Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
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 #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
Contents |
[edit] Involved parties
- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party
- DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) aka Danaullman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Infophile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- OffTheFence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Enric Naval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 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)
[edit] Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
I've done a three-page report of Dana's actions on Homeopathy Article Probation Incidents Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies 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: [1] [2] [3] [4] 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. [5]
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. [6] [7] 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 Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs) to remove all other critical content in the article. (Ullman: [8] [9] Arion: [10] [11] [12] [13]) This is, of course, in violation of policy page WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, 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
Brief analysis Ullman and Arion 3x3 were editwarring (Ullman: [14] [15] Arion: [16] [17] [18] [19]) 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
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 (!?) [20] [21]
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.
- Quick addendum
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. [22] [23]. 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.27s_Holiday:_When_Content_Disputes_Lead_to_Attacking_the_Messenger) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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 [24], 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 [25]
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) [26]. 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. [27]. 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. [28]
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)
[edit] Preliminary decisions
[edit] 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♥♥♥ 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I too accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.
[edit] Principles
[edit] Findings of fact
[edit] 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.
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
