Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents

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

message: —Whig (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Line up to drink your dose of Civility :-)  Shot info (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Note on admins and probation 

message: - Creates this Wikipedia:DELETEHOMEOPATHY page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disruption 

message: Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of article probation, but I thought it was supposed to stop edits like:
   . --Akhilleus (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And now,  . I'm starting to regret recusing myself from enforcing the probation. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Nore ironic is I never touched the article page. Anthon01 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit warring at [[Homeopathy]] over category 

message: 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: , . (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)
replies: text: You seem to be doing your best to ensure that there are no "uninvolved" admins.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Polite disruption is still disruptive.  Stop now.  Thank you. Jehochman  Talk 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern regarding Felonious Monk--nothing personal 

message: I reverted this addition to the talk page  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, and those bit he inserted didn't help the article at all.  Baegis (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption by MartinPhi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I consider this vandalism.  —Whig (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: But you placed it on his page without asking him or telling him. Anthon01 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: A diff would be helpful. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here it is. It's similar to what's above. -- Fyslee / talk 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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. 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)

text:  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)

text:  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. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disruptions that need attention 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  expand area blocks 

message: 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)
replies: text: Action has been taken.  Please do not make inflammatory comments. Jehochman  Talk 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: No. Jehochman  Talk 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get up, get get, get down 

message: —Whig (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Hey Fyslee, take a look at the Outside, uninvolved opinion from User:Keilana. —Whig (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Disruption on [[Talk:Arsenicum album]] 

message: === civility problems and copyright violations and exposed a person's real name ===
 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.
Please take a look here. 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)
replies: text: Update: EBDCM has apologized and was sorry. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: (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)
thread_title: Chiropractic related problems

message: 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.
Please take a look here. 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)
replies: text: Update: EBDCM has apologized and was sorry. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  civility problems and copyright violations and exposed a person's real name 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: (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)
thread_title:  insensitive remark using the offense word hate 

message: The edit war continues. Attempts at discussion are being stonewalled. Dlabtot (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been protected by another admin. MastCell Talk 22:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war continuing at [[Thuja occidentalis]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. DanaUllmanTalk 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Dana still falls under the restrictions and guidelines of the Homeopathy avec ou sans a mentor.  Baegis (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Lara's mentorship of Dana ended on 1 March 2008  --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility on Arsenicum album 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: ROTFL. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  One week ban of Randy Blackamoor 

message: Could an admin please take a look at this?  —Whig (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

text: Whig, please refrain from biting the newcomers, especially with regards to SPA issues. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not bite, I made a mention of the fact. —Whig (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Incivility and disruption on [[Talk:Arsenicum album]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  disingenuous edit summary 

message: Should anons be adding editors to article probation and outing their supposed identities on that page?  —Whig (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please do not bring your hypotheses here. —Whig (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Anons 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV tag 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does anyone still pay attention to this? 

message: I just indefinitely blocked  & 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)
thread_title:  Sorry for wasting everyone's time... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uninvolved administrator?

message: See this comment of mine  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, that's fine - duly noted. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm mistaken, LaraLove is no longer his mentor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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).  DanaUllmanTalk 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 05:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this edit...  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 , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  pushing articles on talk pages 

message: Dana is pushing Enni's studies again on April 3 2008  (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 [] 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 .
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , and Ernic also links to Ennis’ email to me that verifies this  .  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  is so full of misinformation that it is not worthy of comment.  DanaUllmanTalk 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is grandstanding obfuscation on the part of Dana Ullman. Please block this disruptive editor. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: enric's report

message: *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. DanaUllmanTalk 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Water memory]]

message: ====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: 
and
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:
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:
And, before all this, he had  added the following to the article:
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  . 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 . 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:
and
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:
Only two other articles reference it in all of the pubmed database:   
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)
replies: text: 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).  DanaUllmanTalk 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is perhaps noteworthy that the "errors" seem to be systematic rather than random. Brunton (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section I - The Cazin study and Linde metaanalysis

message: 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 . 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:
and
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:
Only two other articles reference it in all of the pubmed database:   
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)
thread_title: Ib Notability of the Linde 1994 metaanalysis

message: 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:
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. 
::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).  DanaUllmanTalk 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 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. 

message: 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:
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. 
::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).  DanaUllmanTalk 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1c: Part i

message: 1
2
Brief analysis
Ullman and Arion 3x3 were editwarring (Ullman:    Arion:    ) 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
(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)
thread_title: 1c, part ii (a) - Evidence of Ullman trying to claim Good faith as synonymous for "presume I'm correct". 

message: 1
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
3
(On an admin's talk page)
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)
thread_title: 1c, part ii (b) - Miscellanious failure to assume good faith 

message: [TBC]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1c, part iii - Linde 1997 

message: 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. 
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, }}.  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:
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)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is perhaps noteworthy that the "errors" seem to be systematic rather than random. Brunton (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1d: Conclusions of Section 1

message: [Forthcoming. Quick samples follow] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 3: Rejection of well-respected journals and mainstream science in favour of more minor journals and fringe science that support his views

message: 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   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?  DanaUllmanTalk 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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).  DanaUllmanTalk 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  DanaUllmanTalk 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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..  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.  DanaUllmanTalk 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done and done. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: You actually read this stuff?  Shouldn't you be removing periods?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoemaker's Holiday: When Content Disputes Lead to Attacking the Messenger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yup, in future, I suggest you establish consensus before making changes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert without discussion + incivility ? 

message: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Arbcom case 

message: is currently the subject of a topic ban, but is editing the current ArbCom in spite of having been warned of his topic ban.   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Violation of topic ban 

message: has decided to stop editing at homeopathy. Here are relevant links and evidence of a serious attitude problem:             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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An editor has decided to stop editing homeopathy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitration case closed