments were acceptable. Anthon01 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In a crew of dozens of two-faced, politicking liars who populate the homeopathy talk page, I have found Anthon01 to be the most dishonest. You have followed me around Wikipedia for weeks, built up a file on me on your talk page, placed a host of warnings on the same page, and used backdoor channels to send more than one sympathetic administrator against me. Of course you are trying to get me banned--working to get people who don't believe in your insane pro-homeopathy stance banned is all you do on Wikipedia. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a saying - when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do, is - stop digging. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The people who insist on evangelizing for magic are going to do whatever they want to do with me and the rest of the reality-based community anyway. I'm not going to indulge in their pretense that this is or was ever about "civility." Until I convert to their fundamentalist form of idiocy, they are not going to care how I phrase my advocacy for reality and science, so let's not pretend. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are dense. I. am. trying. to. get. you. to. be. civil. Attack the content, not the editors. Nothing more. Stop the personal attacks and everything is fine. I'll even trash my dosier. And I haven't been following you around for weeks. You make a lot of unfounded statements.Anthon01 (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Top sekwet advise to anthon: RB has figured out hour despickabul sekwet stwatagey. Dont annser himn. PS Dont tel anywun this. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Almost as funny as when homeopaths sell water to people with cancer, and then they die because they didn't get any actual medical treatment! Hilarious! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Now find sources that support your charge that people are dying from homeopathy, and if it meets the V, RS and WEIGHT policies, we can put it in the article. I'll put it in myself. Anthon01 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and disruption on Talk:Arsenicum album

Could an admin please take a look at this? [63] —Whig (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I note also that I have come across this page by accident while looking at some background on homeopathy's probation status. A comment placed on my Usertalk page would have triggered a message to let me know that you had done this, but that seems not to be a routine courtesy. Also on my usertalk page I have also not recieved the courtesy of an answer to my direct question about whether you had taken any action against Dana for implying that I was a liar (in connection with whether I had a copy of the Linde paper). You also did not answer my direct question about whether you had taken any action against Dana for editing the main article space and claiming in doing so that is was "per" the Talk page, although in fact no such consensus had been reached. I think this would be a suitable time to answer both these questions.OffTheFence (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at it and notice how the caps are only turned on after OffTheFence poses the same question to Dana several times but Dana does not answer him. It all comes back to the point I brought up above. Dana is the only one who has access to this study and he is refusing to answer any questions about it but insisting that it is a quality source. Baegis (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the gaming with ALL-CAPS, it might be worth considering whether a source that is only available to one person (if such is the case) can be a legitimate Wikipedia source. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis is incorrect. OffTheFence has said he/she has a copy of the same source. [64] —Whig (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he says that he has a copy of the Linde study, not the Cazin. If he had a copy of Cazin study, why would he keep badgering Dana for an answer to a question he could easily answer himself? Dana appears to be the only person with the full study. Baegis (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just confirmed that I now have the Cazin study as well. I don't have time to deal with its content at the moment, but will try and get round to it in the next 24hrs.OffTheFence (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the better solution would be to request a copy of the study if that can be provided. —Whig (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If Dana would answer the questions, we could then decide if a copy of the study is needed. Because if the answers to the questions aren't what they should be, the study is not going to pass the RS test. I guess I will take that as an apology as well. So thanks. Baegis (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The RS test is not whether the study was a double blind randomized control test. I have encouraged you to seek advice from WP:RSN. You have so far declined to do so and I do not wish to be excessively repetitive, but your bringing your content dispute here does not seem the right place for it. —Whig (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious to me, reading through this, that it's DanaUllman who's stonewalling and refusing to discuss. This led to quite-understandable frustration. In my opinion, he's the problem here, not OffTheFence. As for the study meeting reliable sources criteria, it can't possibly do that until someone other than Dana Ullman looks at it and interprets it. Dana has a documented COI on Wikipedia, and as such we can't trust his voice on an issue like this without some independent confirmation of what he says. Until someone else is able to access the study, we can't use it as a source. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana has made his COI known as far as editing his own article, but he is not disallowed from editing in areas where he has expertise. I would also point out that User:OffTheFence appears to be a single purpose account. —Whig (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And what the heck is that meant to imply?OffTheFence (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SPAs aren't uncommon for people who are relatively new. It's more of a concern when they've been around a while and still only edit a narrow range of articles. Example. As for the subject of his COI, yes it's good that he's made it known, and so we should take it into account when evaluating his evaluations of sources. We need a more neutral set of eyes to review the paper, rather than just trusting him. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence edits only one article and never provides any verifiable, reliable sources for anything he writes, nor will he agree to follow WP:DR. [65] —Whig (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Never? Anything? So my citing in detail from the Linde paper doesn't count apparently or the Frass paper which also came up. Are you now accusing me of lying that I possess copies of these papers? How could I have quoted from them so accurately? Even Dana has not challenged the quotations and that is because they have been truthful and fair. Or are you just bothered that I didn't provide a full "reliable" "verifiable" source for a humorous and frequently used analogy about Aztecs? I have also patiently explained why [[WP:DR] would be an inappropriate tool for a matter that should be settled readily on a talk page provided both sides are prepared to cite accurately from the source material, which I have done and, with the Cazin paper now available, I will do again.OffTheFence (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you have not introduced any verifiable, reliable sources to dispute information in the article. That is what I am saying. I do not doubt you honestly have copies of the papers we are discussing, and that confirms their verifiability unless you find their contents other than described. You seem to be willing to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing when you could simply ask on the appropriate noticeboard, or pursue other forms of WP:DR and get some feedback that would help sort things out. —Whig (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, it seems I must remind you again (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOffTheFence&diff=193451916&oldid=193303076) that I was discussing Linde on a Talk page, I was not trying to introduce the results of my analysis of Linde into the main article space. I have also explained that a study that is trivial and of poor quality will not generate "verifiable" and "reliable source" commentary on it. So, Yes, I have created OR (in wikipedia jargon) analysing Linde. I have restricted that OR to the Talk page. An inevitable consequence of the position you are adopting is that an unscrupulous editor could engineer the inclusion of bad information into the main Article space by ignoring the demonstrable poor quality of the information's poor quality and simply exploiting its ticking of Wikipedia's various boxes. You have given no valid argument to counter this proposition, which is a shame because it does cut to the heart of the collaborative competence of Wikipedia to deal with contentious, or just plain bad, science, but that is a subject for a larger debate. In the current narrow instance, I have directly quoted the content of Linde based on a close reading of the text. Dana has not challenged the quotations nor the questions that arose which would have led to a clarification of the issues. Yes, this might get settled in WP:DR, but that is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut that should be very small if editors act in good faith once a paper has been demonstrated to be of poor quality.OffTheFence (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, please refrain from biting the newcomers, especially with regards to SPA issues. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not bite, I made a mention of the fact. —Whig (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Jehochman's request to see diffs of disruption, please see the following edits of DanaUllman: [66] [67] [68]. These are the only edits Dana made to this section before OffTheFence's frustration resulted in caps (he also edited other sections of the page, but no answers there either. This is the most applicable area, though). He was repeatedly asked whether this study was randomized, and instead of answering, he mocked the need for randomization (see the second diff for the actual mocking). This particular instance of disruption is more telling in what isn't said, really (Dana's refusal to respond about the randomization), so a simple presentation of diffs can't really suffice, sorry. Some history perusal might be necessary to confirm that nowhere did he actual answer the question. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think he made it clear he wasn't going to answer the question, so pestering him repeatedly accomplishes exactly nothing. There were a series of leading questions and a presumed conclusion that if the Cazin study was not randomized it must not be high quality even though we have a secondary source (Linde) which says it was high quality. Anyhow, if you don't agree with the use of these as reliable sources, you can ask on the appropriate noticeboard. —Whig (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now placed a report on both the Cazin and Linde papers on Ars Alb's Talk page. I would welcome comments.OffTheFence (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

disingenuous edit summary

The edit summary made by Levine2112 claimed: No recent discussion nor any consensus for any of this mass revert/change. There has been discussions. See serious NPOV issues (oh my). Levine2112 has not participated in the recent discussion and reverted a quality NPOV edit. --QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anons

Should anons be adding editors to article probation and outing their supposed identities on that page? [69] —Whig (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that this is here. Both of the editors in question (Martin & TheTutor) have edited homeopathy articles and are fair game for probation notification. The fact that TheTutor has edited 3 of the same articles that Martin edited before he left AND only since Martin's account went stale, is quite interesting. Also, they both edited a little known article ice VII that has only had 17 edits ever, 2 from Martin and 1 from TheTutor, plus Martin's own website is used as a reference for the article. Without a CU case, it can't be confirmed, but the circumstantial evidence is strong. Also, Fyslee has echoed the call for a CU case, so it is not just anons that are concerned about this. It may not be abusive sockpuppetry, but returning after having your page wiped simply to continue in the same path is not the way things work. Baegis (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not bring your hypotheses here. —Whig (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am merely giving a back story to your post, one which is extremely relevent to the post. There are two sides to every story and someone has to actually give the other side, since it appears you made no effort to explain anything further. Baegis (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an incidents page, not a place for suppositions and outing people. It would be nice to know who the anon was, however. —Whig (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly feel that I have been unfairly treated by editors who should know better and by editors who should be known better. The Tutor (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive probation warning removal

FYI, "I don't see 'Homeopath-" anything in the *text* of either Chiropractic, or Sci Inv of Chiropractic; remove Homeo- warning, its cont'd abuse seems to me to be, POV, initimidation & provocation". Lawrence § t/e 07:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the warning was originally added by QuackGuru here, and was followed with a short edit war over it. His justification for adding it was that it was "related" (as in, that was literally the only word he used in his summaries during the edit war). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I an not an editor involved with chiropractic or homeopathy. Adding such an aggressive expansion shopping of a POV on edits[70][71][72] should be considered disruption and bad faith of an all too common ill-informed, -ing anti-scientific POV (I mean that quite literally - rejection of science & its methodology in practice with concrete examples, all while loudly claiming (falsely) its mantle) into an unrelated topic. I do not edit the homeopathy or chiropractic articles - I simply see this as a disruptive extension of disputive POV pushing with clear features of initimidation, provocation and unfairness into an unrelated topic that needs to stop. Such "policy" intrepretations remind me all too much of 3rd world countries that claim a rule of law and wonder why they have negative growth and such a bad reputation.--I'clast (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The chiropractic articles have been a battleground between various factions in the past. The probation endorses neither side of any dispute, nor favors them; it simply announaces that anyone causing trouble from either side aggressively may be aggressively sanctioned for it, faster than normal, to keep the peace. Lawrence § t/e 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

True that may be, but it has nothing to do with the homeopathy probation. If this is a problem, perhaps we should put a separate probation on chiropractic-related articles, or officially expand this one. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note your comment, Lawrence, that "Involved editors do not decide what is or is not under probation." By this logic, QuackGuru shouldn't have been able to unilaterally decide that this article is under probation when he added the template. Then he later argued that no involved editor was allowed to remove it (though one can add it, apparently). I see two possibilities here:

1. We remove the probation notice and be done with it.
2. We act under its purview and investigate the behavior of those fighting over it. They want this article to be under probation? Then their actions with regards to it need to meet a higher standard. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are problems related to chiropractic articles. The main editors are chiropractors. They have claimed ownership of the chiropractic article.
• 1st revert: [73][74]
• 2nd revert:[75][76]
• 3rd revert:[77][78]
• 4th revert:[79]
• 5th revert:[80]
• 6th revert:[81]
• Diff of 1st 3RR warning: 17:25, 8 February 2008
• Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 18:44, 5 March 2008
• EBDCM has confirmed he is the 208 anon but has denied he has another registered account.
• The Talk:Chiropractic article is under homeopathy probation and the editor was previously notified.
• The talk page is a warzone of numerous posts and wikilawyering. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No argument that there's a problem with behavior on Chiropractic articles as well. Perhaps this warrants its own probation. I think I'll raise this on WP:AN. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thread up, see here. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an argument with behaviour problems at the chiropractic article. I explained it above and read the talk page of the chiropractic article to draw your own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is denying there's a problem on the chiropractic related articles. The question is the inappropriateness of using the homeopathy probation. There is no spillover from the homeopathy discussions on the chiropractic talk pages. If there were, that would be another matter, but there isn't, so that probation doesn't apply. -- Fyslee / talk 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then Chiropractic related articles should be under a Chiropractic probation warning, not the infectious censorship of a POV warrior repeatedly blocked for warring & disruption despite great administrative forebearance, projected to an unrelated topic.

There's no substitute for an honest "rule of law" here and confuting "homeo-" problems with "chiro-" problems by fiat of a POV disruptive editor is highly inappropriate. Do the proper process, use appropriate wording. This way of backdoor POV pushing policy and intimidation is an abomination and rewards very aggressive behavior that reeks of bad faith, bad wording and bad policy.--I'clast (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I%27clast&curid=6068226&diff=196384643&oldid=196373503 This comment by I'clast is uncivil and disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. Stop poking him. Just stay the f*** away from him. You need to learn when to leave people alone. If they object to your presence, show some common decency and respect their wishes. -- Fyslee / talk 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment above was also uncivil. I gave I'clast a notification[82] and then I'clast made an uncivil remark.[83] I did the right thing by reporting it here. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Sanction

• Area69 repeatedly starting new discussions pushing for a POV tag on the main Homeopathy article is tendetious.
• Whig's talk page behavior of discussing in circles is also tendetious.

These need to stop, it's what probation is about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Could you provide a handful of egregious diffs to substantiate this? Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a particularly egregious one: [84]. Accusing others of getting repetitive in correcting his misconception (which he kept repeating), and then saying that others should be going to the noticeboard, when he's the one who thinks OR is going on here. I'll see if I can dig up some others to show a pattern. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an egregious example of what? First I'm accused of "discussing in circles" and when I tell someone to stop discussing in circles, you accuse me of something wrong? —Whig (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig has an extensive history of disruption on homeopathy-related talk pages. I will restrict the following collection of diffs to those posted in the four days, in the interest of freshness, but please realize that this behavior has gone on for months.

• Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return:[85][86][87][88][89][90][91]
• Meatpuppetry:[92][93][94][95]
• Wikilawyering:[96][97]
• Personal attacks:[98][99][100]
• Canvassing:[101]
• Arbcom threats:[102][103][104]
• Other disciplinary threats:[105]
• Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation:[106]
• Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom:[107][108]

This needs to stop. This behavior is poisoning good faith attempts by both pro- and anti-factions to improve coverage of homeopathic topics on Wikipedia. Whig has been the subject of two recent user conduct RFCs (here and here), which have had no effect in changing his tendentious and needlessly argumentative approach. I recommend a broadly defined topic ban (if not a full siteban) that covers all articles and talk pages related to homeopathy, as well as any user page/AN/ANI discussions related to homeopathy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Allowing me to add in some, relating to the discussion at Talk:Homeopathy about the swimming pool example (covering Talk:Homeopathy#Problem_with_swimming_pool_example and Talk:Homeopathy#Swimming_pool_nonsense, which is what I believe prompted Schmucky's claims of him arguing in circles. A few of Skinwalkers diffs provided above may overlap here, but I'm going to put them in a bit of a different context.

• Demands for a reliable source to an illustrative example: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]
  • Blatant refusal to demonstrate good faith and take the trivial step of examining Google search results (which I even bothered to link for him) to see that this analogy is commonly used: [118]
  • An implicit admission that no source would be good enough for him anyways: [119]

I'll acknowledge that as of writing this, Filll hasn't provided any specific source. He's explained that he's simply trying to decide which is best. My guess is that he doesn't want Whig to engage in a game of moving the goalposts, and so is trying to figure out which one minimizes this possibility (which speaks of how his behavior is affecting others). However, as I pointed out above, Whig has all but admitted that no source would be good enough for him. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_short_topic_ban_for_Whig, where I crossposted my diff collection after his latest round of tendentiousness. Info, I concur with your assessment of the "swimming pool" situation. Skinwalker (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that many of these postings were to editors that were not AGF, including several that have been harassing me. This has the appearance of a cabal's game. The Tutor (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some more diffs that I am supplying to reinforce things that were already touched on by other editors.

• More Disciplinary threats: [120],
• Harrasing Admins: [121],
• Personal Attacks: [122],
• Meatpuppetry: [123], [124], [125], support for Dana's site to be used as an RS, same as prior, [126],
• Demanding good faith: [127], [128], [129], [130]
• Demands for reliable source, with implications that none will do when asking about a questionable source: [131], [132],

In what will surely be claimed as a personal vendetta, the one of the problems that I see with Whig is that he knows the rules well enough to walk the line but never get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Is that really the kind of editor we need? His mentor has been MIA for a long period of time, leaving him free to edit without having to abide by his restrictions. As we saw from the DanaUllman case, a good mentor should always be watching in order to correct bad behavior. Dana's mentor stepped in on several occasions to apply restrictions and weigh in on issues regarding the mentee. But, the biggest problem is Whig's penchant for being a willing meat puppet for other pro-homeopathy users. While my diff's will never be able to show the totality of the previous statement, they do show that he constantly backs up edits from [Name Redacted], TheTutor (Tutor diffs from previous people), and Dana. As seen on this section of the Arsenicum album talk page, a question is asked to Dana and then after a response from Dana, Whig answers all further questions, drastically steering the conversation off course. This is not the only case of this happening, as seen from the mess involving TheTutor. Though Whig has been around a lot longer than the parties I describe, his actions in conjunction with them are problematic. He even backed up a comment from Dana in which he, in a round about way, called someones mental capacity into question, saying it was funny. Maybe it's because [Name Redacted] and Dana are both well known outside of the Wiki world and it is a case of coattails. Who knows? The point is, Whig constantly violated the terms of his probation and should be held accountable. Baegis (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The business about the swimming pool would be enough to drive anyone to distraction and just remove this article from their watchlist and let it flounder.

• We do not need to have a RS for this example. I posted the WP policies which show we do not need a source for it.
• Plenty of sources exist and a few diffs pointing to sources have already been provided.
• This example, or something similar, is used by both sides of the debate for illustrative purposes. Even Hahnemann himself used a similar example, as Peter Morrell pointed out!!

This example is just being used by Whig and Anthon01 and other homeopathy proponents as an excuse to threaten and fight ad nauseum. Rather than even look at a google search or the sources already linked, they would prefer to engage in tendentitious and disruptive argumentation and spamming of the talk page with nonsense. This must stop right now and I ask an admin to warn those involved.--Filll (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

If several editors asked for a POV tag since they argue that the article does not comply with the NOPV policy the administrators should add it or not, according to wikirules? I might make a mistake - I asked again and nonoone answered. s Please comment. I hope this is the right place to post this question.--Area69 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone still pay attention to this?

If so, please pop on over to the Arsenicum album page and lend a hand. An editor, one who has been warned about the probation for these articles, is insisting on this being a better version than the way I had it previously, even though it is the EXACT same phrase just ordered differently. It is more appropriate to present the results of the study THEN discuss the problems. I'm pretty sure few will find a problem with that. On the talk page, Dana claims I need to verify the same facts that another editor discussed at length (see rest of talk page) with him before he will "allow" my edit to stick. He has reverted it 3 times so far today, clearly in violation of the spirit of the probation. I have cautioned him about the 3RR rule. I have also reverted it twice, so I will accept any punishment for violating the probation. Baegis (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Baegis, I've banned Dana for 7 days. Addhoc (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, but I'm guessing the problem Dana has with the other version isn't the order, but the fact that it specifically points out that the "high quality" trials generally weren't blinded or randomized. Meanwhile, his preferred version just said this with regards to the studies in the meta-analysis as a whole... leaving open the possibility that the high-quality studies were blinded and/or randomized. It doesn't excuse edit warring over it, but it should help to better understand his position when he gets back and if he chooses to start this up again. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Addhoc. And I am working on way to better the whole situation on that article. Feel free to pop on over, Infophile. I know you enjoy these articles as much as I do. =). We could use another editor with great experience. Baegis (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting everyone's time...

I just indefinitely blocked Ramaanand (talk · contribs) & added that account to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. It was painfully obvious that this last chance effort to reform the editor was going to fail, especially when the editor revealed that he was "not even willing to be an editor here" and was simply aiming to argue & edit war over the inclusion of homeopathy criticisms.

If any admin feels that my reasons for blocking were inappropriate or insufficient, please feel free to contact me. If nobody objects, I'd say that WP:BAN is back in full effect for this editor. — Scientizzle 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator?

Addhoc hi. You are not an uninvolved administrator. You should really be editing the article as you have done:

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=191701837]--70.107.246.88 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He can edit it. And apparently, he's agreeing with your request that he "should really be editing". So, I guess there's no problem here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He should not be able to ban the same time though. Correct? I thought that was the idea. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that rule is counterproductive. I think that involved editors should be allowed to use their tools, but that their decisions should be subject to careful review andn vetting and certification by others to prevent abuse.--Filll (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that the administrators themselves are not able to comply with the minimum of rules which they decided to apply or to enforce. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that you have a case (which I do not think you do) and you are not able to get a reasonable response from Addhoc, then you can try AN/I or Arbcomm. However, I think the best option might be to change those silly rules you are citing to something more useful and productive.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right Filll. I dont feel strongly about it -It could be unfair for him - he just could not hide his POV which is entitled to hold.

There are worse examples in this forum.The way the discussion is administrated led to this situation. So fine. Addhoc please consider removing Dana's ban symbolically and edit the article. Nothing personal here.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you are already subject to a one month ban from all homeopathy articles, per your talk page. You might want to step back from calling for the revocation of an editor's topic ban, especially since this could be construed as editing a homeopathy related article. Take it up with Addhoc on his talk page. Other than that, there is little else to say about the topic. Baegis (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is important to acknowledge that Jehochman imposed a topic ban on 70.107.246.88, though even the wonderfully civil Peter Morrell questioned what is the problem was. It seems that both Jehochman and Addhoc are both active editors in articles on homeopathy, and they are imposing penalties when it may be inappropriate to do so. As is noted above, Addhoc imposed a 7-day block on me for "low level edit warring," when I was simply asking editors to verify a specific statement, which was never verified, and for which I sought this information in my edit summaries and on the Talk page. I thought I was being one of the good guys and honoring basic wiki policies on reliability. DanaUllman^Talk 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please show diffs indicating that I have been editing the homeopathy article. I don't think I ever have, except maybe to repair obvious policy violations. The appearance is that you don't like being sanctioned, therefore, you are lashing out at the administrators who are trying to resolve a very difficult situation. Thanks for that. Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to Jehochman and Addhoc! I'm wrong. Jehochman has not edited the article on homeopathy, except for very minor grammar/formating issues. I mixed up his active participation in the Talk pages (at least 40 contributions in February, for instance). I also wish to withdraw my statement about Addhoc who has participated a bit more on the homeopathy article and on the Talk page, but not to a significant degree. Although I do not agree with Addhoc's decision on me, I will live with it. I will also say that I am quite impressed with the breadth of both of these admins and their varied contributions to wikipedia. I'm humbled. DanaUllman^Talk 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

pushing articles on talk pages

See this comment of mine [133] and answers. It would appear that Dana presented a 1994 study on Talk:Arsenicum album, where it was shooted down for several reasons. Because of an initial confusion, some editors talked instead about the 1997 article by same author, and shooted it down too.

Now, Dana has presented the 1997 article on Talk:Homeopathy and has not warned that it was previously dismissed elsewhere, or that a 1994 article by same author had been discussed and dismissed elsewhere. It wasn't until some editor remembered having discussed the article before that it surfaced. This has the appeareance of article pushing and talk-page shopping --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is serious enough to be sanction worthy. Obviously, I hope that Dana recognizes that if the consensus is to reject a proposal, then it would be appropriate to wait a while, perhaps 2-3 months, before re-proposing a similar idea. But provided this faux pas doesn't continuously re-occur, I'm not convinced that sanctions should be applied, especially considering the recent 1 week ban. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but the incident must be noted and the behaviour cut here before it has the chance to get worse and actually deserve a sanction --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine - duly noted. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Adenda: Dana Ullman and LaraLove have been notified on their talk pages --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, LaraLove is no longer his mentor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. I just made a feeble attempt to notify some admins currently involved on this probation. No idea if the notification is even actually needed because I didn't follow the probation --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, because you're a newbie to homeopathic articles, I hope that you try to AGF before you make accusations. Simply asking me first would have been a good place to begin. First, in the Arsenicum article, we were talking about the 1994 meta-analysis by Linde (I intially described it as the 1995 meta-analysis, but there was a lot of discussion there that clarified it as distinct from the 1997 meta-analysis). That said, there was consensus that the 1994 meta-analysis was worthy of inclusion. I will comment on the 1997 Linde meta-analysis at the homeopathy talk page. As for probation, that is long-gone. Once again, you can look at my talk page or simply ask me before rushing off elsewhere. And PhilKnight is correct, LaraLove is no longer my mentor because I "graduated" under her good tutelage. Enric, I ask you to be a gentleman and apologize to me and to LaraLove (for bothering her). DanaUllman^Talk 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but at this point I think that you have already been warned enough times about edits on homepathy articles. This needed to be looked at by an involved admin, even if to only confirm that it's not a breach and that I'm overreacting so we can continue discussing the study with no problem. I will apologize to Lara, however. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the articles are under probation, so the editors of the articles who have been notified are subject to probation, and this includes Dana. PhilKnight (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Phil, and this includes everyone (I'm not yet clear why you chose to single me out). The bottomline here is the Enric has his history mixed up, not just about me, but also about the different Linde meta-analyses, and about the Arsenicum article which rightfully includes reference to the Linde 1994 work. I assume good faith and realize that it is challenging to keep all of this info straight, but this is why one should check-in with the potentially offending party before bothering admins or noticeboards. Is this reasonable? DanaUllman^Talk 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, remember good faith :) Phil is mentioning your name just because the incident is about you, and he was clearing whether you were in probation. From context, I can't see any singling out from Phil. As for singling out from me, if any other editor had done the same thing as you and I had seen it, and he had the same history of probation as you, I would have done the same procedure of notifying without waiting for explanations. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his history is pretty accurate as described in the first post, at least with regards to the 1997 work. The initial confusion over which article you were talking about led to this one being discussed as well, and it was even more firmly rejected than the 1994 article, particularly as the authors themselves renounced it. You heard all these arguments, and your only reply to them was to note that you were talking about a different paper, as evidenced by this comment. It's therefore fair to assume that you were well aware of the problems regarding this study, particularly those pointed out by its own authors. And yet you come to Talk:Homeopathy mentioning none of them. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I appropriately avoided discussion of the 1997 meta-analysis because THAT was not the focus on the discussion in [Arsenicum album]. For a more detailed defense of the 1997 meta-analysis, see [134]. For the record, if and whenever I accuse someone of wrongdoing, I will immediately apologize if I am proven wrong. This ethic seems to be one difference between Enric and I, though it is never too late to acknowledge error. DanaUllman^Talk 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana.... I know that you might be a bit fired up because of this discussion, but do you really think that this edit [135] is wise? No consensus at talk page, deleting the attribution of one source suspected of POV, and past probation problems with same problems. I restored the words [136], I suggest that you achieve more consensus at talk page, and that you don't perform the actual edit yourself (just in case), lest we need to open to open another section here --Enric Naval (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can respond to my query as to why you and other select editors feel that only homeopathic drug research should list the source of funding. Please explain this one. Thanx. DanaUllman^Talk 05:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And this edit... [137] on Water memory it looked quite inofensive to me, and looks like based on consensus on the talk page.... and then I looked it up on google and found that it's *also* founded by Boiron [138], and the source of funding is not mentioned despite the more than probable POV, not even on the reference itself, I'm not even asking to mention it on the text itself. Indeed, Boiron already appears on the text, pointed by Maddox as employing two researchers that cherished delusions and as a result got results supporting water memory on a study, the results were totally wrong (ooops). The actual edit looks fine so I'm not reverting it, but seriously, do you work for Boiron, or is it that they are the only ones publishing articles that support efficency of homeopathy? Seriously, stop editing until this issue gets looked at by some admin --Enric Naval (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: Dana, it's because homeopathy studies seems to be heavily biased depending on who funds tehm, and this forces us to mention the founding source and make attributions because of POV problems --Enric Naval (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In due respect Enric, this is not your decision to make. There is no reference in the article on homeopathy about the funder for each study. Further, there might be even larger reasons for Wiki-editors to make reference to the funding for every Rx drug due to the significant financial benefits that drug companies make, and yet, there is no wiki policy for doing that for every study. Let's maintain NPOV. DanaUllman^Talk 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. I think I qualify as anyone, and I can push for a change of policy for homeopathic studies if I consider so --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

gross WP:COI on pushing of another shooted down study

enric's report

Dana is pushing Enni's studies again on April 3 2008 [139] (notice the veiled POV accusation on the edit summary to any editor ever opposing Ennis' study). Dana says that the study was replicated by 4 independient labs and asks for sources on four laboratories saying they couldn't replicate it.

However the lack of replication by "four experts from reputable laboratories" is explained at this userspace draft of homeopathy while (it can't get more ironical) dismounting an argument on a book written by Dana. In Dana's defence, there is no evidence that he was aware of this text. Moreover, links below prove that he knew about BBC's replication and has been off-wiki objecting actively to how it was presented and other stuff. Dunno if Dana has ever disclosed this this COI.

He also has *huge* WP:COI because he appears to have written a book where he defended Ennis' study, and is perfectly aware of BBC program, since he sent a complaint letter to ABC and Dana received a mail from Ennis himself on the matter on 2003.

Then I searched Ennis on talk pages and found this Dana's comment from January 26 2008 where he gets answered "Dana, why do you keep repeating this same arguments when it's been explained to you that they aren't valid on other pages?" Talk:Arsenicum_album#Defies_logic I was like "wtf"? So I digged through Homeopathy archives and found nothing except passing mentions to Ennis here, but a search on google turned out a discussion with Maury Markowitz on January 1 2008 User_talk:Maury_Markowitz#BBC.27s_and_ABC.27s_20.2F20_Homeopathy_Test_was_Junk_Science and a discussion with Otheus on February 1 2008 at User_talk:Otheus.

I also finally found the archives of Water memory talk March 4 2007 - June 5 2007 Talk:Water_memory/Archive1#Ennis_email_incorrectly_attributed, December 18 2007 - February 4 2008 [[140]] and February 1-2 2008 Talk:Water_memory/Archive1#Pseudoscience_Info_box where Ennis study is shot down, and Dana is perfectly aware of the conversation since he adds himself in the middle of other user comment (probably due to unexperience and unawareness of WP:TALK) on August 9 2007 [141].

So, gross probation violation, and probable gross WP:COI violation, and gross WP:NPOV violation for pushing POV studies without mentioning that they had been shot down by consensus and evidence (see above incident for same problem), and using edit summaries unadequately again --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Dana is also misrepresening the study - at least 1 (probably 2 given the statistical test used which claimed .01 as the cutoff) failed to find any effect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checking the talk pages, it looks like Dana has a history of misrepresenting studies. I'm going to compile what I can find into a subsection below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know if I should be amused or confused by Enric’s above accusations. He asserts that I have a “huge COI” because I wrote a book that has “defended Ennis’ study.” I hope and assume that WP editors can write books (and articles) and then transfer their expertise to wikipedia (let’s bless expertise, but sadly, in THIS circumstance, it seems that Enric is lacking in expertise, and he is confusing other’s incorrect assertions with the truth or with RS evidence). Because evaluating research is often intellectually challenging, I assume good faith and assume that he’s making a good faith effort to understand things, though he simply hasn’t been either accurate or adequately informed. Let me explain… First, there is a big difference between FOUR university laboratories performing a study with 2,706 validated datapoints and having their results published in a peer-review journal as compared with a “tv science experiment” that performed one experiment (with four on-lookers!) and that was never published anywhere. To Enric’s credit, he links his accusations to one of writings in which I verify that the BBC’s “study” was not a replication of Ennis’ work [142], and Ernic also links to Ennis’ email to me that verifies this [143]. Therefore, Ernic’s assertion that Ennis’ work was disproven is inaccurate. (Also, for the record, Enric, “Madeleine Ennis” is not a man…and she is a professor in the dept of clinical biochemistry at Queen’s University). Enric seems to be a relative newbie to WP, and he seems to have not noticed that the Ennis research is already (!) referenced in the memory of water article, and at present, the primary content conflict is whether to say that the four laboratories found “an effect” or found a “statistically significant effect”. Please note that I erred when I recently wrote that the P value=0.001; in actual fact, it was P=0.0001. In the light of these issues, it seems that Enric’s accusations of me being a POV-pusher may now suggest that “he doth protest too much” and the pushing seems to be on the other side. For the record, I have no problem with Enric’s references to any of his links, though his reference to a user-page’s writing [144] is so full of misinformation that it is not worthy of comment. DanaUllman^Talk 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is grandstanding obfuscation on the part of Dana Ullman. Please block this disruptive editor. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Dana's statements are smoke and mirrors and only address a related side issue that doesn't ever appear on my report. Dana shows no understanding or willingness to understand what he did wrong My mistake, I can't read Dana's mind and I can't provide any diffs either backing this striken statement. My statement was excessive and uncalled for. I'll try to be less agressive next time. Diffs, and no need to read minds, his actions speak volumes, and this was only on the last 28 hours: Dana gets told by an admin to take a holiday from editing Homeopathy articles, later tells me that has taken a break from homeopathic articles, then calls me and Shoemaker newbies, keeps misplaying the extensive evidence as a MINOR error, says that "we need to turn these accusations around and question the ethics of Enric and Shoemaker who are clearly not showing good faith", then insinuates again that a I not technically competent for editing the article, despite me telling him already about PILLARS and anyone being able to edit any article, then posts again about the same studies on Homeopathy's talk page, making the same avoidances of criticism that I criticized here with the smoke and mirror sentence, and totally ignoring the recommendations of WP:UNDUE, then claims on the admin talk page that he is striving to be a good editor, then he tells me that the admin didn't know that he come back from a holiday and gives to the admin's advice a totally different meaning what it was obviously intended by the admin, and says that the majority of physicians/scientists are totally inadequately informed about homeopathy and what the evidence base for it is. The best scientists are humble. Eating humble pie is a good thing., geez, I'm pissed off. I have made a good faith effort to advice this user from getting himself blocked on the long run, and the advice has been ignored, and now after his comments I'm feeling ignored and insulted. Don't care anymore about Dana causing his own block, it has been his own voluntary choice to ignore other editor's advice. User has been warned plentily of relevant policies here and on talk pages, so any more abusing of policies and patience of editors that I see from himm will simply be reported by me. This user has spent my patience with him. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of studies by User:DanaUllman

Talk:Water memory

• Implies that all four labs in the Ennis study found an effect (they did not, as discussed above)

• Claims that Benveniste's study was double-blinded, when it was not, with a dose of Nature supposedly conspiring against Benveniste

• Baegis on DanaUllman's hyping up of positive studies: "I am getting fed up with you claiming that every single journal that has ever published an article that supports your views on homeopathy is somehow a highly respected journal and worthy of inclusion."

• DanaUllman, on the journal Homeopathy "I wish to assume good faith, but I also have a sneaking suspicion that some (maybe many) of the above editors are neither subscribers or readers of this journal. This is a peer-review journal, and its editorial board includes an international group of physicians, scientists, professors, and even skeptics (Ernst, amongst others). This journal is not fringe. It may be consider "cutting edge" of medicine and pharmacology. DanaUllman^Talk 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)" Likewise, here: This is a peer-review journal, and even a recent article published in NATURE considered providing a review of the July 2007 issue for which Martin Chaplin served as the guest editor. There is RS 3rd party recognition of this issue, confirming that this issue and this journal is notable. Here's what the article in Nature that Dana references actually has to say: The volume is, in other words, a cabinet of curiosities. There is rarely even a token effort to explain the relevance of these experiments to the supposed workings of homeopathy, with its archaic rituals of shaking (‘succussion’) and ‘magic-number’ dilutions... The procedures and protocols on display here are often unusual if not bizarre, because it seems the one thing you must not do on any account is the simplest experiment that would probe any alleged ‘memory’ effect: to look for the persistent activity of a single, well-defined agent in a simple reaction – say an enzyme or an inorganic catalyst – as dilution clears the solution of any active ingredient. If that sounds bad, it is nothing compared with the level of theoretical discussion... the ‘explanations’ on offer seem either to consider that water physics can be reinvented from scratch by replacing decades of careful research with wishful thinking, or they call on impurities to perform the kind of miraculous feats of biomolecular mimicry and replication that chemists have been striving to achieve for many years. Notable, perhaps. Reliable source? Hell no. Fringe: Yes.

• research by Elia: [145] [146] Summary: Pretty much works out to "This author is really great. We MUST use his research to say that the Water memory effect has been proven. Baegis' response will summarise this very, very long thread ...After the debacle over at the Arsenicum album article, where you wouldn't even answer any questions about a study that you insisted on including even though you were the only one with a copy of the article for an extended period of time, articles that only you possess are not going to pass the merit for inclusion. Also, letters to the editor from a notably fringe journal do not constitute any important information for the article.... Since you appear to be the one who understands how "these long-term changes in water have been confirmed using well-established physicochemical techniques, including flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell electrodes potential", you should explain them for the rest of us who obviously do not share your level of scholarly aptitude. Specifically, how these well-established methods are carried out and why this groundbreaking work has not seen a wider audience.

Talk:Arsenicum album

At the top of the talk page as it currently stands, we find this comment from DanaUllman: This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too.

• Ullman: The below statement was deleted without comment. This is a RS (the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field)... ... The reference to the "mechanism of action" has no place here. This article should emphasize what is known, not necessarily what is unknown (if we were to say what we don't know about something, then most of each article would discuss the various things we don't know. Further, this is an article about Arsenicum album, not the entire field of homeopathy. The reference #3, #6, and #7 and the partial sentence connected to it have no place here... "Here's what is presently written with my recommended changes (I suggest that we add the above study after reference #5): Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album;[4][5] however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect.[3][6][7] [Link truncated to part of the text quoted due to use of [4][5] and such causing problems] In other words, he uses a talked-up fringe journal to say that the mainstream view should be deleted outright. As pointed out at the time: I'm sorry, but WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, among other things, says we cannot delete the mainstream view. No large-scale trials of the remedy itself have been done. However, there is strong consensus on homeopathy as a whole, and we can't weight small trials, at least one of which i s self-described as a pilot study, over large-scale analyses of the purported mechanism by which they would work." and "Also, the study you advocate is from an obscure journal that is not available online, is not pubmed indexed, and which only gets 7 google hits: [147] Calling this a "major study" being unfairly ignored is hyperbole of the most excessive sort." (Link to diff truncated to the first few words of the diff to allow link in ref to be displayed correctly.)

• Hesperian on Ullman: "You've ignored the findings of Linde et al, and instead reported the bits of data that suit your point of view."

• DanaUllman: Homeopathic Clinical Trials Are a Higher Quality Than Conventional Medical Studies (Lancet, 2005) (section title) Orangemarlin: to quote the Lancet article, the conclude "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

• (This link includes the previous, I can't avoid that and keep the conversation): Ullman: The reasons that the Cazin (1987) study is notable is that it was published in one of the leading journals in toxicology. It was conducted at a major French university and department of pharmacology. It showed a statistically significant result. It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial." It has had several replications that have confirms its results. It has V, RS, and 3rd party confirmation...it has them all. At this point, it is your responsibility to assert why it should not be in there. The discussion points out that no journal of that name is listed in Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Report, and the one with the nearest name is very low down on the ranking.

Summary

The thing that really strikes you when you look at these pages in full is that it's hard to find onee thing on them written by DanaUllman that is not quickly demonstrated to be exaggerated and/or falsified. I'd encourage others to check other pages, but the pattern is clear: Dana Ullman regularly and consistently misrepresents his sources, and tries to claim that sources that support his POV are in top journals in their fields, sources of unquestionable accuracy, which must be included, and which thoroughly disprove those nasty negative references which should be deleted. That is not an exaggeration. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note that the editors above who are making accusations against me have not responded in a substantative way to my above response, and instead, they just claim that I am using "smoke and mirrors." We all need to be wary of people with whom an editor is having a content dispute who then makes inflated accusations. For instance, when I first mentioned a toxicology journal, I didn't write its name accurately, though that was corrected shortly. This minor error needs to be filed under "no big deal." The above editors are simply attacking me for the substance that I provide, especially since I work and sometime get consensus. If and when an admin or a respected uninvolved editor makes accusations, I will respond to them with substance. Until then, talk amongst yourselves. In the meantime, I think someone needs to chastise some of the above editors for making mountains out of molehills. Really...or to quote someone "that is not an exaggeration." DanaUllman^Talk 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, one would think that perhaps you might want to respond to the numerous diffs and evidence provided, rather than using a complaint about Enric - who, you may not have noticed, is not me - to dismiss all accusations against you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the headers a bit, to separate better the two reports and avoid answering down here when intending to reply to my report. Dana is avoiding again addressing the evidence and talking again about unrelated stuff and making again veiled accusations against neutrality of other editors in desagreement with him --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Dana Ullman regularly and consistently misrepresents his sources". I have a problem with Shoemaker's above-noted "universal" statement. While I can't pretend to understand meta-analyses, I do know homeopathy works. Many of us use Dana's books for references as they are in libraries across the world and his books have often been one of our first introductions to homeopathy over the past 25+ years. By characterizing him as "misrepresent"ing his sources - it seems you are more concerned with attacking his reputation than refuting his claims or the claims of homeopathic remedies in general, which is -- after all -- the general thrust and intention of the article. My question then is: why? How does the practice of homeopathy offend you? And why the supreme effort to denounce its efficacy? Patients do not die taking homeopathy remedies and unlike therapeutic meds from big pharma, it's safe. Your motives are more than questionnable. --Flagtheerror (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's his reputation as editor on wikipedia that is at doubt. He can have a perfectly good reputation outside at wikipedia and make perfectly good out there, yet having lots of trouble being an editor at wikipedia, because wikipedia's rules are not the same as the ones on the real world. We all feel like a fish out of the water and make lots of mistakes when taken out of our usual context and brought somewhere with rules unsual and illogical for us. I suspect this is what happens with Dana. Also, personally, I don't care about his reputation writing books, but his reputation on editing wikipedia articles concerns me a lot --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a problem with others making sweeping generalizations about him "misrepresenting" sources when there is no proof of his doing so? How fair is that? What in heaven's name would be his MO for doing so? But by continuing this push to continually chastise, criticize and denounce his claims, well, one tends to wonder why. Don't you think any of his book editors properly sourced his references in the past? He wouldn't have much credibility if he did what you and others claim, in the publishing world - now would he? --Flagtheerror (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also important to note that the editor who is defending Dana here is obviously just a fanboy. Take a look at his contribs and then reread his statement. It's all very interesting that he comes back after a 4 month absense to say his piece here. Baegis (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Dana is misrepresenting all the references which anyone else has checked. There's no proof that the misrepresentation is intentional, because that would require mind-reading, but the misrepresentation itself should be considered proved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. Dana, can you select a handful of the studies that Shoemaker has referenced above and quote from the text to demonstrate that he is mistaken? Antelan^talk 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, an admin advised me to not respond to bad faith accusations (which I consider the above, due to the fact that the two people who are making these accusations, Enric and Shoemaker, are newbies who clearly have content dispute issues with me). However, I want to put these accusations to bed. It is amazing to me that the accusers are both harping on a MINOR error in which I first mis-wrote the name of a journal (big deal!). Just as Fox News commonly repeats minor charges against Democrats over and over again to make it seem as though there really is a problem, these editors are using a Fox News stragegy. To remind everyone, I showed that there was significant secondary sources to the Cazin study, including an editorial by the journal's editor, Paul Turner. I had previously mentioned Linde's 1994 meta-analysis. Further, the Arsenicum article has several similar studies that confirms its validity. I think that we need to turn these accusations around and question the ethics of Enric and Shoemaker who are clearly not showing good faith. Finally, I responded above with substance, and I responded again above by noting that these accusers claim that my response was "smoke and mirrors" but they did not respond to my substantative issues...and yet, they try to inflame by putting certain words in bold as though I am really really a bad bad bad person. Hmmmm. When some editors don't like a message, they go after the messenger. Don't be fooled by this strategy. DanaUllman^Talk 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, compare these two links and stop calling me a newbie in front of everybody, you noobcake :D

• wannabe_kate's DanaUllman edit summary
• wannabe_kate's Enric Naval edit summary

As a user more veteran, with more edits under my belt and with more knowledge of wikipedia policy than you, I grant you permission to keep calling Shoemaker a newbie :D [148] (lol, sorry, shoemaker) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Dana, there are a lot more than just two editors who think you are a big problem on Wikipedia and should be shown the door. The problematic nature of your advocacy has been pointed out directly to you time and again and it seems to me to be falling on deaf ears. Whether you believe these critiques are justified or not doesn't matter in the end; the very tendentious and disruptive way you handle disputes will end up causing you to be more and more marginalized. There is the major mistake that most people who are true-believer editors at Wikipedia make: they think that their peculiar ideas about the way things are or the way things should be somehow have a bearing on Wikipedia editing. Don't make such a mistake: In the end those advocates are just digging their own WikiGraves. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, there are several dozen examples in my evidence above, from two different talk pages, documenting that almost everything you said on those talk pages in the last month or two has been shown to misrepresent the content, conclusions, or importance of whatever study you were discussing at the time. To act as if there is only one bit of evidence being discussed here, and to claim that I, not you, am the one harping on it, either says something about your reading comprehension or your good faith. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that (failing any administrative action here) an RFC on Dana's behavior might be a good idea. We could show just how many people see a problem with his behavior, and that it's not just a couple of newbies to homeopathic articles. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I really don't think an RFC will accomplish too much. It will seem like the "anti-homeopathy" (what a joke that title is, more like pro-policy) crowd is out to get Dana. Some people already thought that during the Whig discussion. Considering the litany of complaints already against Dana here and the fact he has only been sanctioned 1 time during the probation period, I wouldn't expect any sweeping change. Plus, since one editor has chosen to use a bunch of socks to follow Dana around, he looks even more like a victim. Of course, I could be too pessimistic. We'll see, I guess. Baegis (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's the alternative then? Asking on WP:ANI if any admin wants to come and look at the situation and maybe make use of the probation? If there's a problem, we shouldn't just have to live with it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub. There is no plausible alternative. I'm just predicting the outcome. And if I am right, I am calling Randi to claim my money. Baegis (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, to get the $million, your claim has to be at the minimum implausible (like, say... the claims of them). I tend to agree with here that this is the most likely outcome, given the past history with Dana. There's been a mysterious reluctance on the part of admins to do anything about him, or in some cases, even to acknowledge the existence of a complaint. I can think of a few more drastic measures to force their hand, but I'd really prefer to work within the system until it's proven to fail first. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Enric...I meant to refer to you as a newbie to editing articles on homeopathy. You are not a newbie to wikipedia. I do, however, have concern that you may be working from a very strong POV seemingly without adequate knowledge of the field and without adequate knowledge of the broad basic science and clinical research that has been conducted in the field. If I'm wrong, my apologies, but you've only begun editing in this homeopathic space for under 2 months. DanaUllman^Talk 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

COI and book

To accuse someone of having a "conflict of interest" (COI) because they wrote a positive review about a particular research study in a publication is beyond the bound of human logic! The nature of the advocacy of the anti-homeopathy POV (and that is not a joke, but a sad commentary on the bias that is blatantly displayed even on this page) is to insist on removing any mention of studies that appear to support homeopathy, and insist on the inclusion of studies that do not appear to support homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana wrote this book where, according to User:JamesMLane/Homeopathy_(draft)#Some_specific_controlled_studies_and_clinical_trials this draft page on userspace has a chapter called "Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine" where one of the evidences is one of the studies pushed here by Dana. Now, see, if the study gets recognized, his book gets reivindicated. If the study gets desacreditated, so does the book. If the study gets famous, the book gets more famous reivindicated on having chosen that study as base for its arguments (striking "famous" per Arion's comment). Do I need to spell out how it's evindently on Dana's interest that the study is considered the bestest study on the universe and gets referenced everywhere? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just that book: Dana has also published a book called The Homeopathic Revolution, which he has been actively promoting for quite some time on various forums and blogs, often with particular reference to his claims about James Manby Gully and Charles Darwin's alleged support of homeopathy. These claims have been repeatedly shot down, for example on the JREF forum[149] (where he posted as "JamesGully", initially to say that he agreed with Dana Ullman: here's his very first post on the forum[150]) or on the Quackometer blog[151][152], but he has since attempted to edit the relevant Wikipedia pages so that they support the claims made in his book. Brunton (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that because Dana reviewed a study in his book makes that somehow a conflict of interest in being an editor on homeopathic artices on Wikipedia is ridiculous. The statement "If the study gets famous, the book gets more famous." also does not logically follow. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Arion, but conflict of interest on wikipedia is measured by WP:COI, and Dana's actions clearly fall foul of what the policy defines as acceptable, specially since my complaint is about promoting that study, not about him editing the articles. Also notice that the policy says on the finantial section: we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)(emphasis on the original). Notice that Dana teaches homeopathy, gets money from selling books related to homeopathy, and giving conferences on the topic. My argument that Dana has a COI when promoting those studies is clearly backed by wikipedia policy.

You are right on the fame of the book, I stroke it --Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow...based on Enric's logic, no MD can and should edit any medical or even scientific article due to COI. This is getting laughable (my apologies, Enric, but I really think that you've stepped way out of logic here, which is surprising because I sense that you usually have a real appreciation for logic). It is a tad ironic that Enric is asking me to take a breather. DanaUllman^Talk 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you are trying to disacreditate my valid argument using Appeal_to_ridicule. Please stop avoiding the question and address my point. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Jehochman also asked you to take a holiday and expressed that (Dana) will perhaps accept my idea that it may be better to work on a less contentious aspect of the article if this one faces too many objections --Enric Naval (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we ignore Enric's logic for a moment and get back to my point: That it would appear that any description of a sstudy from you is suspect, as, checking two talk opages you've been active on, every time you mention one, it's inevitably been shown by someone or other that you are misrepresenting its content, conclusions, importance, or notability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, you are confusing RS and non-RS. Just because an anonymous person on a blog criticizes a study with sometimes partially sound and partial lamebrain thoughts doesn't make these critiques valid. On wikipedia, I make reference to peer-reviewed studies. Clearly, your above comment is but one more example of your own POV. Let's move towards RS, NPOV information. DanaUllman^Talk 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For the billionth time Dana. Peer-review does not grant instant credibility. Peer-review does not grant instant credibility. Peer-review does not grant instant credibility. ^{Peer-review does not grant instant credibility}. Peer-review does not grant instant credibility. That sink in yet? Baegis (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the fact that a critique is anonymous and/or on a blog does not automatically mean that the critique is not valid. Brunton (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And who the hell is mentioning blogs here, anyway? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a bugbear of Dana's. On at least one talk page he has refused to even consider perfectly valid criticisms of the Chest paper he's been pushing on the sole grounds that they had been published on a blog[153]. And then complained that others were stonewalling. Brunton (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An analysis of Mr. Ullman's claims as to studies

Mr. Ullman, let's look at some of the things you have said about studies that are demonstratably misleading. All quotes are exact, with the exception of removing formatting such as ref tags or brackets around web links that would make formatting be messed up. Any abbreviation is marked as such. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Section I - The Cazin study and Linde metaanalysis

1a. "Published in one of the leading journals of toxicology"

Summary

Although Mr. Ullman claims that J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987 was published in a "leading" "major" and "highly-respected" journal, he changes his mind repeatedly on the title of the journal, jumps at a suggestion by Hesperian of a title that it might be, and uses it to justify his claims, saying that Hesperian's suggestion was correct. Research, however, shows that it was not, and that the journal is, in fact, a minor, low-impact journal with a section devoted to non-mainstream reports. These inflated claims will be shown to be typical as this report continues to other studies he refers to.

Detailed analysis in support

On "Human Toxicology" and the Cazin study, he writes:

“ The below statement was deleted without comment. This is a RS (the journal is now called "Human Toxicology" and is highly respected in the field):
Another animal study testing various homeopathic doses of arsenic on mice was published in a leading toxicology journal and showed statistically significant effects. J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987 ”

and

“ ...it was published in one of the leading journals in toxicology.... ”

We'll deal with the rest of that last quote at a slightly later point. Let's move on for the moment...

Although Mr. Ullman repeatedly claims that Human Toxicology is a highly-respected leading journal, he soon demonstrate he has no actual knowledge about it:

“ The "new" name of this journal is "Human and Veterinary Toxicology" ”

But when Hesperian points out that "Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports lists 76 journals in the "toxicology" category. It doesn't list journals entitled "Human Toxicology", nor "Human and Veterinary Toxicology", but it does list a journal named "Veterinary and Human Toxicology". When listed in order of impact factor, H&VT ranks 68th out of 76 journals." he immediately changes his tune:

“ It is not mysterious at all. The correct name is Veterinary and Human Toxicology. I'm glad that you've confirmed that it is a recognized peer-review journal in toxicology. ”

And, before all this, he had added the following to the article:

“ Human and Experimental Toxicology (today, this journal is simply called Human Toxicology). ”

In fact, all of these are wrong. The journal was originally Human Toxicology, and changed its name to Human and Experimental Toxicology, a name it retains to this day [154]. This means that he was making claims about the importance of a journal that he could not even get the name of correct. But he still claimed himself and himself alone as a sufficient authority to assert it was a highly-respected, leading journal. It is actually a low impact journal (Journal eigenfactor: 0.0028658. Article Influence: 0.24856). In short, he appears to have had no idea what he was talking about, but this did not stop him constantly making grand assertions, and flailing about in an attempt to leap on anything that would give the temporary appearance of supporting his arguments, true or not, nonetheless.

Finally, according to the editors, Human [and Experimental] toxicology's scope is:

All aspects of experimental and clinical studies of functional, biochemical and structural disorder, their causes and antidotes and other therapies using animal and human tissue, in vitro systems and medical and veterinary patients.

Toxicology Elsewhere - This section of the journal highlights areas outside mainstream toxicology, dealing with research interest and reviews of published articles peripheral, yet supportive to toxicology. The international flavour of the journal makes it the ideal way to stay current with the fast-moving field of toxicology.

In other words, they have a special section DEVOTED TO SPECULATIVE OR NON-MAINSTREAM REPORTS. I presume this is where the Cazin article appeared. Do I need to say why this is a problem to his assertion that Human Toxicology's reputation (such as it is) proves that the Cazin article is a reliable source?

Ib Notability of the Linde 1994 metaanalysis

Summary Ullman makes similar - even, perhaps, extreme claims for the importance of the Linde 1994 metaanalysis (Linde K, et al, Critical review and meta-analysis of serial agitated dilutions in experimental toxicology, Human and experimental toxicology, 1994). He claims that it is a "major" meta-analysis, published in a major journal on numerous occasions. However, the journal is the same one as the Cazin study; the article is only cited by two (TWO) other studies in all of Pubmed [155]. Places you would expect to find a major metaanalysis do not include it, and it is not generally available, with even companies making volumes of Human and Experimental Toxicology available not offering issues back that far.

Detailed analysis

Ullman makes similar claims for the Linde 1994 metaanalysis as the Cazin study:

“ ...Please note that Linde, et al (1994) is an important meta-analysis... ”

and

“ The meta-analysis to which I referenced here was published in a major toxicology journal. If you think that I'm wrong (though I'm not), please provide verification. ”

He is, in fact, wrong. As shown in section 1a, he appears to have no to little knowledge of the journal, as it's the same one as the Cazin study was published in, (Not that he knows that, or he wouldn't say that the Cazin journal was Human and Veterinary Toxicology, or did he mean Veterinary and Human Toxicology... well, they're all major journals if they publish something hie likes, as will be shown throughout this report). Also as shown in 1a, the journal has both a low article impact and eigenfactor. It is not a major toxicology journal, as Mr. Ullman would even [finally] admit later:

“ ...We can strike the word "leading," but it is still a NPOV source... ”

Only two other articles reference it in all of the pubmed database: [156]

The study does not appear places you would expect it to if it were a "major" metaanalysis. For instance, the NCCAM page on Homeopathy is generally supportive of homeopathy, but does not list this study in the table of metaanalyses. Linde himself does not cite it in his list of systematic reviews of homeopathy.

Dana Ullman aso has some confusion as to what year it was published, calling it a 1995 study, until corrected. This is typical of his sloppy work.

Finally, Ingentia only makes Human and experimental toxicology available back to mid 2000, Sage publications back to 1998, meaning the article is not generally available.

Despite the problems demonstrated above: that it has only two references to it in all of Pubmed, is generally unavailable, and is not even discussed in Linde's own discussion of systematic reviews of homeopathy, DanaUllman claims repeatedly that the non-notable Linde 1994 study is itself sufficient to make the Cazin study count as notable, as shown in section 1d.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1c: Ignoring Linde's retraction, and Linde 1997. Ullman as a tendentious editor; Ullman insists others AGF while refusing to hold the same courtesy to others.

Summary Linde retracted several conclusions of his previous work in 1999, and this was pointed out to Ullman at the start of the discussion. (part i) Nonetheless, Ullman continues to use the retracted conclusions. (part iii) Ullman insists that we should AGF on his behalf, but does not apply the policy to other editors, and is a textbook tendentious editor (part ii).

1c: Part i

Summary: One of the studies that Ullman pushes for [Linde 1997, see part iii for evidence of his abuse] has had findings explicitly retracted by its authors, and this was pointed out to Ullman. This retraction, in the eyes of a reasonable person, would also apply to the much more minor 1994.

Detailed analysis

In 1999, Linde retracted much of his previous work:

“ "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Linde et al, Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy, J Clin Epidemiol Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 631–636, 1999, doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7

”

Link [7] refers to the Linde's 1997 metanalysis; however, as shown in 1b, the 1994 study by Linde is incredibly minor, and so it is not, perhaps, surprising that Linde does not explicitly mention it.

This was pointed out to Mr. Ullman at the start of the thread that kicked off the discussions referred to in 1a and 1b. [157]

Either your bias is blinding you or you are not reading or understanding previous discussions. First, I realize that Linde said that his previous meta-analysis "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." However, of the 89 trials evaluated, there was a 2.45 (!) odds ratio favoring homeopathy, and when reviewing only the high quality studies, it was something like 1.78 (that's still significant). Although some studies after the 1997 had negative results, Linde never asserted that these new studies took away significance from the body of research nor did he say or imply that there was "no" evidence for homeopathy...he simply said the evidence was reduced. And Linde's 1997 work would NOT reference his 1994 work because the 1994 work was a review of laboratory studies in environmental toxicology, while his 1997 work only reviewed clinical trials. Once again, I want to warn you to AGF, avoid showing bad faith (as you have done on numerous occasions), read past Talk section more carefully, and consider re-reading my post above about recent meta-analyses in which I specifically make reference to Linde's more updated comments. Finally, it seems that I need to remind you again that ALL high quality clinical research has lower positive results (this observation is not simply true in homeopathic trials). DanaUllman^Talk 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1c - part ii

Summary: Ullman's quotes of statistics from Linde 1997 are misleading, and Ullman insists that we should WP:AGF, at the same time as he attacks other editors with impunity, and ignores that AGF specifically says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." and seems ignorant of WP:TEND "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Several examples of Ullman failing to assume good faith, and attacking others without assuming good faith are summarised.

Detailed analysis

This section discusses the Linde 1997 metaanalysis (Linde, et al, 1997 Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02293-9.

“ First, I realize that Linde said that his previous meta-analysis "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." However, of the 89 trials evaluated, there was a 2.45 (!) odds ratio favoring homeopathy, and when reviewing only the high quality studies, it was something like 1.78 (that's still significant). ”

Ullman is incorrect in multiple ways.

In a discussion of the effects of publication bias changing the results of the 1997 Linde study, Ullman quotes the combined results for the 1997 trial as uncorrected for publication bias. In the 1997 trial itself, Linde writes: "The overall estimate of the odds ratio corrected for publication bias was 1·78 (1·03 to 3·10, z=2·09). Thus correction for publication bias decreases the odds ratio by about 27%; however, it remained substantial and statistically significant."

The results for the quality trials are 1.66, not 1.78 as Dana claims. Linde et al do not correct the quality trials for publication bias.

“ Although some studies after the 1997 had negative results, Linde never asserted that these new studies took away significance from the body of research... ”

WRONG!!!! WRONG ON EVERY COUNT!!! What part of "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis." does Mr. Ullman not understand? What part of "The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." does not imply that the results of these new studies reduce Linde's findings on the body of research?

As this section of Linde 1999 was quoted above, and Ullman was explicitly responding to the quote, Ullman's reading comprehension must be cast into extreme doubt. Ullman's statement above "Either your bias is blinding you or you are not reading or understanding previous discussions." would appear to be a textbook example of projection. Which leads to the next point:

“ Once again, I want to warn you to AGF ”

This is typical of Ullman's use of AGF as a sledgehammer to try and attack others who disagree with him into silence. Mr. Ullman, is mistaken on the details of the AGF policy. Assuming Good Faith does not mean assuming that you are right. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." You are clearly a tendentious editor: "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Assuming good faith does not mean assuming you are right. It means assuming the best interpretation to your actions, e.g. that you are incompetent, rather than intentionally deceitful.

1c, part ii (a) - Evidence of Ullman trying to claim Good faith as synonymous for "presume I'm correct".

1

“ Can you show good faith by inserting this statement (it seems that some editors delete my contributions). ”

2

“ My previous writing in this article provided this summary, but it has been deleted several times. I am concerned that Hesparian chose to truncate the quote above. I will assume good faith, and you can show good faith by you summarizing this body of information for this article. Is that reasonable? Let's be reasonable. ”

Brief analysis Ullman and Arion 3x3 were editwarring (Ullman: [158] [159] Arion: [160] [161] [162] [163]) for addition of a new section that he wrote that made a purely biased use of the 1997 study to claim that there is strong evidence that Homeopathy works, and elimination of a discussion of problems with homeopathic research. Hesperian's quote of Linde's finding that "The number of methodologically sound, independently reproduced studies is too small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SAD preparations in toxicology" was quite sufficient to rebut the additions to the article that Ullman was editwarring for the inclusion of. Ullman nontheless attacks Hesperian for quoting a section that shows that Linde's conclusions were not the 100% pure proof of homeopathy that Ullman claimed, acting as if it was a huge attempt to deceive, but that he was graciously assuming good faith. Oh, and it also provides yet another bit of confusion about Human Toxicology (claims that Human and Experimental Toxicology became Human Toxicology, rather than the other way around. [see 1a])

3

“ Baegis, please know that other editors have access to the journals that I've cited above. Because you don't, please do your best to watch the dialogue. I assume that you know that wikipedia has rules against stonewalling. If I provide verification that is notable and/or from a reliable source, it is your job to prove me wrong or right or get out of the way. Ignorance is not always bliss. As for my credibility, I am a widely published author, including 3 chapters in medical textbooks. Please AGF, as will I. ”

(adding note)Dana already got later involved on a different edit war, he got warned for it, then accused of bad faith assumption by two editors and then banned 7 days from editing homeopathy articles for the edit warring. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

4

“ Either you're stonewall or pretending to have a bad memory. Despite this, I will AGF if you can agree that Cazin's work deserves to remain in the article. ”

1c, part ii (b) - Miscellanious failure to assume good faith

1

“ I wish to assume good faith, but I also have a sneaking suspicion that some (maybe many) of the above editors are neither subscribers or readers of this journal... ”

Attacking all your critics because they are not subscribers of a journal that you are trying to hype is not assuming good faith. The rest of the quote deals with the journal Homeopathy, which is best dealt with in another section.

2

“ This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too. ”

3 (On an admin's talk page)

“ Enric has asserted, "my patience with this editor is exhausted." Hmmm. This editor has only participated in the homeopathy articles for a bit over a month. He has also expressed his strong belief that homeopathic medicines are placeboes, while I provide reference to research that suggests otherwise. Clearly, this is a content dispute, and Enric may be gaming the system by over-exaggerating his experience with me. He still doesn't seem to get it, despite your warning. I have had to deal with many socks and many anti-homeopathy editors who are ganging up on me. I'm proud that I've kept my cool and continue to provide RS information with an effort to achieve consensus ”

More could be provided in this section with ease, but I think the point is made.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1c, part iii - Linde 1997

[TBC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1d: Conclusions of Section 1

Summary: One of Dana's longer posts on Cazin is analysed in detail, and almost everything in it is shown to be false or misleading. In a more recent post, Ullman makes such grandiose claims for his source that he actually ends up claiming that a 1994 study will serve as a secondary source to prove the notability of sources from 2003 and 2005.

Detailed analysis:

We may now return to the earlier quote I said we'd come back to.

“ The reasons that the Cazin (1987) study is notable is that it was published in one of the leading journals in toxicology. It was conducted at a major French university and department of pharmacology. It showed a statistically significant result. It was referenced by a major meta-analysis (Linde, et al 1994) and described as a "high quality trial." It has had several replications that have confirms its results. It has V, RS, and 3rd party confirmation...it has them all. At this point, it is your responsibility to assert why it should not be in there. ”

Almost every word in that is wrong, except, perhaps, Ullman's praise of what appears (these articles are not generally availble, as I said, which makes it difficult to check, but this is my best guess) to be the Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille which, as far as I know, is an excellent university. However, it appears (see below) that the university were not the only people involved.

• It was NOT published in a leading journal of Toxicology (section 1a): Human Toxicology is not even generally available, and has relatively low stats.
• That it was conducted by people affiliated with a large university is not in itself demonstration of notability. However, that would not appear to be the only people involved. Boiron J is Jean Boiron, founder of Boiron, a major homeopathic medicines company. Co-author Belon, P is Phillipe Belon who also works for Boiron.
• It did show a statistically significant result. However, according to a seminal paper by John P. A. Ioannidis "a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance." Likewise, several studies point out that homeopathic studies are usually of low quality, e.g. Linde et al, Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy, J Clin Epidemiol Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 631–636, 1999, doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7}}. Dana says that Linde classified Cazin as relatively high-quality (for a homeopathic trial), but the discussion at Talk:Arsenicum_album#Cazin_.281987.29 indicates that this is an assumption on Dana's part, and, in any case, it appears from the abstract and such that high-quality is only intended to mean "relatively high."
• The replications that supposedly confirm its results are not listed by Ullman, but we can presume he means the other studies briefly mentioned in the article, a set of low-quality unblinded studies by Khuda-Bukhsh et al. The problems with them have been discussed extensively on the talk page, and will be dealt with in a later section (if needed). Suffice to say that one of the studies did not even have a control group.
• "It has V, RS, 3rd party confirmation" ...I think this is supposed to be a reference to the poor-quality indian studies, which are not Reliable sources. It might be to Linde, though. Personally, I think Dana's just randomly parroting Wikipedia abbreviations to try and win an argument.

That's from February. However, Mr. Ullman tends to repeat himself a lot, and he has continued to make similar claims, despite months of discussion, even to nearly the present day. Consider this quote from 29 March, which ignores all that came before and simply asserts:

“ First, virtually all of the studies mentioned here have secondary RS, and that is the Linde 1994 meta-analysis... ”

As I pointed out at the time, there were about three studies Ullman was pushing at the time, and the 2003 and 2005 cannot possibly be referenced in a 1994 meta-analysis. Virtually all, my hairy arse.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) Summer Glau 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shoemaker or Summer Glau, please read the stuff that you post before finalizing them. I am concerned that you are showing bad faith and are mis-stating my quote, even though you have the chutzpah to provide my quote and again mis-interpret it. Please AGF or your uncivilness will lead to problems for you. My quote was very specific...I said "virtually all" and this obviously excluded the studies after 1994. As for the Cazin study, the fact that we came to consensus at the article on [Arsenicum album] to include reference to and description of this study is evidence that you are mis-stating information. The Cazin study has several important secondary references, and this study has been repeated in animal models and now in human trials. Please maintain civility and accuracy. I admit to making an occasional error, though every editor who posts many studies, especially those that are often technical, occasionally makes errors. I hope that you too will begin to cite studies rather than your own opinions. You'll become a better editor and provide greater contribution to wikipedia when you leave your strong POV and provide RS, notable references. DanaUllman^Talk 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, do NOT threaten other editors, as you have just done to Shoemaker. His contributions to articles actually stick, which is something that could not be said for nearly all of your main space edits. By threatening him that "(his) uncivilness will lead to problems for you" you are casting yourself in a poor light, when the light is already quite dim in your little area. It is simply amazing that you constantly scream for AGF everytime anyone calls your bluff when you describe study after study in glowing terms yet you are completely unable to recognize when you are wrong. You have NEVER, EVER cited a study and admitted there were any serious faults with them even though they have been constantly pointed out to you by nearly every single editor in every homeopathic article that you edit! It's high time you take your fingers out of your ears, stop chanting "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" and put up or just leave the project. Stop gaming the system (ie going to different articles with the same tired ideas) to get these studies included, stop trying to wiki-lawyer everyone into submission, and stop being a disruption. Please! Baegis (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ullman, you said "virtually all" When discussing an article that used three references - Cazin and the ones from 2003 and 2005. "Virtually all" is not a synonym for "one". Can you demonstrate, with a diff, that any study besides Cazin was under discussion and was even mentioned by Linde et al. 1994 so that it could have been included in your hyperbolic "virtually all"? The issue here is not that you make minor errors, it's that you constantly overstate your source's importance, and seem willing to jump on anything, irregardless of the facts [see, e.g. section 1a] that could be used to try and force your way forward over the heads of other editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps noteworthy that the "errors" seem to be systematic rather than random. Brunton (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Section 2: Additional studies

[Forthcoming]

Section 3: Rejection of well-respected journals and mainstream science in favour of more minor journals and fringe science that support his views

[Forthcoming. Quick samples follow] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

“ ...As for the mechanism of action, it wasn't until somewhat recently that we began to understand how aspirin works...and this didn't influence its acceptability. The reference to the "mechanism of action" has no place here. This article should emphasize what is known, not necessarily what is unknown (if we were to say what we don't know about something, then most of each article would discuss the various things we don't know. Further, this is an article about Arsenicum album, not the entire field of homeopathy. The reference #3, #6, and #7 and the partial sentence connected to it have no place here.

Here's what is presently written with my recommended changes (I suggest that we add the above study after reference #5): Some small, preliminary studies claim an effect for arsenicum album;[4][5] however, these are not widely accepted within the scientific community, as there is no known mechanism by which such highly-diluted substances could work, and large scale scientific studies say that any perceived medicinal effects of homeopathy are almost certainly due to the placebo effect.[3][6][7]

”

Here we see Ullman cavalierly saying we should delete the mainstream view of homeopathy in favour of small, preliminary studies that support his views.

3a: The Shang Metaanalysis

Summary: Two discussions on Talk:Arsenicum album are analysed. Although the Shang metaanalysis is published in The Lancet, and comes complete with a glowing editorial by the Lancet's editors, unlike the studies that Ullman likes, where journals and importance are talked up to the skies, in this case, a widely-respected article in a top-tier journal is viciously attacked, using minor, fringe alternative medicine journals.

Discussion I A quick note - One gets the feeling that Ullman is responding to something else in his first post, which starts off this thread, as it otherwise comes out of nowhere, and seems to have no relationship to the article in question. However, this is the first post in the thread, so... don't look at me.

“ [164] ”

[TBC - need food]

Discussion II

“ ...[Linde provides much much more damaging analysis of the Shang (2005) review of research (which he and others blow out of the water as unscientific and unethical...yeah, that bad). ”

The Shang metaanalysis is a highly-respected one published in the journal Lancet, considered one of the top four medical journals. The Lancet editorial published with it attacked homeopathy repeatedly. Let's look at the letter from Linde that Dana says shows that the Shang metaanalysis is "unscientific and unethical". Here's the opening paragraph.

“ We congratulate Aijing Shang and colleagues1 on their meta-analysis examining the clinical effects of homoeopathy. Their methods largely reproduce those of our meta-analysis on the same topic published in The Lancet 8 years ago.2 We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust. However, there are major problems with the way Shang and colleagues present and discuss their results, as well as how The Lancet reviewed and interpreted this study. We will point out two. ”

Shang replies to both points in {{doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67881-6}} - they're fairly minor procedural aspects, basically, they didn't follow a guideline that Linde thought they should have, and Linde thought they and the Lancet should have been a bit more temperate in their conclusions. More importantly, Linde NOWHERE says that they were unethical, as DanaUllman claims. The discussion peters out at this point, with a reference to the previous one. Once again, Ullman's claims about sources do not match the source itself.

Section 4: Conclusions: Is Dana Ullman intentionally misleading us?

Summary: While there is strong evidence of Ullman making systematic errors and grandiose claims, I do not believe that Ullman's behaviour is evidence of intent to deceive. There is quite a bit of evidence to show that Ullman is simply very sloppy,[Section 1a, etc, as well as little things like mistaking "Little Red Riding Hood" for "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and has an inflated opinion of his own abilities, which combined with the significant investment he's made by having spent his entire adult life advocating for homeopathy, causes him to rate things that support his views much higher than he should [Section 1], while rejecting anything that does not support his views as unimportant or insignificant. [Section 3] While this does mean that he probably genuinely believes what he says at the time, unfortunately, this causes him to be an unreliable source [1a, etc], make it extremely unlikely that he could change his ways, and make him very disruptive to our purpose of making a respectable, mainstream encyclopaedia.

Discussion:

Per WP:REDFLAG: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim... [including] claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included."

Ullman has demonstrated himself prone to inflating the importance of sources he likes the conclusions of, [Section 1 a, b, c-ii] and seems to confuse disagreeing with his conclusions as a violation of good faith [Section 1c pt. ii appendix a], while denegrating respected studies he dislikes the findings of [Section 3]

This puts him in near-constant violation of WP:REDFLAG. He attacks other people that attempt to examine his sources, despite homeopathy "significantly altering mainstream assumptions... in science", particularly at dilutions higher than the Avorogado limit.[See Note 1, below] His habit of claiming, through his over-inflated statements on the importance of the minor studies he quotes [Section 1 a, b, and d], that he, in fact has sufficient evidence, his abuse of WP:RS to claim that it must be included [This will be covered in Section 2], and he also implies, if more weakly than some, that there is a conspiracy to silence him, or at least claims that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong: [165][166] [See also Section 1c, Part ii(a and b).]

Ullman is a tendentious editor [1c-ii] and is prone to confabulation, creating false information that sounds like it might be true but evaporates when investigated [1a]. He has undergone mentorship with LaraLove, but does not seem to have changed the core nature of the problems that make him so difficult to work with on Wikipedia; nor does he seem to have a very high proportion of useful edits to rejected edits and tendentious arguments. Due to Ullman's heavy investment into homeopathy, having dedicated his life to promoting it, it is, perhaps, understandable that he is unwilling to change his views, and will resist any challenges to it. However, even if his behaviour is understandable, that does not make it suitable for Wikipedia: I think it highly unlikely that he is or will be capable of working effectively with others to build a neutral, NPOV (See WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience) encyclopaedia; nor do I think him likely to ever be able to accurately apply guidelines such as WP:FRINGE which insist on identifying and emphasising mainstream views at the expense of his strongly-held fringe views; nor do I think he will stop being a tendentious editor and turn into a useful contributor. Let's face it, in the end, he is Dana Ullman, a leading proselytizer of homeopathy. His entire livelihood and career spins around his unwavering belief in and promotion of homeopathy, and emphasising and hyping whatever could possibly be interpreted as positive to homeopathy and denigrating and trying to dismiss anything negative is part and parcel of that. We cannot expect him to change these inherent aspects of his character just because Wikipedia asks him to nicely.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note 1: Sources for this are numerous, a few taken from the Homeopathy article include Teixeira J (2007). "Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy 96 (3): 158-162. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.001, [167], and Whorton, James C. (2004). Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America. Oxford University Press. Or perhaps This article in Time, which contains quotes such as "'It is just the reverse of everything we believe according to the basic principles of physiology,' declares Professor Varro Tyler of Purdue University, an expert on herbal remedies. 'We believe that the greater the dose, the greater the physiological response. They believe that even after there is no drug left, you still get a response.'" and "Advocates claim that evidence of homeopathy's efficacy is emerging, citing a list of scientific papers published in recent years in such reputable journals as Pediatrics, the British Medical Journal, Lancet and Nature. But there is only a handful of these reports, and they are far from definitive. The ultimate test of scientific validity is whether the results can be duplicated, and so far they have not been." and "Belief is the entire process, contend scientists." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, you cite a very relevant quote from Time Magazine:

• "Advocates claim that evidence of homeopathy's efficacy is emerging...."

That is precisely the problem with Dana. He isn't here to create an NPOV encyclopedia, but to "advocate" (advocacy is forbidden here - ArbCom decision). He constantly "advocates ... homeopathy's efficacy," instead of stopping with citing that there are true believers who advocate it's efficacy, and leaving it at that. He actually does it, right here at Wikikipedia. He's using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate fringe nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, excuuuuuuuuse me! If you read [168], you'll see that I make many specific RS, nobable, and NPOV references to controlled research. You'll find much of the studies at Arsenicum album have derived from my contributions and my efforts to get consensus. It seems that many editors here belief, like Fox News, that is you continually repeat mis-information, that people will believe you. Instead, you show that you create your own spin zone. I am NOT simply interested in "positive" information on homeopathy. I want accurate info, and sadly, I think that we still have a lot of work to do to create a good body of NPOV encyclopedic info. And for the record, I have had to dialogue with hoards of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs (who later have been found to be TOR exits sites...and therefore blocked). Some admins have told me that they appreciate that I've kept my cool...and will continue to do so. At the recommendation of one admin, I will avoid responding at all to bad faith attacks on me, especially those with whom I have had content disputes. Attacking the messenger because you don't like the message is a classic tactic, but it doesn't have a place on wikipedia. DanaUllman^Talk 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not AGF? Brunton (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that rather than address Shoemaker's criticisms, Dana has chosen to raise other matters[169]. A question: if Dana were to succeed in getting some sort of sanctions imposed on Shoemaker, would this make the above criticisms any less valid? Brunton (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As an editor in Wikipedia, I do not believe it is appropriate to accuse Dana Ullman of "intentionally misleading us". That frankly borders on a personal attack upon his character and his integrity. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, you realise that my conclusion was "No, it is not intentional"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not change the inflammatory nature of this section: "Is Dana Ullman intentionally misleading us?" Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to block pro-homeopathy research articles

It is not the role of editors to prevent the inclusion of research that is supportive of homeopathy. Tortured logic has been used to try to dismiss research with such comments as "high-quality is only intended to mean 'relatively high'"! There is no justification for such argumentation. To argue for the exclusion of a research article because "the article is not generally available" is not acceptable. Research that both supports homeopathy and does not support homeopathy should be included. That is how a NPOV article in an encyclopedia must be wriitten. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion, since you are talking about the role of editor, I make you aware of WP:PILLARS, I quote: " Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. (...) Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.'. The role of editors is even clearer when the first pillar says "(All articles must) strive for verifiable accuracy" The studies cited by Dana have been shown to be verifiably not accurate, and neither is Dana's represensation of them, and Dana's actions are a direct violation of the very same foundations of wikipedia. You saying that the arguments are not justified won't make disappear the increasing mountain of evidence that they aren't. Editors can remove non accurate sources from the articles with no problem at all, your protests and Dana's protests that they can't won't change this fact. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, when the article implies that high-quality means getting over 50% on a checklist, that's only relatively high. Secondly, as you should know, as I provided executive summaries and everything, Mr. Ullman claimed Human Toxicology was a "leading", "major", "highly-respected" journal. Sites like [ScienceDirect.com] and [Blackwell Synergy], [JSTOR] and so on exist for the purpose of making journals actually available to scientists and researchers, and usually include full runs of the journals. If hundreds of other journals have had their full runs completely scanned and indexed, why is a journal that Ullman describes as "leading", "major", and "highly-respected" not fully scanned, and only available on a fairly minor site? Particularly as it has a "major" metastudy by Linde in those missing years, that proves the notability of the Cazin study? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Human Toxicology is a legitimate reference source for use in Wikipedia, and arguing against it does not change that fact. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And Mr. Ullman is making claims that do not match provable reality, and arguing against it does not change that fact. In addition, the situation is worse: not only are the articles almost impossible to get access to, but he refuses to give a straight answer to questions about them (I'll do a section on that tomorrow). Which means that, whatever the reliability of Human toxicology, we are not using studies in Human Toxicology as a source, we are using Dana Ullman's reports of studies in Human Toxicology, and, as I have shown, Ullman is a VERY Unreliable source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is not the source of that research, nor has he mis-represented that research:

A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilisation of arsenic in the rat Cazin, M., Gaborit, J., Chaoui, A., Boiron, J., Belon, P., Cherruault, Y., Papapanayotou, C. Human Toxicology. 1987; 6: 315-320

Abstract: Having developed a pharmacokinetic method for studying the fate of orally administered arsenious anhydride by a radioactive tracer method, the influence of Hahnemannian dilutions of arsenicum album on the elimination and retention of this toxin in the rat was then investigated. The effects of centesimal (cH) and decimal (dH) dilutions were studied.All the dilutions studied were found to be active. The strongest effects were observed after the administration of dilutions corresponding to a concentration of 10-14 (14dH and 7cH). Overall, the decimal dilutions augmented the elimination of arsenic more than the centesimals.The observed results were submitted to mathematical analysis. A mathematical model, which confirms that Hahnemannian dilutions have biological effects which are a direct function of the degree of dilution, was developed.

Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He has misrepresented its notability and its accuracy, I refer you to all the evidence compiled by me and Shoemaker, and to all the comments by other editors here and on talk pages of Homepathy about the matter. If you want to demonstrate that this is not the case and that our evidence is wrong, I recommend you to show evidence of it, using diffs, on this very same page. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there has not been any convincing "evidence" presented by Enric Naval or Shoemaker that Dana Ullman "has misrepresented its notability and its accuracy". And I have noted that you have ignored the direct quote that I presented from the abstract of the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely shocking that you would reach that conclusion, Arion. Earth shattering. Blindly defending a pro-homeopathy editor? I have never heard of such brazen tacks. Baegis (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is my opinion that the evidence is convincing, that's why I put it here for other editors to see. You are free to consider otherwise and you don't have to convince me. Just present evidence here for everyone to see, I won't enter long discussions that avoid presentation of evidence on a neat way easy to peruse. Also, any direct quote from the study is not relevant, since we are talking of Dana's quotes, that's why I ignored it. You didn't even explain why the quote is relevant --Enric Naval (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is relevant because you accused Ullman of misrepresenting the research study. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Then explain how the quote relates to my accussations. Provide diffs and explain them --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion is right about one important thing: print journals that are not yet available online are usable as references. The way to deal with them is to obtain a copy by interlibrary loan or at a major med cal library that has it. We do not ignore everything before the internet. The availability of online journals is relatively recent, and it will be a considerable time before all files are converted. While this is especially true for many of the less important independent journals, the lack of present online availability is irrelevant to use as a RS. This said, I do agree with Shoemaker Holiday's other criticisms about the journal and the article. I think he has sufficiently shown that the findings there are not supported by subsequent studies. DGG (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the lack of availability, it is the fact that the editor pushing for inclusion can not be trusted to objectively describe the study. That is the actual problem. Baegis (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG...what "subsequent studies" are you and Shoemaker referring? Because much of the above dialogue was in reference to [Arsenicum album], I have no idea about which you are referring. I do not know of any "negative" trials on Arsenicum. As for subsequent studies in clinical homeopathy in general, there has been a mix of various positive and negative trials...and neither Linde or his co-author Wayne Jonas have claimed that statistical significance to homeopathic research is gone. In fact, Jonas has published a slew of positive work. DanaUllman^Talk 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG's stating the factually inaccurate statement "not supported by subsequent studies" does not make that a fact. Where is the data to back up that assertion? Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday: When Content Disputes Lead to Attacking the Messenger

User:Shoemaker's Holiday has much more time to burn than I do, though it has been said that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. He claims that I have made numerous errors and that he even asserts that I seem to do so on purpose. I have asserted several times that this editor has content issues with me, and because I refer to RS research that is notable and that shows positive results for homeopathy, he simply cannot accept this information. This has led him to now attack the messager. It is therefore more than a tad ironic (actually, it is the "total chutzpah" category) that he is frequently be shown to provide misinformation, as he did above when he refers to Linde's writings as a "retraction" of his previous study, as Shoemaker did here [170] First, Linde never used the word "retraction" nor did he even say that the 1997 meta-analysis was no longer significant. Shoemaker even asserted (TOTALLY INCORRECTLY) that Linde's "retraction" referred to BOTH the 1997 meta-analysis of clinical study as well as the 1994 meta-analysis of environmental toxicology studies: "This retraction, in the eyes of a reasonable person, would also apply to the much more minor 1994. In 1999, Linde retracted much of his previous work: "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]." My question to Shoemaker, TO WHAT REFERENCE DOES #7 REFER? The 1997 meta-analysis or the 1994 meta-analysis? DanaUllman^Talk 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, read what he said again. He made it clear that he believes you're not making errors on purpose. Making an error such as this right off the bat is not a good way to defend yourself... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 7 is the 1997 metaanalysis, as I explicitly pointed out right near the top of the section you link to, claiming I was in error: Link to revision from 6 April, showing the text was there before Ullman attacked me

“ Link [7] refers to the Linde's 1997 metanalysis; however, as shown in 1b, the 1994 study by Linde is incredibly minor, and so it is not, perhaps, surprising that Linde does not explicitly mention it. ”

Perhaps, Ullman, you are not familiar with the word "summary". It means that things will be explained in more detail if you read a bit further, and that will prevent you from looking like a complete idiot for using this supposed fact to attack me here and at Talk:Arsenicum album and to attempt to justify a revert. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...so, did Linde use the word "retraction" or not? And did he "retract" the 1994 environmental toxicology study or not? Needless to say, he clearly did not retract his study, nor did he retract, diminish, or make reference in any way to his 1994 toxicology study. My concern is that you would say otherwise and that you would stand by this mis-information once it has been brought to your attention. Once again, it is important to mention that his 1997 work was a clincal meta-analysis. Just as he didn't discuss mechanism of action research or hypotheses, he didn't mention his 1994 research or many other basic science studies. It is interesting how many of the above editors are careful to avoid acknowledging these errors in Shoemaker's statement, how they defend fellow editors with their similar POV, and how in unison they go after others who have a different POV. The irony and chutzpah here is that Shoemaker is intent on showing my errors. That said, I want to say that we all make errors. We all type down wrong dates of publications or journal names, but heck, such errors are usually on the Talk pages where we can correct each other...and work together for a consensus that has more precision. In this light, I will retract my above statement that said that Shoemakers asserts that I "seem" to make mistakes on purpose (I'm actually glad that I was not correct here and am glad that you all know that I don't). DanaUllman^Talk 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He said his results were probably wrong, and "at least overestimated". Retraction is defined as, [among other things] "The act of withdrawing something advanced, stated, claimed, or done; declaration of change of opinion; recantation." Dictionary.com a "declaration of change of opinion" and "withdrawal of something claimed" are good descriptions of what Linde said in his 1999 paper about the 1997. I instead ask you: How do the problems Linde points out in the 1999 paper not apply to his 1994 paper? What makes Linde's 1994 paper untouchable by evidence of bias? The 1999 paper says that "In the homeopathy studies evaluated here, double-blinding proved to be the most relevant influence factor...bias from this factor might be particularly important" because of there only being a few objective outcome measures for many of the conditions studied. According to Talk:Arsenicum album by the only other person who had been able to find a copy, in the Linde 1994 metaanalysis, of the studies considered, "only 1.3% were randomized; 12% described the manipulations between diluting steps; <1% described adequate precautions against contamination during the dilution process; 7.8% were blinded. Linde does not report which, if any, of these applied to the Cazin paper." If blinding is important [blinding! not even double-blinding!], then bias of the researchers may well be sufficient to skew their results. According to the same user, Cazin had "no report of blinding or randomisation". You have a copy of these studies. Can you provide a quote from them that disproves this user's assertions? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoe...you're smart enough to know that using the word "retraction" is OR. Please use the word(s) that Linde used...and please acknowledge your mistake. Until this happens, you're not showing good faith. DanaUllman^Talk 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, for the love of all that is holy, read through the WP:AGF policy and STOP citing it at every single turn! For someone who cites it all the time, you can't even follow through on it in your own responses. Gar!!! Baegis (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, does this mean that wikipedia is now allowing OR? I rarely assert that someone is breaking wiki-rules by OR, but in THIS case, it is obvious, even according to Shoe's above statement. Yes...for "the love of all that is holy," I assume good faith, and I simply ask for good faith from other editors. Let's be reasonable. DanaUllman^Talk 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've all had enough here. The only question left is do we do an RFC on Dana or take it straight to ANI? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I like Dana. I really do. I think he could help us document this area and be an asset to the project. He knows a lot about homeopathy and a lot of this detail is tough to ferret out of the horrendous mess that is the homeopathic literature.

However, this kind of tomfoolery, arguing whether a retraction is a "retraction" based on whether the author explicitly used the word "retraction" or not is just approaching the ridiculous. Sorry, but this is almost the very definition of WP:DE and WP:TE. It saddens me. This is part of the reason good editors have been driven away from this article, this topic, and some even from WP itself. I am very disappointed.--Filll (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Grumble. It might be questionable to use the word "retraction" in the body of the article, but using it here or on the article talk page is quite allowable. And it is a clear mistatement by Dana, whether or not intentional, to state that Linde 1999 is not a retraction of Linde 1997. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on. We all know what a scientific retraction is. This was not one. It was a reassessment in the light of new information. But you all seem to be so enjoying your bean-feast, I wondered whether to come back at all. And by the way, do not ever say you like me, as I will know then that I am in trouble. The Tutor (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Really! We all know what a scientific retraction is! It should also be noted that Shoemaker cherry-picked his own definition (and there were LOTS from which to choose!)...and he chose to ignore the one defintion on wiktionary.org: A withdrawal of an earlier assertion, particularly one that is made in a public forum, and which concedes that the earlier assertion was in error.[171]. So, please complain at ANI about Dana because I am committing the "crime" of discouraging OR. Unless Shoemaker acknowledges this error, I believe that he is not showing good faith and instead is standing upon OR only. DanaUllman^Talk 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We all know what a scientific retraction is, and that clearly was one. He states the earlier paper was wrong. What you call a retraction would be stating that the earlier paper was fraudulent (not necessarily fraud on the part of the authors, but fraud on someone's part.) That's not what I call a retraction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"A withdrawal of an earlier assertion, particularly one that is made in a public forum, and which concedes that the earlier assertion was in error". Er, you mean like saying something along the lines of "the evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." Brunton (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In examining the meaning and connotation of the word "retraction", I believe it does not properly reflect the statement by Linde: "It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we move on from endless disputes because one side dislikes the connotations of a single word used in my analysis, to the extent of ignoring every other thing said in it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results" still means something positive. And this should be reflected in the lead.--24.56.140.198 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I don't follow you. Did you use the wrong talk page? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is incredibly tedious that it should take an entire section to come to an understanding of "retraction". Antelan^talk 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually read this stuff? Shouldn't you be removing periods? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert without discussion + incivility ?

Any administrator would like to make suggestions to the editor who reverted me at the Arsenicum_album ? I discussed it, kindly asked for objections and added a quote from the article which is in use in the article. What is the problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arsenicum_album#.22Basic_science_research_on_the_biological_effects_of_highly_diluted_solutions_has_yielded_mixed_results..22 --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are in the wrong policy-wise. The quote you want to add is an opinion piece a minor journal that conflicts with more respected journals' take on the matter, and, what is more, is on the subject of Water memory, not Arsenicum album. It is therefore irrelevant here, and does not reflect the best sources on the matter. Under NPOV policy, there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page, so there is no reason to include it there. Frankly, to pull someone up to this noticeboard to try and get people to go at the person that reverted your not-entirely-coherent addition (and only once!), as well as your comment on Talk:Arsenicum album seems a bit of an abuse of this remedy, though I'm willing to accept that it's due to ignorance of the proper procedures and policies, not due to malice. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, in future, I suggest you establish consensus before making changes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is currently the subject of a topic ban, but is editing the current ArbCom in spite of having been warned of his topic ban. [172] [173] If there is anything at Wikipedia that deals with the (banned) subject of homeopathy more than this ArbCom, I don't know what it would be, so the topic ban certainly applies just as much to it as to the homeopathy article. -- Fyslee / talk 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

He is still allowed to edit the ArbCom case because he stands to be sanctioned in the final decision. I believe that is the understanding. Since he currently has a 1 year ban proposal that is being voted on, he would deserve a bit of a chance to defend himself. Baegis (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I also stopped giving him any warnings for anything he says there for the same reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor has decided to stop editing homeopathy

Peter morrell (talk · contribs) has decided to stop editing at homeopathy. Here are relevant links and evidence of a serious attitude problem: [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] I suggest that he be taken at his word and held to it, IOW a topic ban until he shows evidence of a change of heart and an understanding of NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, don't agree. When editors leave, they often vent frustration, and this isn't anything out of the ordinary. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The most natural interpretation of (part of) this series of diffs seems to be that an admin with an extreme anti-homeopathy POV tried to set up a homeopath for a topic ban, not getting useful reactions to his baiting, and eventually trying it anyway. If I take care to assume good faith, I come to a milder conclusion: Fyslee probably needs a wiki break. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that a better statement is "EVERYONE needs a wikibreak from homeopathy": There's been far, far too much drama than is healthy, what with the whole Dana Ullman thing. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case closed

The Arbitration Committee homeopathy case has closed, accordingly the community probation has been replaced with Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions, and this page is essentially redundant. Disruptive editors editors should now be handled using the Arbitration Committee sanctions, which is detailed on the case page, instead of the community probation. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)