Revision as of 22:35, 25 April 2008

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Notification be made as widespread as the scope of this case

1) Basically, I think if we're going to review the Homeopathy article probation, as well as just Ullman and other editors, we really, really need to make sure all, or at least the editors of the pages most under discussion that this case had opened, and what the Arbcom-determined scope is. I am, however, unsure as to the best way to do this, so put this here. As a preliminary step, I'll add a notice to Talk:Homeopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Editors should feel free to post reasonably-worded notifications as widely as they feel necessary. Kirill 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I've added it to the template advertising the article probation, Template:Homeopathy/Warning. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reliable sources and content

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Snippets from WP:V; essentially, we want to boil down sourcing policy to a succinct principle. Could probably use some more work, though. Kirill 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Instead, a principle that stated (for example) that misrepresentation of sources is prohibited, may be more appropriate, or so I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be an additional finding, but stating the operating policies concisely is not a bad idea. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and see my proposed remedies below for this. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Sourcing Adjudication Board

1) The Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board , which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Misplaced Pages. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
2. Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
3. Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.

The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be decided at a later date .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Brainstorming (perhaps insanely). The devil would be in the details here; I really have no idea how we could select such a board in practice. Kirill 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Excellent idea, in my opinion - I saw you said on WT:Requests for arbitration a while ago that sometimes editors get sanctioned for incivility, while POV-pushers go unsanctioned, because the committee refuses to judge on content grounds. That is a frankly insane situation, and, even if not necessary in this case, would make arbcom judgements a lot saner in the cases where it is required. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nice idea, however I'm reasonably sure that apart from Dana, no-one else involved requires sanctions. Also in respect of Dana, I think we should be able to provide sufficient evidence to justify some form of remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are similar problems in regard sources in 9/11 articles, and have been similar recurrant problems in articles related to alleged child abuse incidents and repressed/recovered memory. Christopher Michael Langan and Eric Lerner also come to mind as articles in which the question of whether the content of references is misrepresented is in dispute. I prefer not to name editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we do need a binding ruling on content, such as cases like User:PHG. When mediation fails and an editor continues to abuse sources, there comes a time when somebody has to decide. The remedies for this case need to be general, not specific to Dana. Once there is a finding than an editor is abusing sources, then it becomes much easier for community processes to handle the matter. The SAB should probably be elected by the community. It would be a good place for some of our best editors to participate, especially those who are not administrators. User:SandyGeorgia and User:Giano II immediately come to mind. Jehochman 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do think that this is a great idea, having them elected by the community probably isn't going to work out too well. Some of the very best people (read:actually understand what constitutes a reliable source in these areas) would never be elected due to their past history in these articles. We've all seen the dogs unleashed when editors who frequent controversial articles are up for admin, B-crat, ArbCom or anything else. Maybe they should be appointed but who knows for sure on that one. Baegis (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What we need is people who know their ways around sources and have reasonable access to a number of them. University graduate students might be ideal - access to databases and experience using them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - some reasons cited below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has shown clear evidence that Dana Ullman has misrepresented sources. I have pointed out a widespread problem - which is very serious and largely ignored since I first encountered it on the Homeopathy article in December of 2007: the tactics of the anti-homeopathic/"skeptic" editors. They use all kinds of argumentation to prevent and block the use of pro-homeopathy research sources. They do this by misrepresenting them as not notable or fringe (or "Speculative" as Shoemaker tried to do with the Arsenicum album research published in Human and Experimental Toxicology - see my notes on this on the Project page Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Opponents_of_Dana_use_every_tactic_to_dismiss_important_research) Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be in favor of the board then, as they would be more likely to reach an unbiased decision than your (alleged) anti-homeopathic editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In theory, they should be able to reach an unbiased decision. The very fact that you would use the word "alleged" - when the anti-homeopathic bias is self-evident - concerns me. We should all be trying to reach an amicable, harmonious, and co-operative solution. If you keep pretending that the problem is Dana Ullman, then that will never happen. The problem was there before he ever discovered the article. There is an outrageous attitude of "ownership" (WP:OWN) of the Homeopathy article by the anti-homeopathy/"skeptic" editors who consistently block anything that could be construed as "pro" - when the effort has actually been to get the article to "neutral" as in NPOV. They have even blocked the slightest edits by those who they consider on the other side. I remember when I made an edit of one word - changing "created" to "produced" in the lead (after it was discussed on the talk page) - and I was immediately reverted - with the most ridulous scolding in the edit comments for POV pushing. When are you going admit what the real problem is. I have watched many editors leave the homeopathy article after they made good faith efforts to help out (Dicklyon & Slim Virgin are 2 very good examples of uninvolved editors who tried to help out) and they were rewarded by being assaulted with all kinds of verbage soapboxing about how homeopathy is "nonsense" and "fraud" and that they should stop trying to get the article to an unbiased neutral presentation. When I first encountered the homeopathy article, it was even under the category of "Fraud"! Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. How would a qualified Sourcing Adjudication Board be chosen for fringe or minoritarian topics? Using the example of homeopathy, would the Board consist of homeopaths, or would it consist of people with mainstream medical/scientific tranining and expertise? This is really a core question, to me. As another point, I think that edits that rely on careful parsing of individual studies are weak de facto - if a point is salient and notable, then one shouldn't have to root through a 12-year-old journal article to find a sentence supporting it. Once you move beyond the question of quote- and article-mining, the other issues (e.g. what constitutes a "reliable" source) seem to me to be dealt with adequately via existing channels (article talk pages, WP:RS/N, etc). MastCell  17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In practice, it'd probably be a standard group. I'd suggest a few scientists, a few historians, maybe a few religious scholars, and at least one person with specialised expertise to evaluate nationalist claims (a political analysist or something? I dunno). However, I'd strongly suggest that they are instructed to err on the side of caution, and admit if they aren't sure. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the board is a very good idea. I think that a homeopath should be on the board, if we want to make this as clear as possible. I have Peter Morrell in mind, since he is not only a respected homeopath, but also has been a valued contributor to the project and has shown a great ability to understand all issues. Of course, who it would be is open to discussion.

Peter Morrell isn't a bad editor, but if this is meant to be a general arbcom tool, not just for use on homeopathy - which is the really only thing that makes sense - then Peter would probably work best as a alternative medicine consultant of sorts, not a permanent board member. I am not aware that Peter has any particular expertise outside of Altmed - I apologise if I'm wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm relatively new to wikipedia and am not adequately sensitive to the nuances of wiki-policy, I give the following thoughts with some humility: I'm not clear if a Board will solve the problems that we are observing here. I think that we need to strive more strongly towards NPOV and towards Raul's Razor. We need to have less tolerance towards BOTH kinds of POV-pushing, including those pushing for an article disproportionately towards one viewpoint or another. There should be encouragement for articles to have multiple POV and penalties for those who advocate excessively for articles having just one POV. There should also be penalties for editors who stonewall the inclusion of appropriate notable and verified information for which they are reliable sources and secondary sources. DanaUllman 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I don't know if you understand the gravity of the situation at hand. As much as I respect Raul, that is an essay and not WP policy. It incorporates parts, but it still not policy, or even a guideline. The problem is your behavior and your inability to understand that you constantly pushing for these questionable sources is severely hampering any progress on these articles. Sometimes, you just have to concede the point. This board will help to a large extent, because if another editor decided to argue for the inclusion of a piece of information way, way past the point of consensus being established, than the board can more stop the problem from happening, as penalties await users who violate the the guidelines. Basically, if the an editor insists on abusing sources to make a point, they will be punished. Do you understand where we are all coming from on this one? Baegis (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis and other editors, I am grateful that you and other editors here have been so forthright in showing your strong antagonism and bias against homeopathy. The fact that you all think that homeopathy is a total fraud provides the Arb Committee with evidence of your bias, your total lack of desire to maintain a NPOV, and your intent on pushing a POV that is non-encyclopedic in nature or content. Your efforts to ignore and even block others from reading about the body of clinical research and basic science research is the real problem. If there wasn't a body of research, I might be more sympathetic with you and your viewpoints. And if wikipedia's goal was to be a skeptic's encyclopedia, I would better understand your strongly held viewpoints. The bottomline is that you and other editors are going after me because I have been an effective editor, despite sometimes making mistakes (like we all do). It seems that the extreme POV that many editors here have against homeopathy has created highly emotional responses. DanaUllman 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Expedited sanctions

2) Upon receipt of a finding of inappropriate conduct from the Sourcing Adjudication Board, the Committee shall, without opening a case, issue appropriate sanctions (up to and including a ban from the project) against those editors named by the Board as having substantially violated sourcing policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To go with the SAB remedy (#1). Kirill 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is a good idea. One particular benefit is that it helps to cover the gap between what this arbitration case now covers and the people who are considered parties to it - it won't let people evade analysis of their behavior simply by choosing not to add themselves. --Infophile 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The exact type of conduct that will be punished by the Board needs to be specified, to prevent arbitrators from accidentally ruling on things that are just strong content disputes, like Ncmvocalist points out --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I disagree with this remedy overall, as it is not practical, would more likely compound problems rather than reduce them. (I am certain of this having been involved in a cultural-content dispute in the past) To make it so that sanctions are imposed solely based on the opinion of such a board will become a nightmare, particularly where the Board does not have the knowledge (or experience) in a very particular subject (that is perhaps not so clear-cut). The embarassment would be made acute when the board issued a recommendation despite not really knowing. Giving the authority to rule on content disputes to such a board is not just problematic in itself (more-so than the current system), but would undoubtedly bring the project into disrepute.

The only instance of content or sourcing that I feel a ruling can (and should) be made on is in a dispute of whether an editor is misrepresenting a source - but this is a relatively simple task for a reasonable person, whether it is by another editor, a WikiProject, an admin or even the ArbCom. All it involves is a mere comparison between what the actual source states, and what the editor has inserted. In an arbitration case, one would hope this is looked at as evidence, rather than requiring such a board to point out the obvious. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is OK but it's not sufficient. This case needs sanctions against individual editors who have engaged in disruptive behaviour. There will, I think, be enough evidence for the arbitrators to decide which people these are. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that stone-walling against the inclusion of information about research study data that is positive about homeopathy is also disruptive behaviour. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sanctions idea. Don't forget that stone-walling works both ways. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that stone-walling can work both ways, which is why I used the word also. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Shoemaker's Holiday

Proposed principles

Pseudoscience

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken, unaltered, from WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. It seems one of the more directly-relevant bits of policy (and WP:NPOV/FAQ is, if the title isn't clear, an official policy page.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest by editors

2) Conflict of interest arises when there is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves an editor contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote his or her own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Slightly tidied-up version of the opening of WP:COI. This is, of course, suggested as a principle under which actions should be judged, findings of fact that COI has happened is for the Arbcom to determine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Ullman abuses assume good faith

1) Ullman's use of assume good faith is far from the spirit of the policy: He uses it as a weapon against those that disagree with him, repeatedly claiming that "showing good faith" to him means presuming that he's right and inserting material he wants included into the article. (that one in the middle of him and Arion editwarring)

He also uses statements that he is assuming good faith at the same time as he is attacking other people, which is not assuming good faith at all:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've suffered that same behaviour when being told maybe I could be a sock. Dana will just keep insisting on accussations, picking at different arguments once an argument is dismounted, all the time claiming that he is assuming good faith (he isn't) until massive uncontestable opinion is finally presented to the last of his arguments so he will finally shut up. He just assumes bad faith while claiming that he doesn't, and puts the burden of proof on the accussed editor. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Assuming_bad_faith_.28Dana.29 and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Assumption_of_bad_faith_by_DanaUllman and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Sockpuppet_Comments_and_Accusations --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed adenda: "and never recognizes having done good faith accussations, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#civil_retractal_of_bad_faith_accussations_when_challenged_.2 --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree, per the totality of the evidence presented. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Infophile

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Probation

1) Homeopathy and related articles have been on article probation since January 30th (maybe 31st), 2008.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obvious, but needs to be said. A bit unclear on exactly which day it started, but that's not too important here. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Probation has failed

2) The community-imposed probation on Homeopathy has failed to achieve its goals of decreasing dispute and allowing article improvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. The amount of effort exerted in the disputes far outweighs any production of better articles. The Homeopathy article has probably degraded a bit from its GA status soon before the probation started. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent enforcement of probation

3) Enforcement of the homeopathy probation has been inconsistent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also per my evidence, mostly Failure to use probation to act on clear cases, contrasted with some of the more disputed uses of it. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Dana's case is just the extreme case where non-enforcement is more visible. His visibility causes lesser cases to go unnoticed because they are so minor on comparison to Dana's behaviour (arion 3x3's use of fallacies, mainly), thus worsening the problem

Proposed adenda: "and this causes confusion on what is a probation violation, and causes some lesser violations to go completely unchallenged, thus feebling the probation" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman is an SPA

4) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has extremely few mainspace and talk edits outside on subjects not relating to Homeopathy, and he thus qualifies as a single-purpose account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Will add evidence to this effect later. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

His contribution history is very clear on this --Enric Naval (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Quite clear, based on evidence. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman has a conflict of interest

5) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is Dana Ullman, a notable promoter of homeopathy. His income benefits from presenting homeopathy in a positive light. His editing on Misplaced Pages has been primarily with the purpose of changing its presentation of homeopathy to be more favorable, resulting in a clear conflict of interest with Misplaced Pages's {{WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#WP:COI. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Whole-heartedly agree on this one. Editors need to be very mindful of COI issues when they edit and Dana has shown he has difficulty doing so. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman's block and mentorship

6) Danaullman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This block was overturned with the agreement that Dana would undergo mentorship by LaraLove (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should be uncontroversial from the block log. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

DanaUllman banned

1) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any articles related to Homeopathy, broadly construed, for a period of (3/6/12) months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Will present evidence to warrant this later. --Infophile 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed - prefer 3 months. Also, he could be banned from making any edit in connection to homeopathy. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's are a little clearer. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Moreschi

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories

2) Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories demands that articles on theories which are widely held to be pseudoscientific should be written in a manner consistent with the status of these theories as pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Clumsily worded but essentially correct. Please clean up as necessary. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quote from WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience probably sums it up better. (see #Pseudoscience) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is about homeopathy, not just any fringe theory, but one of the classic, ultimate, and most popular fringe theories, let's stay specific. Here are links to the relevant policy quotes. Homeopathy is Obvious pseudoscience to all scientific skeptics, and definitely Generally considered pseudoscience by 99% of scientists and by most scientifically literate persons. That makes it a definite fringe topic. -- Fyslee / talk 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Homeopathy

1) Homeopathy can be uncontroversially described as pseudoscience according to academic consensus. Scientific research has repeatedly shown that homeopathic remedies are effective purely as placebos, and are useless in themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a ruling on content, basically, and I don't believe our traditional authority extends to making them. Which is not to say that I would be unwilling to do so, were there a community consensus that we should; but I would like to see some clear demonstration of the community's desire for us to pursue such a course and willingness to abide by our rulings if we pursue it. Kirill 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Correct, and, I think, necessary. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not enthused about this, ArbCom don't usually decide content. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut the second sentence; while not controversial to scientists, there's enough chaff flying around that it would be very, very hard to demonstrate it to the arbcom, particularly as I don't think that most of them are from a scientific backround, meaning we'd be going from first principles and boil down to something like "Right. Here's how you evaluate a study..." Homeopaths: "ORIGINAL RESEARCH! YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT!" ... Let's not go there.

That said, the first sentence is easily provable and pretty uncontroversial, and after seeing this:

"The Committee, on the other hand, cannot really do anything about editors who violate only content policies—not conduct ones—since doing so would implicitly involve ruling on the validity of the content generated by said editors. This is, in large part, why we get cases where editors who were arguably correct in the dispute get sanctioned for conduct violations, while the POV-pushers get away with it by being polite. Kirill 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"

I think that NOT deciding on relatively uncontroversial content issues is doing arbcom far more harm than good. THAT SAID, the first sentence is going to need EXCESSIVELY documented - Nature discussions ion the wake of th EBenveniste affair,t he Lancet editorial on Shang, etc. We CAN'T expect the Arbcom to take it on faith. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reject. No one should have (or has) the authority to make such rulings on content, nor should there be any remedies, sanctions or blocks that are enforced based on such a ruling. There are several problems that would be posed not just for such persons of authority, but for the entire well-being of the project - Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman

2) DanaUllman (talk · contribs), aka Danaullman (talk · contribs), is Dana Ullman, a well-known advocate of homeopathy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Uncontroversial. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or possibly a 'well known homeopath'. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well known homeopath is probably a better term. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman on Misplaced Pages

3) Dana Ullman has used Misplaced Pages as vehicle for advocacy of homeopathy, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the site. He has engaged in tendentious editing, edit-warring, and has consistently failed to adhere to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. In November 2007 he was indefinitely blocked, and subsequently unblocked subject to mentorship. Since being unblocked he has continued to edit disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Dana Ullman has found many errors of fact and some missing information on various wikipedia articles on homeopathy and has sought to correct them with verifiable, notable information from reliable sources and has often provided secondary sources. Despite having to deal with many editors who have expressed open skepticism and strong antagonism towards homeopathy and even offensively referred to homeopathic physicians as "quacks" and "promoters of pseudoscience," Dana has maintain civility and has often found ways to obtain consensus. Even though numerous editors have wiki-stalked him and others who have been antagonistic to Dana's work have later been found to be socks or multiple socks, Dana has maintained civility. DanaUllman 04:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ullman, we're perfectly aware that you can write glowing self-promotion for yourself. Suffice to say, you have not maintained civility. What you have maintained is merely low-level attacks on people who disagree with you. Let's look at some examples:

• "an admin advised me to not respond to bad faith accusations (which I consider the above, due to the fact that the two people who are making these accusations, Enric and Shoemaker, are newbies who clearly have content dispute issues with me)."

• "Wow...based on Enric's logic, no MD can and should edit any medical or even scientific article due to COI. This is getting laughable (my apologies, Enric, but I really think that you've stepped way out of logic here, which is surprising because I sense that you usually have a real appreciation for logic). It is a tad ironic that Enric is asking me to take a breather. DanaUllmanTalk 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Baegis, I could easily call you for WP:TE. I provide research evidence and secondary sources to confirm their notability, and this makes me a good wiki-editor, despite efforts of people who have an anti-homeopathic bias who try to undo the good encyclopedic work for which I strive. I am here to improve the information, and you seem to continually show an anti-homeopathic bias. I hope that you will consider editing subjects for which you have less bias. And like Fox News, you seem to think that if you repeat your misinformation frequently enough, people will believe you (I don't). Shoe...I simply do not see a need to repeat what has previously been said about the Cazin study. By the way, I just noticed that someone edited the Cazin study out. Because there was consensus when it was placed into the article and because it was there for a month or two, there needs to be consensus to remove it. Finally, I mistakenly did not correct a reference to the human trial testing Arsenicum as "unblinded." That is wrong. It was blinded. DanaUllmanTalk 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And, finally, how about this schitzophrenic little comment, in which you alternate attacks with "but, really, I don't mean it about everyone."

• Scientizzle, I have just re-read my statement at recent statement at Talk:Potassium dichromate, and I have no idea why you considered that statement "highly inappropriate" or why YOU took it personally. It was neither in my words or my intent to say or even suggest that ALL editors were showing bad faith. I assume that you mis-read something because I want to assume good faith with you. In any case, I still don't get how you refer to that posting as "highly inappropriate." If I missed something here, please explain. I'm open. Without an adequate explanation, I will assume that you're making a mountain out of a non-hill to try to embarrass me (but that's neither fair or accurate). DanaUllmanTalk 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per evidence. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 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.

Dana Ullman banned

1) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A bit too extreme. I would prefer just a topic ban. (Of course, since Dana only makes edits related to one topic, in practice it's the same thing, but it would still be more adequate to the evidence, maybe Dana behaves with topics not related to his field of work). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A possibility. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit extreme, but Dana has clearly shown that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. So I agree with this one or the one below. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman banned

2) Dana Ullman is banned indefinitely from editing all articles relating to homeopathy, broadly speaking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Totally agree with this. Dana has proven myself unable to make neutral contributions to that topic --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fryslee's wording below, so Dana won't go and start adding sections of non-relevant uses of homeopathy to the articles of celebrities, like he has done already, claiming that the arbitration decision doesn't cover this. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Another possibility. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could rephrase to 'making edits in connection to homeopathy'. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could also rephrase to 'making edits in any way related to the subject of homeopathy', or is that too much? -- Fyslee / talk 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fyslee, prefer your wording. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's pushed for advocacy of it on pages related to a composer (Ludwig von Beethoven), a scientist who thought it utter nonsense, and still did after (Charles Darwin), a chemistry article (Potassium dichromate), etc, etc, the strong wording seems appropriate. In Ullman's eyes, it seems homeopathy is one of those classic numbers that goes well with discussion of anything. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically the same as banning him. His amount of edits that are not related to homeopathy are so few I can't find any of consequence. I think of this as a life long ban, because it is reasonable to wager that he won't be editing on other articles. Baegis (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be a test of whether he is here to write an encyclopedia, or to advocate homeopathy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

← How about those magic words, "to be defined liberally and interpreted broadly"? --Badger Drink (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana has always been nice to me, but regrettably, homeopathy is a topic where they cannot seem to set aside personal opinions that conflict with Misplaced Pages policies. Jehochman 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Defined liberally" doesn't mean "defined leniently" or "defined in such a way as to give Dana the benefit of the doubt whenever possible" or anything of the sort. Far from it, in fact (definition #11). This has absolutely nothing to do with "niceness" (or at least the "posting links to AGF in a swarmy call-center manner" form of niceness that the current wave of POV-pushers tend to practice), and nothing to do politics (actually, the fact that nutcase fringe theories are so commonly associated with "liberals" is yet another distressing sign of the current state of food-gathering in post-industrial America, 2008). Hope this helps -- Badger Drink (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Enric Naval

Proposed principles

civil POV pushing is still POV pushing

1) civil POV pushing is still POV pushing, WP:NPOV is a core policy, and attempts to bypass it must be dealt with the same rigurosity as WP:CIVIL infringers are treated, never mind how civil they are.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

experts can't tell other editors that they are not prepared to edit an article

2) Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone, and there is no restriction on who can edit an article, as soon as they aren't blocked for demonstrating that they can't comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Repeatedly insisting that other editors are less qualified that oneself for reasons not stated by policies is a breach of WP:PILLARS one of the core policies of wikipedia and goes against the spirit of an open encyclopedia. If these claims are always made to editors with an editor that you disagree with, and never to editors with the same POV as you even if they have the same or worse behaviour and characteristics, this is a violation of WP:NPOV the Neutral Point of View core policy. (aka, Appeal to authority is not welcome here).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I once made a mistake by suggesting that an editor perhaps shouldn't edit an article, and I realize that this was wrong. I agree that wikipedia should be edited by anyone. Please note that I do not remember doing this more than once to one person. DanaUllman 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

How about "Misplaced Pages welcomes editors with expertise. However, demeaning or ridiculing less qualified editors is considered disruptive. All editors are encouraged to focus their comments on article content, instead of making personal remarks about contributors"? PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that wording would be fine too. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording proposed by Phil here is much better & more positive. DGG (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

POV pushing causes disruption similar to trolling

1) A civil POV pusher, just like a troll, can cause huge amounts of disruption with a small number of edits, by insisting on raising disruptive arguments again and again, derailing constructive discussions. A civil POV pusher can cause a certain type of edits to never be incorporated on an article by only making a comment per day or less. Arguments don't need to be well-thought, and can be one without reading the sources under discussion. Old arguments can be re-used accross multiple pages, or from archives months ago.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

current measures ineffective

2) Current policies and usages are insufficient/innefective/unable/not enough strongly worded/give too much weight to civil behaviour/not clear enough to handle the most extremes cases of insisting POV pushing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

similar behaviour happens on other fringe topics

3) Much of the evidence and behaviours characterized are not specific to the Homeopathy topic and are happening on other contested WP:FRINGE topics. Some of the decisions of this committee should apply to all fringe topics, else an ArbCom decision will have to be eventually done on each of the topics, each one with similar findings, and only after months of disruption with extreme cases like here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See the problems with 9/11 articles --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

civil AGF abuse is happening undisturbed

4) WP:AGF abusive accusations are happening, and they are not being warned or bloked only because of the extreme civility and careful wording of the accusations. This is similar to how WP:NPOV is being abused.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See evidence by other editors about Dana's civil abuse of AGF --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

this is not a content dispute

5) The disruptive behaviour displayed by editors has nothing to do with any content dispute they might be holding at the same time, and represents a behaviour problem.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To avoid dismissal on the grounds of "this is a content dispute", which totally misses the actual problems --Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

civil POV pushing receiving same treatment as non-civil one

1) Considering from now on that civil POV pushing deserves the same POV warnings and blocks as neutral-worded and uncivil-worded POV pushing. This should be specially applied when the pushing is disrupting the discussions in order to prevent a certain POV from appearing on an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

considering POV pushing as trolling

2) Considering from now on civil POV pushing to be equivalent to trolling, and warning and blocking accordingly if the pusher insists on consistentely opposing edits containing a certain POV with clearly wrong arguments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

adding civil POV pushing as a disruption meriting block

3) Adding civil POV pushing as a type of disruption on Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

clarifying on WP:BLOCK that disruption with extreme civility is still disruption

4) Adding on Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption that disruption made with extreme politness, civility, and lots of claims of good faith is still disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

clarifying bad faith accusations

5) Claryfying on WP:AGF that repeated bad faith accusations are still such even if the editor insists very civilly that he doesn't want to assume bad faith at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

civil breach of policies is still breach of policies

6) Breach of policies and guidelines, specially repeated breaching of the same policy or guideline after being warned, should not go by without any consequence just because it was worded civility and preceded by civilly worded assurances like "I don't really want to breach this policy and I understand how it works and how important it is, and I respect your opinion, but....."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This to be applied in general to all policies, since it already happens on NPOV, AGF, and probably WP:RS and WP:N too, with constant challenging of reliability and notability of sources not agreeing with your own POV --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

repeated complaints of bad faith

7) repeatedly stating that you are victim of broad unspecified bad faith from several editors should be taken as a breach of WP:AGF when it keeps being repeated after specific accussacions of bad faith were found to be unfounded and request of specific examples go unanswered or keep pointing to points shown false

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibly could be rephrased along the lines of "believing that all editors on the other side of the dispute aren't assuming good faith in your regard, and not being able to assume good faith towards them is often an indication of someone being a disruptive editor."

repeated complaints of POV conspiracy

8) repeatedly stating that you are victim of a POV conspiracy should be taken as disruptive editing. The complainer ought to be told to raise the issue to higher instances. If the complainer keeps repeating the claims without opening a ANI, RfC or higher instance where he provides specific proof, or if he keeps the claims after them being shot down at RfC, ANI, etc, then the complainer should be warned and blocked as doing disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

abusing WP:BURDEN by not giving enough time to find sources before removals

8) misusing WP:BURDEN, by not giving enough time to other editors to provide references on the talk page, can constitute a breach of WP:NPOV when it's always used for or against the inclusion or removal of a certain POV on the articles or on the talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I changed the wording , since I don't have evidence for placing burden of proof on other editors (altough I'm sure that it happens, I just don't have an example on hand) --Enric Naval (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Baegis

Proposed principles

Editors should not abuse Misplaced Pages to make a point

1) As detailed in WP:Stick and WP:IDHT, Misplaced Pages is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by other editors then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is getting at the idea of continually bringing up a study for inclusion over a wide number of pages. Baegis (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Dana has disrupted the project, per WP:Point

1) Dana Ullman has repeatedly pushed for inclusion of questionable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per evidence from Shoemaker. Can be expanded to include a wider number of editors, as there have been a few others who have done so, but none to the extent of Dana. Baegis (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Disruptive Behavior

1) Editors who continue to abuse good faith by arguing for inclusion of a particular piece of information, long past the point of consensus being established, shall be subject to sanctions deemed appropriate for the behavior, including, but not limited to, a topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's an idea, if anyone has anything else, please add. Baegis (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably effective policy anyway, but it'd be good to have an arbcom ruling on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is already part of WP:TE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Of course, the distinction between "continuing to pursure good-faith arguments" and "endlessly repeating the same unconvincing arguments" is an important one. MastCell  20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I wouldn't care less on what you do with Dana, I am interesed on solving the civility problems covering several controversial topic on wikipedia. As soon as you solve the problems with civil POV pushing and civil bad faith assumption, Dana's actions should stop being a problem, since he would get blocked fairly quickly anyways for braching of policies, or finally learn to behave (yeah, not very probable, I know, but one can dream, right?) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others: