Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558

• Courtesy link to recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

“

Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2 1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s College, London, UK Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA. [email protected]. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Withdrawn) Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4 This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009. Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained) This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication. REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.

”

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 183 FCs served} 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While it was withdrawn, it has not been disproven, nor was it withdrawn because of an inability to reproduce the results, nor because another paper debunked it. It was withdrawn because it couldn't be modified as time went on. I see no reason why this is not still a perfectly legitimate study, aside from the fact that it doesn't go against homeopathy and any excuse is an excuse to exclude it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website^[1] Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllman^Talk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"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."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [47].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --
  talk
  ) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.

The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.

If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic
  discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk
  ) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[48]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.

Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.

Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2. ^[2]

Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.

The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[49]]

I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.

I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllman^Talk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand
  WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk
  ) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllman^Talk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of
  SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk
  ) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground.
  Chillum
  13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• opposeIt is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Wikipedia could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• His credentials outside Wikipedia are irrelevant they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in wikipedia according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the
  WP:COI conflic of interest guideline which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Wikipedia in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that User:ScienceApologist was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was User:Peter Damian, and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Wikipedia look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --Enric Naval (talk
  ) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[50]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [51], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article [53] My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give

For instance, in Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed change on replication of trials, Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Dana has misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen here (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a behaviour problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example this diff, in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or this diff, in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana - What you are trying to do with Wikipedia is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and

You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here.

If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Wikipedia. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior.

Fighting the secondary sources battle in Wikipedia is all about what

If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Wikipedia project. This type of debate is not what we're here for. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --JeanandJane (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something.

WP:NPOV

- we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field.

We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly.

Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth.

Done directly here, however, it's

WP:SYNTH

and bad for Wikipedia.

We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor.

He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not -

WP:RS

prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here.

But what we and he can't do here is use Wikipedia as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources out there - in

verifyably find and cite

. And then, we can include them.

Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief." No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know.

Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our reliable sources. The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: World Health Organization is attacked by the Lancet for supporting Homeopathy 's efficacy. The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the J Clin Epidemiol.

Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their criticism for the latest meta analyses. Currently excluded from the article!

The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS.

I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/J Clin Epidemiol.paper.

I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban of DanaUllman.

What I've found most frustrating about the editing process for this topic is the screening of allowable RS articles published in respected peer-review journals, and also prominent secondary sources. When a statement that requires support of an RS is advanced, and that source either contends to support the efficacy of homeopathy, or criticizes the results of other anti-homeopathy research, that RS itself is attacked on some obscure grounds, lessening its value by stating it's too old, or it's been detracted (not!), or it's results have been heavily criticized and put to rest, or newer sources invalidate them (as if seminal older RSs suddenly become impertinent). All in an attempt to keep fair and RS supported content at bay. This is not in the least neutral in my opinion. DanaUllman, unfortunately, has been caught in this whirlpool of bias and intransigence. From my perspective, attempting to disassemble it, it seems, has proved overwhelming, to the point where one person cannot be expected to respond to every accusation or criticism made towards him by a group of others (allusion to IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In the short time I've contributing to editing for this article, many criticisms of propositions and suggestions I and others have put forward to make the article more neutral, have been repeatedly attacked even after they have been explained very clearly as to why and the reasons. And counter-suggestions have rarely, if ever, been advanced by the anti-homeopathy quorum. It seems as though a strong case of viral IDIDNTHEARTHAT is sweeping the forum.

As far as misrepresentation of RSs goes -- virtually *everyone* on the homeopathy talk page that has attempted to say anything substantive, has misrepresented sources by selectively quoting from them, selectively summarizing them, or biasely paraphrasing them, and then failing to notice a statement in some other part of the article which puts this interpretation into serious question. If DanaUllman is guilty of this, he is in *very* good company. Even so, I don't really blame editors for this if it's occasional, as perhaps this is due to unintentional zeal of having found what appears to be clear evidence in support of one's POV, to the blind exclusion of all else.

I don't believe DanaUllman should be banned, as I've learned a great deal from his participation in the discussion. He provides a unique perspective that is refreshing in (what I perceive to be) an already highly anti-homeopathy-biased forum. I've addressed specifically in the talk page two of the areas I see as biased, and now I've noticed a third involving the citing of publication bias -- but only in one direction in support of anti-homeopathy views, when there are *many* examples of publication bias in the opposite direction as well (the talk page reference lists many of them). But I haven't yet gotten around to addressing this latest issue on the talk page.

If DanaUllman is ultimately banned (which I don't support or agree with), then I would at minimum suggest banning at least two or three editors from the anti-homeopathy side as well -- those who are especially culpable in creating repeated and consistent obstacles to constructive editing and more neutral improvements based on the merit of arguments advanced and RSs to support these arguments.

The suggestion that "editors from the anti-homeopathy side" should be banned in some kind of cold war style tit-for-tat seems needlessly confrontationalist. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with banning

But Agree with Dbrisinda above. While I would support DanaUllman not being able to edit the actual homeopathy article because of a conflict of interests, I see an attempt at totally banning him as the anti-homeopaths just trying to lock away any and all resistance.

I have also said this before, and will say it again: If a homeopathic doctor can not be used for input, research, and statistics on their subject of expertise, then all physicians must be banned from editing medicine related articles, as it is a conflict of interest, regardless of how up in the air the subject matter is.

It's pretty clear that every editor that contributes to Homeopathy puts their opinions first. Anti-homeopathic editors will always search the Earth for any studies that disprove the efficacy, and shoot down anything otherwise, while pro-homeopathic editors will always search for studies that prove the efficacy while shooting down anything that disproves it. To be quite frank and honest, everyone (Including myself) needs to take a break from the subject and come back to it with an editors neutral point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗoiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I have had some concerns that I have pointed out to Dana and he has been very responsive and understanding. He is a COI editor and he acknowledges this, and he has not recently attempted to edit the Homeopathy article or any related article to my knowledge. What he has done is participate in Talk page conversations related to Homeopathy, a subject in which he has expertise other editors do not. I believe that those most strongly accusing him of bad behavior have engaged in similar actions, cherry picking and selectively representing sources in order to portray homeopathy in the most negative possible light. As far as the claim of

Article Ban - It's time to see if Dana can edit articles (articlespace) other than Homeopathy. I recommend (initially) a 1 month article ban from Homeopathy. If Dana edits nothing else in this time, it's extended to 3 months. If there are still no edits to any other aricles - then indefinite ban implemented. I'm thinking that Dana needs to give the overall Community confidence that he isn't a one-trick pony and is actually interested in the project, rather than just one article out of millions. Of course if he violates the ban, then blocks can be issued per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Dana hasn't edited the Homeopathy article recently, and has expressed his intention not to do so, I don't think an article ban from Homeopathy is meaningful. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana is testing the Communities (short) paitence with him. I congratulate you that you are trying to help him. I'm trying to help him too - I don't want to see him permabanned, so how can he be encouraged to help himself? How about he go an edit another article - or discuss another article? His singleminded focus on homeopathy isn't helpful for him as a Wikipedian. If he doesn't diversify, well what is the Community going to do? Shot info (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Dana is trying to test anyone's patience, but I appreciate that some people are frustrated, and I do agree it would be good for Dana and the project if he would edit some other article. I'm not sure what more I can do to encourage him: I think it would increase both his understanding of the project and his respect from others involved in the project. I don't think a formal ban is necessary to encourage positive behavior, only to prevent negative behavior, but what mechanism can do this? I'm open to ideas too, because the goal all of us share should be improvement of the encyclopedia. —Whig (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note and reminder

If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article

Yes, please, we have even gotten back where people will place POV tags at the top of the article because their proposed changes were all shot down at the talk page because of not being in agreement with what the high-quality sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice how many editors dispute the neutrality of the article? .--JeanandJane (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is moot because, once it was discussed thoroughly, they failed to show that the article didn't represent sources accurately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or they failed to convince the editors who added those sources that there was a neutrality issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute never ended, and I continue to believe that the article should be tagged, but I have not personally added the tag recently. —Whig (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're governed by

WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience specifically deals with articles such as Homeopathy. That some editors disagree with it, and want a purely sympathetic view doesn't make the article a violation of NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184}

FCs served 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for a purely sympathetic view. Perhaps you would like a purely hostile view? —Whig (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag says in plain english that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" (By some editors). This is far from how some editors seem to think it reads: "A new topic disputing the neutrality of this article has appeared" or "This topic is not neutral". The tag simply states that some authors disagree with the stonewalling of the likes of User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Enric Naval, User: Verbal, and User:Brunton (And to a lesser extent by a few others to fill the gaps). The tag discussion, however, is for the talk page. If DanaUllman is causing chaos, its only because those 4 previously mentioned editors go absolutely haywire when someone disputes their studies (Which because they've been published later, somehow supercede the earlier studies... But haven't been around long enough for much peer review. Convenient, huh?). Dana has not (And has even privately said to me that he has no intention of doing so) edited the Homeopathy page, and has merely provided insight and discussion on the talk page. This is perfectly allowable. If you can't handle these comments, don't respond to them! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, you've been here enough years to know what

WP:PSCI says. You've been here enough years to know that, for any subject, no matter how wacky, a few ostensibly reliable sources exist supporting it. You ought to know that some articles are the subject of continual campaigns to push them to meet a non-scientific point of view. Homeopathy is akin to Creationism. If Ssomeone showed up to the Evolution article with books by various Intelligent design proponents, and was abusing the scientific literature to find random quotes that seemed, out of context, to support his point, but, when you looked them up, didn't, would you still be complaining that the pro-science side was stonewalling? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184}

FCs served 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the policies regarding this, and I only believe that the term fringe belief needs to be changed, as the common person reads that as "Very few or next to no people on the planet believe in this." I am also aware of what history can teach us, and that's not to trust everything that is handed to you immediately. The merits of this medicine are not widely understood, and studies are bouncing back and forth every decade changing the opinion of it. I am aware of what money can do to the world and that things that aren't marketable are always at a disadvantage to the things that are. Just like at Wikipedia, consensus is not always achieved merely by numbers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There was just a long discussion on the Talk page about this and it was pointed out that the article does not call Homeopathy a fringe belief. It remains that some editors continue to refer to it as fringe in comments and edit summaries, however. I don't think there is reliable sourcing for characterizing it as such, and evidence of prevalence to the contrary exists. —Whig (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If I might get back to the original point... all of the above only reinforces that we really need some uninvolved admins to maintain order. Pretty please?

This I will agree with. A neutral admin who has no opinion of the topic either way needs to stand as a mediator, and possibly an overseer of edits. Consensus should be declared by this admin as opposed to the passionate editors of the topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This ANI shows that it is important, perhaps essential, for some non-involved admins to participate in the homeopathy article. The ANI is evidence of one group of editors, who have a strong POV on homeopathy, who want to mute someone who doesn’t have their POV. Even though I have not made a single edit (!) to the article and have provided references to RS, their solution is to mute me. I sincerely hope that non-involved admins consider policing these editors who may be abusing wiki policies.

As for specific assertions above, I take issues with Shoemaker’s statement where he asserts I am “known to misrepresent sources,” but his “evidence” is simply not there. I encourage people to read his link to the Talk pages and see for yourself.

For the record, homeopathy does not simply have “some” studies that show efficacy; there are meta-analyses on the treatment of specific conditions that show this, and there is evidence of replication of studies, and yet, the article at present says that there are no replications of trials with positive results. Ironically, the reference that presently exists of this statement is reference #12 that is dated 1995! Despite my and others efforts to change this misinformation, this outdated information still exists, as does the 1995 reference. DanaUllman^Talk 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

• DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is strongly warned against general discussion of the topic, especially for specific issues where he is (or has been) directly involved or acting as an explicit advocate. Conduct contrary to this warning will be regarded as disruptive.
• DanaUllman is strongly advised to communicate in a direct, frank, and clear fashion. This requires avoiding vague references, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, selective omissions, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of the discussion. Failure to communicate clearly and honestly will be treated as disruptive conduct.
• All editors in this topic area are explicitly warned against
  treating the area as a battleground
  .
• Editors in this topic area are strongly encouraged to utilize avenues of soliciting community feedback when there is an intractable disagreement or other impasse in discussion. This includes, but is not limited to,
  fringe theories
  ). All such requests should neutrally report the disagreement and solicit feedback.
  • Failure to seek out such community feedback or other forms of
    dispute resolution
    while persisting in edit warring and/or talk page arguments will be handled as disruptive conduct. Rejection of community feedback will be treated as disruptive behavior. Extremely biased or advocacy style requests on those noticeboards will also be treated as disruptive behavior.

This specifically addresses DanaUllman's conduct, while also addressing disruptive behavior by other editors. This should not be the basis for further (or practically endless) second chances. It should be regarded as a "final warning" and provides a clear basis for admins to act decisively. Thoughts? Comments? --Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this do something that the arbitration case didn't already do? Any reasonable editor would have taken a year-long ban as a hint that a change in behavior is needed, right? Friday (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I still don't see how Dana Ullman has done anything wrong to deserve any warnings, let alone a final warning. He is not editing the article (And therefore is not engaging in vandalous advocacy), and the only "disruptions" are editors spazzing out at his comments on the talk page. All his comments are dedicated to improving the articles, none of them have to be carried out, or even taken into consideration if there is a general disagreement. Long arguments and discussion needn't be construed as a disruption, but rather as a means to some new resolution. My suggestions:

• Fully protect the article (Including from any admins involved with the article) so that only a neutral party can make the final edits to it. This way, nobody can accuse another of taking ownership of the article.
• Split the talk page into one dealing with style and one dealing with content. The content talk page should be labeled as a place where passions roar, and that comments should not be taken or delivered personally and should stick to improving the topic at hand.

The second is a bit unreasonable, but here is the alternative: Banning anyone that stands behind their opinions from editing Homeopathy or its talk page and related subjects. This isn't tribal warfare, I know we can be more democratic about this instead of being socialists crushing the rebellion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What he does wrong: He's wasting the time of editors on the talk page. He misrepresents sources, and has a severe tendency toward "I didn't heard that". I believe he's proven himself unable to be a useful contributor here. You want us to change our standard operating procedure to accommodate one guy? I believe there is a simpler, more common solution, already suggested above. Friday (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Editors waste their own breath (... or strain their finger muscles) responding if they are unswayable in the first place.

2) He hasn't edited the article, so he hasn't misrepresented anything nor contributed to it. Its a talk page, and anything on a talk page is merely a suggestion or comment which is put forth to review by others.

3) I don't want to change operating procedures, but I don't want a communist wikipedia where editors go cry foul whenever somebody disagrees with them and the perpetrator gets a midnight visit from which they don't return. If he is misrepresenting sources, you say "You're misrepresenting sources there", and ignore it. You are suggesting we silence the only professional involved with the subject on wikipedia because you want things to just be silent and left alone, as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, misrepresenting sources should be an only warning the first time and a permanent disinvitation from editing the second time. It goes against the heart of

WP:V to misrepresent a source. The fact that he is a professional here is rather the crux of the problem: he is promoting an inherently fringe view of a pseudoscience, something with no actual science (beyond the established efficacy of the placebo effect) to back it up. → ROUX ₪

 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is evidence of misrepresenting sources, perhaps he has selectively represented one side of the issue which offends other editors who selectively represent the other. In any case, I don't think that Floydian's split-talk proposal has much to recommend it, and the alternative is worse. We shouldn't be banning people based on POV. As far as fully protecting the article, since Dana has not edited the article recently and it is his conduct that is the issue here, there is no reason to consider that. I think that Dana is trying to help improve our coverage of homeopathy but lacks an appreciation of Wikipedia's wider community. I don't believe he has done anything to justify a ban, at this time, but a warning or friendly advice may be appropriate that Wikipedia depends on respect for the community and a difficult

SPA runs the risk of exceeding the community's patience. —Whig (talk

) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I repied below in the evidence of misrepresenting sources. Dana has already had lots of warnings and advice, he had a mentorship by LaraLove, and he got banned for 1 year, and he still doing the same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But can one assume he is intentionally misrepresenting them and not simply misinterpreting them? The human mind is bound to create logical fallacies in order to satisfy the pattern it seeks. That is, someone looking through a study for something to back up homeopathy is very likely to only catch the parts that do just that (And miss the counterpoints made), but it doesn't mean they are intentionally fabricating their own results. I know my suggestions are extreme, but there should be a place for these discussions on wikipedia as they incite change as opposed to stagnation. Rules need to be lay down, not punishments - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point that one may misinterpret and not intentionally misrepresent sources is well taken. I don't believe there is evidence of bad faith on Dana's part. Nonetheless, I don't think rule changes are needed here. —Whig (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comment and Brunton's comment. Dana was caught red-handed misquoting a comment to misrepresent it, the probation incidents page is packed full with complains and analysis of the misrepresentations, and the evidence page of the case is also full of that, Dana then got banned for 1 year for advocacy, and now he's back to misrepresenting again. We can't read his mind to know if he is doing it in good faith or not, but don't say that he didn't made misrepresentations because he has made a lot. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is constructive to relitigate old battles from more than a year ago, and the evidence page you point to has been blanked, so there is nothing to look at or discuss. If you have a case to present to the ArbCom then as you know the article is under their supervision and you can bring violations to their attention. Here we are discussing recent conduct and I do not see evidence that intentional misrepresentation occurred. —Whig (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an old battle when Dana has been banned for 1 year and has restarted the same behaviour as soon as he was able to return. Just the continuation of the same problem after 1 year of forced pause. For the evidence page, you can simply click in history just like the blanking template says, but I'll give some links [54][55] and all of Scientizzle's evidence[56] (and Baegis' and PhilKnight's, and Shoemaker's might be too long to read but it has lots of diffs in painful detail). (and the stuff in the accident probation page was enough by its own to justify an arb case, mind you....) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is widely known that User:Enric Naval has a strong POV that is antagonistic to homeopathy, that he uses various wiki-lawyering strategies to keep potentially positive information about homeopathy out of the article, and has a tendency to take things out of context. He asserts that I have “misrepresented” sources, and he gives this as “evidence” [[57]], and he has the audacity to reference User:Brunton who is another of editor with a strong POV and who makes similarly unfounded assertions. They seem to think that if they and other editors with their similar POV gang-up and repeat the same accusations that others will think that they are real. Because many editors with a strong POV against homeopathy know that I provide references to high-impact journals that are widely recognized as RS, they seem to see me as a threat to their POV, even though I am simply trying to make the article more accurate and NPOV. Several editors have asserted that I have not done anything wrong and that I provide a real contribution to wikipedia.

Brunton and Enric assume that the issue of “replication of studies” is not important to this article, even though our article at present has a 1995 (!) reference to the lack of replication of studies that confirm efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of specific diseases and even though I have provide RS evidence from the Cochrane Report that verifies that there has been replication of studies by independent sources. Further, I provided a reference to the Lancet showed that the result of one of these studies was clinically relevant. Brunton asserts that only I am interested in this subject of replicability, and yet, his own link shows that this is a highly debated subject with people voicing pros and cons [[58]].

My point here is that Enric and Brunton and select others make unfounded assertions primarily because I have a different POV than they do. The bottomline is that my new involvement on the homeopathy Talk pages is relatively short, and a non-involved admin can easily evaluate my contributions, see the many RS references, see my civilized efforts, see the many attacks (even personal attacks given by the NAME of a sub-heading [[59]], and see the persistent stonewalling of information that a group of editors with a strong POV against homeopathy.

It seems clear that the editors who want me muted should be more carefully evaluated for their actions.

I also want to address User:Vassyana: I am an “advocate” for accuracy. If THAT is a problem, please let me know. Please clarify what I have done wrong since my return to wikipedia. It seems that your recommendations are good recommendations for ALL wiki editors, not just me. Because you have chosen to address them only to me, I would benefit from knowing on what you are basing your recommendations only to me? DanaUllman^Talk 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not asserted that only you are interested in the issue of replicability of results: what I was trying to point out was that your statement that "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments" implied that the matter was raised by "the wiki community" and you just provided supporting info, and this isn't borne out by the evidence which shows that you brought it up yourself. If you had phrased it the other way round, stating that you had brought up the matter and provided references, and the community had considered it an important matter to discuss, that would have been fair enough, and would have reflected what had actually happened; but that isn't quite what you wrote. I provided diffs in the comment that Enric referenced so that others could judge the evidence and decide for themselves whether or not I'm mistaken here. For the record, I don't assume that the issue of replication of studies is not important, and I don't think I have posted anything that could be interpreted as meaning that - I was even one of the participants in the discussion that you cite as evidence that it is a highly debated subject. Brunton (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana, I don't want to answer for Vassyana, but the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm sure you know that, but I just wanted to make it explicit. —Whig (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whig...of course...and THAT is why I have a history of providing reliable sources to verify what is NPOV information, usually in high impact journals, and sometimes with secondary reliable sources that have reported on them...and THAT is why I seem to be so threatening to some editors here. I cannot help but find a bit of irony that some editors assert that I am "wasting editors time" by providing this information, and they seek to mute me (this is why I feel that admins should be investigating those editors here who have are pointing fingers at me). DanaUllman^Talk 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as NPOV information, Dana. I really think you lack sufficient perspective on Wikipedia's policies and practices. I don't want you banned, I don't want you restricted from participation in Talk page discussions on the topic of Homeopathy, but I doubt you are going to get why you confuse people if you limit yourself to one article without broader involvement in the encyclopedia project. —Whig (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Choices

Vassyana's suggestion

• Support Vassyana's proposal. There is far too much soapboxing on that talkpage. DU is certainly an instigator, but by no means the only one to wander off
  WP:TPG. As I believe I argued last year, knowingly and flagrantly misrepresenting a source should be grounds for immediate block. As a side note to the strong encouragement to seek input from the wider community, I would like to urge that such discussions when (not if) they occur not be overrun by the usual suspects. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Third choice, as somewhat stronger measures seem required to end this disruption. The non Dana Ullman advice remains excellent, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with the understanding that disruption of a talk page is still disruption. Suggest adding article probation if these problems continue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Second choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Ullman returned after a year, and immediately, the talk page goes from civil to an all-out war. He's not a good influence, he has shown nowhere in this entire discussion any desire to change, and he has continued the problematic behaviour. It's far too little for a very obviously single-purpose account who caused months of disruption in the past, and who promises further months of disruption in future. Ullman hypes minor studies that support his view to the skies, ignores anything he doesn't want to hear - look at the incident that started this, where he participated in a discussion about a study being withdrawn, then went straight back to asking whether there was any evidence it was withdrawn - and is talking about exactly the same points as before the one year ban. Does allowing him to continue editing alternative-medicine-related articles serve any constructive purpose, or is it just another example of the holder of the minority view must always be given endless second chances? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 11:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shoemaker, this in no way address the problem. This isn't a sanction prohibiting Dana's problem behaviour, instead it sanctions Dana to continue these actions; the very same actions for which he was banned for a year. Dana has shown an unwillingness or an inability to change his editing regarding alt med, so should be topic banned from alt med. I support the non Dana specific parts, but that doesn't address the problem that is Dana.Verbal chat 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, clearly ignored the other POV's in this debate and made a hasty suggestion that really doesn't do anything to solve or address the problem. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - better than nothing, but would prefer a site ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support but the same advice for all editors .--JeanandJane (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have considered it, but given Dana's past history it's obvious that he is not going to hear this advice. A 1 year ban made no change in his behaviour. We'll be back to the same situation in a short time. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support but provided it applies to all editors equally.
  talk
  ) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Dana's behaviour gets worse, he can be topic banned without such a final warning. If it stays essentially the same (I am afraid it's probably not going to improve), this may get him banned for the doing what his opponents do, but being on the wrong side. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article ban

• Support. This keeps DU from editing Homeopathy (Which is already the case), but allows his participation in the talk page. This entire debate is being run by the individuals with a strong anti-homeopathic POV, and the other POV's n the matter are completely being ignored over this group that has simply banded together to take out their key opposition. This "war" is just as much their fault as DanUllman's, and this incident board post is a fucking joke. Every participant should be given the same punishment as DanaUllman. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On what grounds? Can you provide evidence of misrepresenting of soures? Of being a single-purpose account? Of
    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Of any good reason for a ban that would apply to the other editors? Provide diffs. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189}
    FCs served 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • On the grounds that the debate here is identical do the debate at homeopathy. It's essentially the same editors taking the same opposing viewpoints. There is very little to no input on this from neutral parties, and the decisions are clearly based on an effort to silence Dana. Why is a site ban necessary when a topic ban accomplishes the same thing? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Talk pages are where Ullman causes the most disruption and problems. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article ban would accomplish absolutely nothing, since Dana has not been recently editing the article and has expressed no intention of doing so. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless talk pages, and all pages related to Dana's published work are included. That's why I support the two options below rather than this. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose it misses the point of where the disruption actually happens. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose since he has made no edits and does not intend to do so.
  talk
  ) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. This would recognize that the community finds Dana Ullman's participation problematic, but would not do much to further the restoration of productive editing. A ban solely from the article will almost certainly serve only to shunt the issue to specific remedies &c. As well, any measures should in this case include talkpages, as disruption confined to talkpages is still disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a purely symbolic action since Dana is careful not to edit the article, anyway. And per Floydian's rationale, which is correct. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - does not address the problem. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban (All Homeopathy-related articles and talk pages)

• Support, third choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as a second choice, as the harshest punishment possible. Includes all the homeopathy-related articles, as well as all the remedy articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, if talk-pages included. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, if this is imposed in such a manner as to encourage Dana's wider participation with unrelated articles/topics, it may help him to gain a greater appreciation of Wikipedia and the community. I do not know that it is necessary or appropriate to force him to do so, but if the topic ban may be lifted more quickly upon some demonstration that this account is no longer single purpose, then perhaps it may do some good. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - if talk pages are included, but prefer outright ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Second choice, but only if article talk pages are expressly included. And any off-site canvassing should lead to an immediate site ban. If similar behaviour manifests in other topics it should be a short step to a site ban. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• oppose --JeanandJane (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per COI and previous editing of other pages related to homeopathy. Needs to include talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose since he is an expert in the field and can provide valuable discussion and alternative perspective on the talk page.
  talk
  ) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Lets just for the sake of things assume that this option includes both the articles as well as the talk pages of all articles directly related to homeopathy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice. This editor disrupted the encyclopedia, was banned for it, and returned with precisely the same behaviour (and even discussion points!). Enough already, let us get back to creating a free NPOV encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• The wording here has obviously caused some confusion - see alternatives below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I didn't follow the Arbcom case at the time because it was confusing as hell and was about articles where I had not been active. But it looked as if there was essentially a lynch mob going after Dana because he had the wrong opinion and fought for it tirelessly and ineffectively. Now he is back, still having the wrong opinion and again fighting for it tirelessly and ineffectively. If that's indeed why he was banned by Arbcom, then it seems quite extraordinary to me (not because it doesn't make sense in the interest of the encyclopedia, but because we generally don't do that), and "returned with precisely the same behaviour" is not a convincing argument to repeat Arbcom's mistake. — By the way, if I were dictator of this place, I would topic-ban Dana along with a few other people who are active around homeopathy. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this is the same as the topicban below, why is this a separate section? → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)