Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

Case Opened on 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Case Amended by by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party
 * aka


 * Clerk note: With the expansion in the scope of this request, at the direction of the Committee (see below), it is expected that some new parties will be added to the list above. However, please note, do not add a user other than yourself to the above list; users may only add themselves directly, not others (per convention). Daniel (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk)
I've done a three-page report of Dana's actions on Homeopathy Article Probation Incidents Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents that spells this and other points out in more detail, but, frankly, noone pays attention to that page anymore, so, in short: User:DanaUllman is Dana Ullman, a major promoter of homoeopathy, and seems to be unable to remove his advocacy hat for editing Wikipedia. Some typical examples:

The first example involves Ullman taking a very minor study in a minor journal, and talking it up to the moon. He made grand claims for the importance of the journal it was in, but then showed himself completely ignorant about the journal (among other things, not detailed here), giving lots of conflicting and incorrect information about something so simple as the name of the journal. This is not atypical of Ullman's behaviour:     In this case, one that's particularly easy to document, the journal was Human Toxicology, and became Human and Experimental Toxicology Pubmed link However, Ullman said variously that:  It was Human Toxicology, and the name became Human and Veterinary Toxicology; It was Human Toxicology, and the name became Veterinary and Human Toxicology; and it was Human and Experimental Toxicology, now known as Human Toxicology. Despite this obvious ignorance, he kept hyping it to the moon: it was a leading journal in toxicology, it was highly respected in its field, and so on. How one can be ignorant of basic details about a journal, and at one case say it was a completely different journal (Veterinary and Human Toxicology), and still be able to claim, as Ullman does again in his statement below, that he is expert enough to judge the views of disparate scientists on the matter to be able to confidently admit that it's a leading toxicology journal boggles the mind. Statistics (Journal eigenfactor: 0.0028658. Article Influence: 0.24856) rank it as a fairly minor journal at best.

Even he would later admit that his previous claims that it was a leading journal were wrong. 

I give this incident in some detail, because it's typical of Ullman's behaviour as to studies: Any study he likes the findings of, he hypes to the moon. Studies he doesn't like the findings of are either quotemined for statements that support his views, e.g.  or here where he claims a review poking fun of an issue of homeopathy (reproduced on the author's blog here, but originally published in the journal Nature) is evidence of the reliability of that issue of Homeopathy as a source (!)

Or simply dismissed. For instance, Here he suggests a selective removing of all critical content from an article's lead (note the strikeout tags.) This comes in the middle of an edit war by Ullman and  to remove all other critical content in the article. (Ullman:   Arion:    )  This is, of course, in violation of policy page WP:NPOV/FAQ, which says ''"Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."''

Finally, and perhaps most gratingly, DanaUllman is always asking other editors to Assume Good Faith, but his view of assume Good Faith seems symnonymous with "assume that I'm correct":

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

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

Brief analysis Ullman and Arion 3x3 were editwarring (Ullman:   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.

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

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

That last is from yesterday morning.

Ullman, of course, does not assume good faith in others, and sometimes accuses them of things immediately after saying he's assuming good faith (!?)  

I bring this here, as the situation seems too complex for the Homeopathy article probation to deal with - or at least, finding anyone willing to wade into that mess is next to impossible.

The issues are complex, and full details are best saved for the evidence phase. Suffice to say that this is by no means an exhaustive list, or even a complete analysis of the problems used as examples. Far more can and will appear in evidence should this case be accepted.

In Ullman's second Statement, he claims that I said, at Water memory, that research after 2002 has no place here. What I actually said was that it has no place as a reference to a sentence discussing events of 1999 that led up to an event in 2002, as it only served to confuse the reader as to what study the paragraph was talking about. . Pretty much how he characterises everyone else in his statement is also bizarrely overblown. This is, unfortunately, typical of him: He created a three-page attack thread when I said [on a talk page] that Linde retracted some of his previous findings when he said that they had "at least overestimated" the previous results. Because he said that using the word "retraction" - on a talk page, not an article -was original research. (Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick addendum

Statement by Dana Ullman
I want to make it clear that I am not interested in having wikipedia being anything less than encyclopedic in nature, presenting reliable information of various notable facts and theories. I have no interest in just having “positive” information on homeopathy, nor do I want to see articles that omit positive information from reliable and notable sources, just because the dominant worldview and a majority of physicians are skeptical of this method of medicine.

I sincerely hope that people who do choose to stick their nose into the articles and Talk pages that deal with homeopathy, the memory of water, Arsenicum album and many other homeopathic-related articles will see that the articles are not encyclopedic in nature, and in fact, it was only recently that the article on homeopathy had some external links that were to homeopathic organizations (previously, virtually all of the links were to anti-homeopathy information and organizations).

The two editors who complain about my editing are editors with whom I have content disputes. Because I choose to be transparent and edit under my real name, I am a known person and a specific target to editors who have a strong POV against homeopathy. The fact is that I make efforts to reference research in peer-review medical and scientific journals, that I provide secondary references for most of these studies, and that I maintain civility, despite the many socks that have abounded around me, that have followed me around, and several of whom have been blocked from wikipedia indefinitely.

These editors who complain about me also seem to have a lot more time on their hands than I do, and for this, I apologize. I will briefly respond to some of their concerns.

Shoemaker claims about my initial mis-statement about the title of the journal are way-way overblown. Although I initially did make reference to this journal as “Human Toxicology,” that was because this journal was previously called by that name [By googling, Human and Experimental Toxicology "Paul Turner", you will see-- Paul Turner, the publisher and the Editor of what. was then `Human Toxicology'. HT had been running ... was `Human and Experimental Toxicology', a journal ...].

In 1987 when the Cazin study was published, the journal Human and Experimental Toxicology was a leading journal in toxicology. Although it may no longer be a “leading” journal (in part because Paul Turner is no longer its editor), I simply chose to not fight the many anti-homeopathy editors with whom I was working. It is amazing how Shoemaker turns “peace-making” into some type of admission of error.

Paul Turner, the editor and publisher of this journal, wrote an editorial that highlighted the Cazin study on Arsenicum. Turner was a leading expert on toxicology. Turner was the co-editor of toxicology textbook, as well as another leading textbook: Recent Advances in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Paul Turner, D. Turner, G.N. Volans, Churchill Livingstone, 1989. Also, The Drugs Handbook. By Paul Turner and Glyn N Volans. Annual. London : Macmillans; 1978. [MRF3 RS355 Dru]

In 1977 Turner was made an honorary member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

Shoemaker, Baegis and other livid anti-homeopathic editors have edited out the Cazin study, despite being published in a RS, despite an editorial written by the editor of the publication in support of this work, and despite this study being highlighted by the Linde 1994 meta-analysis.

If the Cazin study was the only study on this subject, I would be more sympathetic with these critics. However, there have now been several mice, rat, and human trials testing Arsenicum album in the treatment of exposure to arsenic.

To me, it is amazing that Shoemaker and Baegis have attacked the Linde 1994 meta-analysis. Linde and Jonas are highly respected evaluators of researcher. This review has over 63 papers in which it is cited (the 1st citing is from Annals in Internal Medicine). This paper is notable, and it is RS and N information that seem to make certain anti-homeopathy editors livid.

Shoemaker’s biased testimony is palpable. He writes: “Studies he doesn't like the findings of are either quotemined for statements that support his views, e.g. [2] [3] or here. And yet, in #2 reference, I am critical of one of the many anti-homeopathy editors who mistakenly confuse the Linde meta-analysis in 1994 on environmental toxicology with the Linde meta-analysis in 1997 on clinical trials. These editors are smart people, and yet, after I have corrected them many times, they either tend to forget their confusion or are purposefully providing mis-information. . Reference #3 is my very appropriate critique of the Shang comparison of research, which has been roundly and soundly criticized by many others.

Shoemaker claims that I do not want “any critical” information in this article, and yet, the reference that he has given does NOT support this assertion. 

Shoemaker tends to see problems when there is nothing there. He complains about my efforts to assume good faith and when I encourage people to be “reasonable” (I sense that he hates the fact that I do a good job at being civil).

Shoemaker and some other anti-homeopathy (and anti-Dana Ullman) editors have sought various techniques to block me. Baegis acknowledges this above and is disappointed that other efforts to block me have not been adequately successful. Some admins have admonished them, but they are unrepentant and continually creative in trying to silence an editor that is making a real effort to create an encyclopedia.

I urge admins here to not simply reject this proposal but to consider admonishing editors to make a better effort to maintain NPOV, to avoid stonewalling (as they commonly do when research from RS is provided), and to work towards creating a real encyclopedia here. DanaUllmanTalk 05:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * Accept, and given the way the article has been troublesome, the scope of the case should be broad enough to catch editor misconduct generally. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kirill 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept, but with the scope defined as homeopathy articles rather than this one user. Given that there seems to be dissatisfaction with the community-based article probation, and perhaps some inertia with respect to carrying it out, our involvement is warranted. --bainer (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept, to look at all involved parties and issues in order to address the problems associated with this this topic. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I too accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
3) Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Novel approaches
4) The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.


 * Passed 8 to 1, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Area of conflict
1) The conflicts presented in this case revolve around homeopathy and various related topics. Past attempts to resolve these conflicts, including Committee rulings and community-imposed sanctions, have failed to resolve the underlying issues or to restore stability to the affected articles.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman
2) has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Wikipedia.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions
1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
 * Appeals

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
 * Uninvolved administrators

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
 * Logging


 * Passed 6 to 2, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DanaUllman banned
2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions
3) Homeopathy and related articles are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Superseded by motion, 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC). See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.
 * Rescinded by motion, 11 to 0, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any notification made of users about discretionary sanctions relevant to this case at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Log any subsequent block, restriction, ban or extension at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.