Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop

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:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

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.

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:

I basically agree with what is written here. However, one needs more precision on what is meant by "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Some editors here assert that ANY claim for ANY homeopathic medicine is an exceptional claim. While I would consider claims about cures of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many serious chronic illnesses to REQUIRE exceptional evidence and exceptional sources, I do not believe that the effects/results from homeopathic medicines require anything more than RS, V, and N. When one considers that a large (possibly even a majority) of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores in the US and UK are what are called "low potencies," that is, in a dose range of many trace elements in the human body (see the body of evidence for low-dose effects in the article on hormesis, I do not see this as exceptional. DanaUllman^Talk 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ullman,, you've been directed again and again to WP:REDFLAG and had it spelt out for you several times. Wikipedia policy specifically defines exceptional claims to include "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." Note the highlighted points, and you may want to read the last sentence as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth highlighting what Ullman just wrote: "Some editors here assert that any claim for any homeopathic medicine is an exceptional claim." I think Holiday's note supports this statement. Anti-homeopathy editors consider that their view IS the prevailing view and their assumptions the prevailing assumptions. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, since I don't want to be accused of failing to AGF, where have you ever heard that the prevailing view is anything other than what the "anti-homeopathy" editors espouse? What have you read that you seriously think that the widespread view of homeopathy is that it is supported by any sort of notable body of evidence? Baegis (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um to you too. The problem is that, having an infallible belief that they are right makes it very difficult for a person to consider the other person's pov. I think some anti-homeopathy editors bring this attitude to the discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Does a Lancet editorial count? Is the Lancet RS enough, or is it only notable if the editorial is antagonistic to homeopathy? Within hours (!) after I posted information about a pro-homeopathy editorial in the Lancet in the article on Potassium dichromate, Baegis insisted upon archiving the information, despite the fact that the discussion was active between parties. When I then posted a similar body of information at the user page of Tim Vickers, he too chose to archive the information shortly after it was posted, even though there were much earlier discussions that he didn't choose to archive. Whether you or others assert that there were "good reasons" to archive this information, I am still wondering why you haven't chosen to include this Lancet editorial and Lancet meta-analysis on allergic disorders in the article on homeopathy...or why you continually insist that there is no "notable body of evidence." It seems that some editors here do a good job at ignoring or archiving or simply insisting that studies in high-impact RS jouranls be not noted referenced in the articles. If the editors here who speak against me are truly interested in maintaining NPOV and RS information, it would seem that a Lancet editorial that accompanied a meta-analysis would be notable, and yet, despite several efforts to encourage its placement in the article on homeopathy, stonewalling happens. The Lancet's editorial was published in response to the 3rd trial Dr David Reilly's team had conducted on the treatment of people with various allergy disorders and found significant results each time, December 10, 1994, p. 1585. The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either answer suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It seems a bit odd that the Reilly research is not mentioned at all in the homeopathy article. What you choose to do with this information will be revealing. DanaUllman^Talk 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a later study with a larger group of patients, such as the one TimVickers directed you to a few days ago? I assume the BMJ is RS enough. Brunton (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wanderer57, if I may:

[John Maddox] (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature 333 (6176): 787. doi:10.1038/333787a0 - points out several ways in which claims that dilutions beyond the Avorgado limit violate fundamental principles of Chemistry.

The Lancet, like Nature, also took a public stand against Homeopathy: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67149-8. Says that homeopathy is thoroughly debunked, and that physicians should now tell their patients that there is no evidence for homeopathy.

The Lancet, again: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91055-X Says Homeopathy is "absurd" and "wishful thinking", and points out that its dilutions above the Avogadro number make faith in it a delusion.

Finally, the editorial that Ullman claims supports his claims? NO. SUCH. THING. It's very short, I quote it here in full:

“ If Petr Scrabanek were alive, we could expect to be chided for publishing this week's paper by Reilly et al. The basis for scientific thinking, he declared, is rational skepticism: "Irrational skepticism is characterised by an inability to accept the category of the absurd"[footnote here to doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91055-X mentioned above] And what could be more absurd than the notion that a substance is therapeutically active in dilutions so great that the patient is unlikely to receive a single molecule of it? Reilly and his homeopathic co-workers gave such substances to patients with allergic asthma and detected activity - even though hardly the activity that would impress a respitory allopathist. They invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo. Yes, the dilution principle of homoeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeudic effect presumably lies elsewhere. But, no, carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers. How will they respond to Reilly's challenge? And will reilly now treat us to a comparison of high dilutions and low? ”

As can be plainly seen, Ullman again misrepresents a study. In short, Ullman hasn't a fact to back his claims that Homeopathy is mainstream, and is therefore misrepresenting the statements of others in an attempt to bamboozle us, and apparently has successfully bamboozled Wanderer57. Will Ullman, having been shown to have been misrepresenting things yet again apologise? *Well, he hasn't any other time, so why the hell should he start now?

Nature is the top journal in biology, The Lancet one of the top four in Medicine. What more do you want before you accept Homeopathy is not mainstream? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

See wikt:Exceptional for a definition. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 2 May 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 [consisting of credentialled subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable?], which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. 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 [with community participation?] at a later date [but no later than one month after the closure of this case?].

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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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[1]. 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^Talk 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^Talk 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be important to make it clear that the board would only decide whether people had been deliberately or egregiously misrepresenting sources: otherwise I think it would come dangerously close to the committee ruling on content disputes. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David's proposal above. It would help towards keeping the Board out of content disputes --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that when there is a really toxic conflict, frustated users/admins want a new institution or targeted rule. The bureaucracy on Wikipedia is already significant. I think we should be very careful to add additional layers of boards, committees, and targeted rules. We will have to accept that dispute resolution can be hard. The ground rules are valid and have worked before. If users want to form an ad hoc group to discussus homeo references, fine. But No new Sourcing Adjudication Board. MaxPont (talk) 06:12, 2 May 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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)

It would seem that "pseudoscience" would only include those areas of inquiry in which there are virtually no formal controlled studies with a positive result. To clarify, there are 100+ double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials in homeopathy and around a similar number of controlled basic science trials. "Pseudoscience" should not mean that the majority of trials are negative; it should make reference to the fact that the vast majority of trials are negative. However, in reference to homeopathy, the majority of "high quality studies" are positive. DanaUllman^Talk 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it has been already explained to you several times why those studies were not "high quality". You are just repeating the behaviour that has gotten you topic banned --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Enric, my reference to "high quality" trials is not mine. I refer to RS and notable sources for their references to these high quality trials. For instance, Shang's Lancet review analyzed 110 homeopathic trials and 110 conventional medical trials. He found 21 "high quality" homeopathic trials but only 9 (!) conventional medical trials of a similar high quality. They were "high quality" because they were all double-blind and placebo controlled. And yet, despite providing analyses of various groups of trials, he NEVER provided analysis of ONLY these high quality trials. You and several other editors are even not allowing reference to the Cochrane Report's review of Oscillococcinum influenza trials which is further evidence of your inability to maintain NPOV. By the way, Enric, please show your NPOV and good faith by showing your knowledge of high quality trials that have shown a positive result towards homeopathy. DanaUllman^Talk 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It has also been explained to you, at least twice, how the definition of "high quality" by a certain author was not high quality at all (in before Shoemaker makes a long explanation with diffs of how Dana is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's something about a 50% threshold, I am so much not going to bother looking for diffs for this one, more knowledgeable editors have already explained this to him, I don't think yet another round is going to make it).

The hole. Stop digging it. Please. Good faith advice: follow Vassyana's advice[2]. Remember also the good faith advice from Jehochman and me to take a holiday. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We can possibly resolve the entire conflict by deslisting the homeo article as a natural sciences article and categorise it as a social phenomena together with e.g. political ideologies, folklore, anthropological phenomena, popular cultural phenomena. etc. MaxPont (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest by editors

2) Conflict of interest arises when there is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves an editor contributing to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. [3] [4] (that one in the middle of him and Arion editwarring) [5] [6] [7]

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: [8] [9] [10]

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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Assuming_bad_faith_.28Dana.29 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Assumption_of_bad_faith_by_DanaUllman and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

DIsagree. He has been reasonable fair and civil. --44Elise (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I urge the Arb committee to evaluate the examples that Enric provides. Because I am out-numbered by editors who are self-admitted hyper-skeptics about homeopathy, I try to assume good faith, and I try to get them to propose changes based on the RS, V, N, and secondary sources that I provide, in hopes that they will want NPOV information and with the realization that I am more apt to get consensus if THEY propose the changes. Yes, I try to assume good faith as a ethic and as a way to get consensus (I hope that other editors are so civil). Another example of the gang behavior of this group of editors is that they want to punish my efforts to assume good faith. DanaUllman^Talk 03:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

work with these editors

44Elise, your only contributions are directly related to this case, or advocating for Dana against his 3-month sanction. What makes you so expert on Ullman's actions that you can make sweeping statements against all the evidence I and others have provided? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

2) Homeopathy can be uncontroversially described as pseudoscience according to academic consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Modified Moreschi. While I don't know if Arbcom should rule on content, if they decide to do so, I think that it best that they judge only on this part of the issue: Moreschi goes a little too far, and here's why:

Moreschi's second sentence is, of course, valid; however, the evidence for it boils down to "While there is no convincing evidence of effect above a placebo, that is not the same as saying that no studies have shown statistically significant differences. The best research we have shows the effect is vanishingly close to placebo, at best, and due to its violation of well-understood principles of chemistry and physics, the very weak evidence provided by homeopaths is not enough to be considered convincing." I don't think the Arbcom have the training to adjudicate on that, particularly as, by the nature of the situation, sources can be presented to show both sides, just that one is a fringe view. In the end, they'd either have to do a lot of independent research, or trust us to be presenting the evidence against homeopathy fairly, neither of which the Arbcom should do.

However, showing Homeopathy is pseudoscience is relatively easy. Here's some good links:

• When to believe the unbelievable - editorial in [[Nature (journal)|Nature on a paper by Benveniste.
• "High-dilution" experiments a delusion - Followup to the above.
• The end of homoeopathy, The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, 27 August 2005-2 September 2005, Page 690 - Position paper by the major medical journal The Lancet.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy can be uncontroversially described as pseudoscience according to academic consensus = False. [11]

--44Elise (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No; this would be a ruling on article content. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

3) {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.

Committee on article probation created

1) Article probation only works if it is enforced. To this end, a group of trusted volunteers will be set up (either by the committee or by the community) in order to assure that there is always someone to review complaints.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

At the moment, it can be very hard to find anyone to support a probationary violation, of any sort, since any admin who cares about the subject is likely to be considered "involved" and thus considered unable to pass judgement. Having some group that would review article probations would prevent things going ignored.

Comment by others:

Sanctions for civility to be applied more sensibly

2) Enforcement of civility, taken to extremes, stifles debate and results in situations where violations of core policy such as NPOV are ignored, but the people dealing with the violations are sanctioned for civility[12]. While civility is, of course, important, our core purpose is to build an encyclopedia. This requires the ability to disagree, to point out flaws in arguments, and, sometimes, to call a spade a spade.

As such, behaviour as a whole and mitigating factors must be taken into account before applying any sanctions for minor incivility. Major incivility, including threats, egregious personal attacks, and the like are, of course, still sanctionable and always will be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Several parts of my evidence relate to the problems that can be caused by abusing civility and AGF. For instance (I'll direct-link this, since I'm not sure how to make a wikilink jump to sections with escape codes in the link: [13]) and perhaps [14] are evidence for how WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF can be used as a weapon. This kind of ruling would de-weaponise these policies, and allow them to be used as intended - in order to promote building an encyclopedia, not in order for people breaking other, core policies to get their opponents in trouble by simply quoting a single diff where a person's been goaded enough that they get mildly upset, for instance, this warning by Vassayana mentioned in the evidence. If a person can't even tell a person that's been disrupting a page for three months and who is continuing to fight for the right to disrupt it further that what he wants is not going to happen and he should drop it, then we've lost sight of our goal of building an encyclopaedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, I had already forgotten this abuse of AGF by Dana. He implies that complaining about his disruptive behaviour is incivil[15]. I get warned for "naked accussations" (notice how WP:CIVIL is invoked)[16]. I partially retracted my statement and apologize[17], but Dana's actions on a period of 28 hours gave me 7 different diffs to put back a stronger version[18]. Notice how I made the very same statement, this time bolded, but WP:CIVIL wasn't invoked (which implies that it shouldn't have been invoked in the first place).

Note: at this time Jehochman had just blocked some socks that fought against Dana, this might have made him more harsh than usual.

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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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)

I have responded to Enric Naval's incorrect claim that I had engaged in "use of fallacies" here: [19] Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:02, 26 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I have only edited actively since early December 2007. I am just beginning my editing, though I prefer to edit on subjects about which I am most knowledgeable. I wish that the editors who have deleted my edits were more knowledgeable about the subjects they edited, rather than just being against them for POV reasons. I have also participated in articles on alternative medicine. DanaUllman^Talk 04:29, 1 May 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 Wikipedia has been primarily with the purpose of changing its presentation of homeopathy to be more favorable, resulting in a clear conflict of interest with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#WP:COI. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 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)

He's gone through a full mentorship and is still being hugely disruptive. There is no reason to believe that a mere three-month ban will do anything but delay further disruption for three months, so if we want to give him a last chance, we should ask for some evidence that he's changed. Hence, if we're going down the last chance route, I think Ullman should need to show evidence he can edit non-disruptively in articles completely outside of the homeopathic field, then appeal to Arbcom to be re-evaluated to see if he should get one definitely final chance at homeopathy editing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that 6 months would be reasonable. After all, if only Ullman could engage in a rational discussion about the objections to articles he wants to introduce instead of reintroducing them he could possibly be a productive editor. MaxPont (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to be America's leading promoter of Homeopathy (per Dana Ullman) by engaging in rational discussion with your opponents. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is shocking that Shoemaker's Holiday can make such a statement in a Arbitration Committee hearing such as the above that clearly is offensive, that clearly does not assume good faith, and that is plain wrong. I have provided reference to basic science and clinical research on a regular basis. Although there has been a difference of opinion on the definitions of high quality research and reliable sources, it is totally offensive to assert that I have not been rational. Once again, I want to express shock that these editors have not allowed meta-analyses from the Lancet to be referenced (the 1994 Reilly review), nor the Cochrone Report on Oscillococcinum, and several other meta-analyzes that have been published in high-impact journals. I hope that the Arb comm recognizes that this attitude by Shoemaker is typical of the common attitude with which many editors who try to provide NPOV information to the homeopathy article deal with on a regular basis. Other anti-homeopathy editors have already referred to us as "lunatics." What does it take for the Arb committee or some admins to displine these editors? It is so clever of them to make me into the bad guy. Very clever. Although I have certainly made some mistakes, as every active editor does, I do not deserve punishment, maybe guidance and maybe warning to all editors that maintaining NPOV is necessary. DanaUllman^Talk 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I offended you, but "rational discussion" is a phrase in its own right, that refers to a specific type of discourse. You seem to be engaging in another type of discourse - sophistry, perhaps, or persuasion, but not one that's concerned very much with the arguments of the other side except to discredit them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy ban and demonstrate good behavior

2) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is banned from making any edits related to Homeopathy indefinitely. This remedy may be appealed to ArbCom after (3/6/12) months of good editing in other areas. If an appeal is denied, another may not be made for three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Roughly Shoemaker's Holiday's suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed_decision#Dana_Ullman. We don't want this problem to just show up again in one year. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Fringe theories

2) Wikipedia: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:

According to an article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), the use of homeopathic medicine by physicians in Europe differs in each country, but it ranges from 10-30%.[Fisher, Peter, and Ward, Adam, “Complementary Medicine in Europe,” British Medical Journal, July 9, 1994,309:107-110.] Although homeopathy is certainly a minority school of thought and practice in medicine, calling it "fringe" may be an exaggeration. As for the public's "trust in homeopathy," an international market research survey in January 2008 discovered that high numbers of people who “trust in homeopathy,” including 64% of people in India, 58% Brazil, 53% Chile, 49% Saudi Arabia, 49% United Arab Emirates, 40% France, 28% Russia, 27% Germany, 18% USA, and 15% Great Britain.[20] There is also much other and more recent evidence that can be provided to show the use of homeopathy by physicians, if desired. DanaUllman^Talk 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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 - Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be a ruling on content and how it should be presented, and I'd prefer to see ArbCom avoid those areas on general principles. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 30 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)

Not happy with it still. I am sure there are better ways of expressing this, and though I respect the above suggestions, they still can be improved to avoid certain issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman on Wikipedia

3) Dana Ullman has used Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: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^Talk 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)

Disagree: Despite editing in a hostile environment, I have maintained civility, assumed good faith, and not engaged in edit wars (except with some socks and maybe one other time). I am not interested in "advocating" for homeopathy as much as providing NPOV information drawn from RS. My expertise and knowledge of the literature has been helpful in many articles (see Evidence). DanaUllman^Talk 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with the diffs I provided, Dana. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"good faith disruption is still disruption", yeah, we really need introduced on some policy --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 2 May 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies. Jehochman ^Talk 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) Wikipedia 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^Talk 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

How about "Wikipedia 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 (a comment per day or less).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

by insisting on raising disruptive arguments again and again, derailing constructive discussions, etc. Old arguments can be re-used accross multiple pages, or from archives months ago. Sources don't need to be read before discrediting them. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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:

case applies to all fringe topics

3) This ArbCom decision should not be specific to Homeopathy. It should apply to all civil POV pushing on controversial WP:FRINGE topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

9/11 articles, etc --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. They are not being warned or blocked because of civil wording that avoids sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See evidence for Dana --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ArbCom can rule because this is not a content dispute

5) The disruptive civil behaviour has nothing to do with any content dispute that editors 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

civil POV pushing receiving same treatment as non-civil one

1) Civil POV pushing receives the same POV warnings and blocks as neutral-worded or uncivil-worded POV pushing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

adding repeated civil breaching of policies as a disruption meriting block

2) Adding repeated breaching of the same policy or guideline after being warned as a type of disruption on Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption. Clarify that the breach happens even if it's made with extreme politness, civility, and lots of claims of good faith

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Apply to NPOV for civil POV pushing
• WP:RS and WP:N, constant challenging of reliability and notability of sources not agreeing with your own POV.
• WP:AGF, state 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• WP:BURDEN not giving enough time to find sources before removals, and claim it's a reasonable behaviour to protect wikipedia (on cases where no legal problems exist) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

3) repeatedly stating that you are victim of a POV conspiracy should be taken as disruptive editing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

specially if the offender never takes the complains to higher instances (where they would be found as baseless) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Baegis

Proposed principles

Editors should not abuse Wikipedia to make a point

1) As detailed in WP:Stick and WP:IDHT, Wikipedia 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)

Questionable sources? Let's see, I've referenced Chest (probably the leading journal of respiratory medicine), a respected toxicology journal whose editor at the time, Paul Turner, was one of the leading experts on toxicology in the world (at the time in which this research was published, this journal was one of the leading journals; and the article that I referenced in this toxicology journal was a meta-analysis by Dr. Klaus Linde who is a highly respected reviewer for the Cochrane Report; I have also referenced meta-analyses on childhood diarrhea study published in the Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal; another meta-analysis conducted on Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza published in the world-class Cochrane Report; another meta-analysis on post-GI surgery in the Journal of Gastroenterology, a meta-analysis of allergic conditions published in the Lancet (which also included a very notable editorial that made specific mention of the high quality nature of the results, even suggesting that either homeopathy works or double-blind placebo controlled trials don't)...and the sum total of any of these studies that are in any wikipedia article is ZERO! Is the problem "questionable sources" or POV-pushing by editors who consider pro-homeopaths to be "lunatics" (as noted by OffTheFence)? Unless wikipedia wants to rename itself "The Skeptics Wikipedia", I sincerely hope that the Arb committee place stronger sanctions against editors who do not maintain NPOV. DanaUllman^Talk 03:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you have discussed these studies on talk pages many times, and they have been discarded by other editors. You could start considering that perhaps they might not be suitable for inclusion on the articles. Also, stop digging yourself an even deeper hole, dammit. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have discussed these trials because they are meta-analyzes of multiple clinical trials and they have been published in "high impact" journals (at the top end of RS!), and yet, Enric and a group of editors have worked diligently to not only disallow information about these meta-analyzes but even just reference to them. THIS is evidence of their NPOV, and THIS is evidence that this whole drama is a content dispute between editors who assert that homeopathy is a worthless fraud and those who assert that there is evidence of efficacy. The degree of arrogance that the anti-homeopathy editors show is palpable. They somehow assert that they are now smarter than the highest calibre medical and scientific journals and show no degree of humility. DanaUllman^Talk 13:10, 1 May 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)

Agree, it needs to be made explicit --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 29 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 ^Talk 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:DanaUllman

Stonewallling

Stonewalling should be actively discouraged to maintain NPOV

1) Stonewalling is when editors frequently and/or consistently work against inclusion of information that is derived from a reasonable assortment of RS, Notable, and/or secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That sounds very well, but, if passed, would mean that any editor who wanted to violate WP:UNDUE simply has to keep insisting on inclusion of the information long enough. The actual definition would be more like "Stonewalling is an attempt to circumvent the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, as well as WP:CONSENSUS by the continual repetition of a point in an attempt to wear down the other editors. It includes repeated insistance on the inclusion of information derived from weak sources, particularly where the proposed information would violate WP:NPOV, and especially undue weight or WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'd suggest that "stonewalling" is when editors consistently repeat the same arguments after failing to obtain consensus, and refuse to listen to or incorporate others' feedback. A similar argument arose in this recent case, and the bottom line is the same - WP:V cannot be interpreted in isolation. A reliable, notable secondary source is necessary to add potentially disputed content, but the editor's responsibility doesn't stop there. The material from the source has to be described in a way which respects WP:NOR, and presented in a context which respects WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. There seems to be a mini-epidemic of editors employing WP:V as a cudgel while ignoring the constraints of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullying behavior should not be tolerated

2) Bullying behavior is when an individual editor or a group of editors push a single POV and work individually or collectively against NPOV information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What, exactly, is meant here by "NPOV information"? Frankly, this seems a fairly blatant attempt to redefine terms so that Ullman can bring up all the weak studies that he brought up and which were shot down all over again, and claim bullying if anyone objects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, the terminology seems dependent on frame of reference. "They are a gang of bullies suppressing NPOV. We are a consensus dealing with a POV-pusher." MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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:

Proposals by Vassyana

Proposed principles

Disruption is disruption

1) Actions and behaviors that disrupt the editing environment of Wikipedia are not acceptable. Being "right", other editors acting inappropriately, and other rationalizations do not grant exemptions from the rules that all editors must follow, nor immunity from the consequences of disruption. In some circumstances, baiting and incivility by other editors may be considered as a mitigating factor

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe this needs to be clearly stated. Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not this one. There is definitely already a principle that says at least half of what is said here. I'll have a look for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the latter half that's most important. ;) What's wrong with this formulation? Vassyana (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really wrong - but I think it's missing a little bit that's below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User conduct

1.1) Editors are expected to maintain an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms. Occasional mistakes or misjudgements are compatible with this; perfection is not expected. However, editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct. Strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Exactly. This wording prevents a civil POV pusher from bringing other editors to the point where they snap and insult him, which is then used by the pusher to claim that he was mistreated and thus can't be sanctioned --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prefer this sort of wording. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty gfood, but I'm a little worried about the secondary policy of WP:CIVIL being used to attack users with "Strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia" (by using the civil POV-pusher tactic of gently goading them until they snap) under this wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Disagree, but mildly oppose. It's doesn't say anything wrong per se and it is very similar in meaning, but I feel the phrasing is wordy and misses the clear emphasis that I intended above on "disruption is disruption". Can you clarify which points you feel this one touches upon that the above misses? Vassyana (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Particularly the mitigating factor in some cases. I don't know if that extent of emphasis is necessary here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a clause to reflect the conditional statement sometimes they may be mitigating factors to the version above. I believe the "disruption is disruption" emphasis is sorely needed, not only in this area, but as a clear principle for similar disputes as well. Vassyana (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It still isn't specific in what is a possible mitigating factor, as 'being right' is not considered one of them (for example). Still prefer 1.1 - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Community discretion

2) The administrators and community possess a broad degree of discretion in preventing disruption to Wikipedia, to be used with care considering good faith and not alienating newcomers. This discretion includes, but is not limited to, the imposition of blocks, topic bans, topic area probations and community bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. We need ArbCom to clearly devolve responsibility on the community. The community, including the administrators, have played favorites and hot potato with many divisive topics on Wikipedia, including this one. A clear indication of responsibility, and the ability to fulfill it, would do more good than a thousand review boards and study groups. Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Content issues

3) Not all content-related issues are considered "content issues", as traditionally defined on Wikipedia. Content issues, or content disputes, occur when there is a reasonable disagreement (as judged by common convention and tradition) over the appropriate classification, inclusion and/or presentation of content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The defining of "content issues" has broadened considerably in many heated areas, used both to escape proper scrutiny and to avoid dealing with issues (though I actually believe many doing so are doing so in earnest good faith). Make clear the distinction between content issues and issues involving content. Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'reasonable'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to rely on common sense. I honestly do not know how to better express the principle. I tried adding a bit of clarification, but I'm not sure it's good phrasing or sufficient. Vassyana (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Prefer wording below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Content issues

3.1) Not all content-related issues, including misrepresenting sources, are considered "content issues". Content issues, or content disputes, occur when editors have a disagreement over the appropriate classification, inclusion and/or presentation of content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Preferred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this version. Despite the opening sentence, it effectively leaves no distinction between content issues and issues involving content. In the absence of some modifier, it includes disputes over false referencing, blatant POV pushing, and so on. All such disagreements would be disagreements over the appropriate handling of content. Vassyana (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A few examples (like the one I've inserted) and I think this would be a little more clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just extremely uncomfortable with unqualified wording, even with examples for the previous statement. I simply associate it too much with the unqualified interpretation that I feel has been a problem. (And, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it may be an irrational worry.) Vassyana (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing and unnecessary. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User conduct issues are not content issues

4) User conduct issues including, but not limited to, soapboxing, misrepresenting sources, and article ownership are not "content issues" in the traditional meaning used by the community. While administrators and the Arbitration Committee will not intervene in content issues, they are not precluded from resolving behavioral issues, which may involve imposing sanctions for long-term and repeated problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A companion to "Content issues". While I feel "Content issues" should be sufficient, an explicit statement further distinguishing behavior issues from content issues is (I believe) necessary to shake the community to out of its paralysis and act. Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd modified it slightly (hope you don't mind) - and agree with the version as reasonable enough not to cause any major problems. Tendentious argument alone cannot be sanctioned - it's the conduct of edit-warring or any other unseemly conduct, coupled with such an argument that can be, but this explanation need not be specified here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The revision is good by me. Vassyana (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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:

Proposals by MaxPont

Editors representing mainstream consensus should show generosity of spirit in disputes

The entire blame for the controversies should not be put on the pro-homeopathy POV pushers. Editors from the pro-science camp can also be petty and confrontational. Considering that they have the upper hand of being right I think that mainstream editors should show generosity of spirit in disputes with proponents of minority viewpoints. All the WP policies about WP:FRINGE etc. should of course be followed but – as I said – it is possible to do that and still show generosity of spirit.

It IS possible to write articles about fringe and controversial topics without resorting to an inflammatory tone. Look at Astrology, Tarot reading or Osama bin Laden. Another editor pointed out that the tone in the article in for instance Encyclopaedia Britannia about homeopathy has a much more balanced tone. MaxPont (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A reasonable note, but Ullman has been truly and genuinely awful to deal with, so, at this time, I think that's a bit too much "blaming the victim". If we were discussing, say, User:Peter morrell (homeopathy), or User:Saksjn (intelligent design), or other sensible proponents of fringe views, I would agree with you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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: