The latest edit by me was not actually made by me, but is actually misattributed to me due to the result of the necessary use of Oversight after a non-public name was posted to this page in connection with an account. The changes were in fact made by PhilKnight (talk · contribs), and are attributed to me only because I have to remove that edit, since it was made in the interval between the bad edit and the oversight. Hopefully this clears up and confusion, and sorry for that. :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further qualify, since there's a potential ambiguity in the wording there, "the changes" refers to the edits seemingly attributed to Dmcdevit but actually made by PhilKnight, not the edits that were oversighted. --bainer (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an edit by Dana[1] 49 minutes after he posted it [2]. You can't complain of stale evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reminder to Dana's talk page about addressing this case. I hope he is in the process of completing evidence and/or responding. Just in case anyone was wondering why one of the main parties had yet to post anything. Baegis (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my evidence section is getting way too large. Can an arbitrator tell me if I should keep adding any more evidence that I see, or if I should stop adding altogether? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm giving up on adding evidence on DanaUllman. His latest post [3] has soooo many assumptions about other editors motivations...... but I would totally run out of space --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, I couldn't help but notice that Evidence by Shoemaker's Dream is over 7,000 words long...and he continually adds more. What can or should be done here? My evidence is over 2,000 words, but considering all of the questionable assertions made against me, I am wondering what I should do. DanaUllman^Talk 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respond as you see fit. If it becomes a problem, the clerk will refactor the evidence. Baegis (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things have, indeed, been going out of hand. I'm going to give another 24h or so, given the amount and magnitude of the dispute, but I'm going to request that participants then summarize and refactor to below (or at least very near) the 1000 word limit. Extended commentary should be on this talk page, if anywhere. — Coren ^(talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to fit showing a pattern of behaviour into 1000 words. But I am providing summaries to each section. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that it's usually better to let the diffs speak for themselves. A short statement or two explaining what to look for followed by a couple of well chosen diffs usualy does the trick better than extended commentary— you have to remember that the Arbs are human, and that you make a stronger point by being brief: it's easier to digest and appreciate when it remains short and to the point. — Coren ^(talk) 02:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an Arb committee member let me know if I can be granted more than 1,000 words due to the fact the numerous accusations against me? DanaUllman^Talk 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, no. Remember that you don't have to make a counter argument for every assertion individually. You may move extended commentary here, on this talk page, instead. But again, keeping your position statement and evidence short is key to grabbing and maintaining arbitrator attention and is more likely to be productive. — Coren ^(talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got mine down from 2238 to 1328 words --Enric Naval (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrators: acclaration on misleading "socking" evidence has been moved here[edit]

Arbitrators, I moved the "socking" part here because it's a side issue. Anthon01's evidence refers to a previous version here.

(side correction after Anthon's message on my talk page and reading his evidence). On Jim Butler's page, Anthon01 also does not mention that at the time of his comment on 3 February he had been already warned by east718 for socking to avoid the ban. However, east718's entry on probation sanction log only mentions stonewalling [4]. User:FT2 warned him for multiple IPs usage from checkuser [5], and an alternative account from Anthon01 got indef blocked by east718 [6], but he later defends Anthon01 on his talk page saying that the instances of socking looked like either accidental or not in bad faith. The indef blocked account only made a few edits one day 2 full months before start of probation[7], Anthon was never sanctioned for it. (relevant ANI thread).

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my disclaimers[edit]

For word count reasons, I removed all disclaimers of me not knowing Jim Butler and Anthon01 before writing this evidence, which means that I didn't pick them for personal reasons but by pure chance. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed also this:

Disclaimer: I have seen some Anthon01's edits before, but I never really interacted with him. His edits are provided as a specific example of victimism, and not as a comment on the editor's usual behaviour

--Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed acclarations about Jim Butler[edit]

Also, Jim *totally* misinterprets WP:BURDEN, which he also linked, since he is the one that removed the material [8], and Science Apologist only reverted him back[9] I am the one misinterpreting, what he should have done is give enough time for others to provide references on the talk page before removing.

(the "pseudoscience" link on "See also" has been warred over a pair of times, however, and there have been similar edits before [10])

(again, I'm not making any statement about Jim being anything, since I don't know him at all. I'm just using his edit here as an example of a behaviour I have seen on other editors)

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from evidence) Compare to other POV cases where I have been involved, where editors will actually accept sources and drop arguments, even if slowly, instead of arguing endlessly here, here and here --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that User:44Elise might be a sock of the blocked sockmaster that goes after Dana. His edit on the page is his only contribution, which was done 25 minutes after the account creation, which is turn was made an hour and a half after I reverted an edit that was most probably done by the sockmaster[11] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the checkuser - this guy is definitely a sock. However, since his statements are supportive of Dana I find it unlikely that it's the same person who commented on The Tutor's conflict of interest (see water memory talk), or who "goes after" D.Ullman. You should put a request in on the requests for checkusers page. It may be Dana himself, although it sounds more like happening or the guy that spammed the homeopathy page with hundreds of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.225.123 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is supportive of Dana? Really? I only looked a bit at his evidence, and I must have totally misread it. I was convinced that this guy was saying bad things about Dana. I won't open a RFCU myself because it's up to the arbitrators to decide if they want to accept this guy's evidence even if it's a sock. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he actually claims to Vassyana that he sees nothing wrong with Dana contributions[12]. I think that he might be User:Flagtheerror, who got blocked for "being an obvious meatpuppet" for this and specially this. I think that the guy just jumped account again to avoid responsability for past actions. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon01 is currently blocked for unrelated issues, which means that he can't update his evidence to reflect my changes here and here. I ask arbitrators to take this into account and, if he doesn't get unblocked on time before the page is closed, they let him add enough evidence to defend against my charges. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the arbitrators think that part of my evidence is a waste of time, then please tell me so. I will just strike it out or mend it. (I assume that, once the page is archived, you will refactor the time-wasting parts out, but I'd rather do it myself to make sure that the parts that I consider important don't get lost) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) To clarify, if a certain part of the evidence is going to get deleted without looking at it for whatever the reason, then please tell me now so I can just delete it now --Enric Naval (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to question the logic of attacking every single "anti-homeopathy" editor in terming them "bigots" and claiming we are on "a jihad" to remove all traces of homeopathy from Wikipedia. I think we got the point that the pro-homeopath people are probably going to stand up for Dana and not see anything, at all, wrong with his edits. But attacking everyone who shares the opposite view on homeopathy's efficacy? Baegis (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading "the less informed and malign editors are allowed by admins on a daily basis free reign to so ferociously edit a subject they know so little about, while the well-informed experts in the field are attacked and pushed out at every turn[13], I'd say that it's just a bad case of WP:CABAL. I'd urge Peter to read it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?! you not been around long enough to know much. I have been one of the main editors of this article for the past 2 years and worked on two detailed revisions of it first with Filll last summer and then with Wikidudeman in autumn, so I think your views count for little as compared to mine, not to mention a research interest in this subject dating back almost 20 years and involvement with homeopathy 30 years come October. Endless carping words are cheap, the fruits of long study less so. Dana has been involved in homeopathy since the late 60s to my knowledge and yet he gets no respect from people like you. Says it all really. Peter morrell 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he invented the entire concept of homeopathy (I know he didn't). If you cannot objectively portray your chosen field, especially if it is a fringe idea, than you are of no use to this project. He is no different than a member of the Discovery Institute coming and editing the ID article. Dana has showed absolutely no respect to any other editors opinions, always writing them off as not as smart as he is or misinformed or bullies. So why should anyone "respect" him when he clearly does not respect anyone with an opposing viewpoint? Careful there Peter, attacking the entire group of editors who do not share your viewpoint is clearly not a path that should be traveled. Baegis (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You entirely misunderstand. I have not mis-portrayed what you call 'my chosen field.' and nor have I 'attacked' anyone. What I did was describe a process here on wikipedia that has been going on for quite long enough. That process of itself is not about homeopathy per se, it is about the behaviour of certain, let us be generous and call them 'editors,' who have been fighting over a challenge to their beliefs. If you had been watching that article for two years you too, even you, might have seen that same process. Describing a process is not an attack on people or a misrepresentation of a subject. It is simply a bare observation of facts, let us be generous and call it 'science.' Peter morrell 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enric Naval is attempting to assert some misconduct on my part on the evidence page, and I believe he off the mark. I'm not immune to mistakes, but I haven't made any where he asserts I have. We simply appear to disagree over interpretation of policy and evidence.

Expressing an opinion on talk pages that goes against the grain, and then compromising or changing one's mind once new evidence is produced, is not tendentious. Yes, I questioned whether the available evidence sufficed to meet WP:PSCI [14] (see next paragraph), but the important point is that as soon as I realized that a sci-consensus source had been found, I struck my objections and agreed that the threshold had been met [15][16]. I added the source to another article where that same issue had been disputed.[17]. Then I went on to explain to other editors why I thought the debate over category:pseudoscience for homeopathy should be abandoned: specifically, Dana Ullman [18] and Whig [19]. In that last diff, I cited WP:SNOWBALL and explained that it was good to be pragmatic on WP and not fight unwinnable battles. IOW, I was promoting good, cool-headed WP:DR, and basing my reasoning on the best scientific evidence available. That's the opposite of tendentious.

I've never disputed that many, even a majority, of scientists don't accept homeopathy. The question I've asked, occasionally, is whether consensus (more than a majority) exists that it is pseudoscientific (a stronger designation than merely "unlikely" or "not efficacious"). Not all editors at Homeopathy seem to have agreed (or understood the reasoning) that meeting the "generally considered pseudoscience" threshold in WP:PSCI require an adequate source, i.e. attributable evidence of scientific consensus. Others (including a consensus of editors at Category:pseudoscience and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts) have agreed that such attribution is as necessary here as for any other topic on WP, and that a statement of consensus from a scientific body would suffice. I hold this view, and argue that we need more than petitions and individual statements to establish the popularity of a scientific view: otherwise, creationists would be able to "prove" significant support for their views (cf. the parody list Project Steve). That's a reasonable issue to raise -- i.e., verifiability, not truth -- and I haven't made a big deal about it. Indeed, prior to my edit at water memory on 22 April 2008, the last time I edited homeopathy was 2 February 2008. After that, I focused sporadically on the BLP, Dana Ullman, which was getting hit by IP socks[20]. I have 21 mainspace edits to Dana Ullman, and have made less than a dozen edits to Homeopathy since my first one in July 2006. So, I'm at most peripherally involved, and it's hard to portray my edits here as anything other than good-faith, occasional contributions.

I believe that Enric was simply upset at the fact that we disagreed over sourcing at Talk:Water memory (see archived section of talk page here), and that because he was upset, he hastily began posting my comments here as evidence before we had time to resolve the dispute. (See section of earlier evidence that I later pruned, as well as this diff showing how we resolved the problem.) Emotions run high sometimes. Apart from Enric's ABF in forking the discussion to evidence, and my raising the temperature in my initial reply there, I don't think he or I were out of bounds. The important issues in this case, IMO, have to do with proper weighting of sourced views, and how to do that when we don't have a real peer review system on WP. --Jim Butler (t) 23:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jim reacted quite well to the discussion. Still, I would like the evidence to remain, since it's a good example of what generally happens on those pages: policies getting interpreted in restrictive ways in order to avoid certain edits. While Jim was reasonable and caved in after a bit of proding his arguments, other editors would insist on interpretating the policies on their personal way with no appeal to consensus or common sense (again, Jim was reasonable on the discussion and did not have this behaviour). On a controversial topic that means that some edits to include a certain POV take an inordinate amount of effort to make due to opposition from a few editors while other edits to include other POVs are easily made. And, of course, I'm talking of misinterpretations of policy. I don't mean run-of-the-mill harsh interpretations, like using WP:V and WP:RS to force an editor to provide good sources. I mean a restrictive interpretation of a series of policies, one after another, then returning to the first one with a slightly different interpretation after they claim the last one, forcing the interpretation to back their point (again, Jim has actually dropped the claiming of policies after arguments of why they didn't apply) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that editors sometimes lose sight of the fact that policies like NPOV and VER are interpreted by consensus, and it is quite possible that an editor may be technically be right and yet be overridden by other editors. Whether consensus is right or wrong, arguing too much against it is tendentious and disruptive.

Other editors may have made arguments similar to mine in a tendentious manner, but that doesn't mean I have edited tendentiously. All kinds of arguments get made on WP. The arguments themselves are not the problem as long as they are presented reasonably. Indeed, there are some "scientific-skeptical" editors who have been sanctioned for tendentious editing, but that doesn't mean that other editors making similar arguments are also disrupting WP. We should avoid "guilt by association" in such cases.

I think it's entirely reasonable to ask for a suitable source to meet WP:PSCI's "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". And I hope the ArbCom clarifies what sort of sources we need to meet that criterion. If we're going to assert that scientific consensus exists on a topic, we'd damned well better be able to back that up with the right sources. Sure that's restrictive, but I've been consistent about it [21], and I think that approach results in a better encyclopedia. --Jim Butler (t) 04:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page ever going to be brought back? Without seeing the evidence it's hard to support the arbcom, even if I agree with them. Verbal chat 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ping Verbal chat 11:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been deleted for a year, despte Arbcom promisin to deal with it, and undelete it.

You have been promising to deal with the minor issues raised of someone having changed his name from a non-identifying nickname to another non-identifying nickname, and a page that dealt with him being sanctioned or something under the first nickname having been linked.

Since the arbcom recently saw fit to out me to my real name in their amendment to the Matthew Hoffman case, one would think that this minor issue could be dealt with soon, particularly as a different user, Dana Ullman, who was blocked for a year, has recently returned, and the documentation of all the massive problems he caused last time is going to be important in stopping him quickly should he do so again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's a lie. One person linked to my real name - which everyone knows now, since Arbcom revealed it, so there's no point responding. I linked to - I don't know what it was - but a RfC or sockpiuppet report or something under what the person had said was just a nick he was changing because he preferred the other one, and had no reason to think that the old nick was either identifying or meaningful. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Furthermore, they do not go back to the start, because most of them were oversighted, and, secondly, the user in question only suddenly claimed that linking to problems he had been involved with before was outing after he had gotten blocked for it, which rather makes one think he was just trying to get people in trouble. Furthermnore, the previous request for clarification said it would be undeleted eventually. If that's not the case anymore, ten the situation isn't the same at all, and the arbcom has repeatedly lied when they assured everyone it would be dealt with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bainer, please stop making an accusation of bad faith on my part which you cannot back, and which I cannot even defend myself from because the page in question, showing the harmlessness of the link that accidentally outed the user in question, is deleted by the Arbcom. This is a partticularly egregious accusation, because you are well aware that the truth of the matter can only be seen by oversighters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB: Several of the users in question are back, including DanaUllman. Should problems arise, I would much rather be able to point to the evidence I spent hundreds of hours preparing to show his abuse of sources and so on, rather than have to collect all the evidence over again, particularly as the ban was passed without any mention of the evidence that caused it to be passed. Unless Arbcom thinks "DanaUllman has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Wikipedia." - the only finding of fact about him - is sufficient without the dozens of pages of evidence that led to that decision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all the arbitrators: I have asked several times that Mr. Bain withdraw his false accusation. As much of the evidence is oversighted, I would appreciate it being made very clear that this was not (or, at least, since you're not me, that there's no evidence that this was) "Tit-for-tat" or intentional outing on my part, while the other side was edit warring to reveal my name shortly after the Matthew Hoffman case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, after being e-mailed the text, I dealt with the issue in two minutes, following the suggestion of Newyorkbrad, which was also that of FloNight and a few others, as I recall, in the past. Delete it if you want, but you've been talking about doing that for 11 months now, and it's ridiculous that you spent that long complaining about how difficult it was, when it took all of two minutes to do. Now, if you'll deal with Stephen Bain's accusation we can all go home. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scientizzle[edit]

I reviewed the deleted page and I think I found the "outing" done by SH to which Stephen Bain refers. If this deleted revision relates to the general basis of Bain's claims, I think the reasons presented for keeping the page deleted are proverbially overstated. The user in question changed his or her name with a public request at Wikipedia:Changing username, the previous name is readily apparent in the current ID's usertalk archives, and the third most recent edit in the current userpage history tab is labeled "moved User:X to User:Y: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "X" to "Y"). I can't find a WP:RTV request by the user in question, so are we to assume the "arbcom/otrs email" cited in the deleted revision was a de facto RTV? If so, it was so poorly done as to make the prior ID of this user astonishingly easy to determine and there are a number of pages that should be deleted. If not, why is a set of public information being used to keep the evidence page deleted? Am I missing something more? — Scientizzle 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution by MastCell[edit]

I understand that the GFDL issues are prohibitive here. The main concern on SH's part - the reason for this request - is that some parties sanctioned in the case are once again active. Should these parties repeat some of their earlier problematic behavior, it might be useful to have a record of evidence which was compiled for the previous case.

I would suggest that I, or another admin, simply email a copy of the deleted page to SH. The page doesn't need to be restored on-wiki, and an emailed, offline copy would be sufficient in terms of preserving relevant diffs and evidence should further action become necessary. I don't see that emailing the page to SH violates anyone's privacy, since he is already well aware of the account in question's identity, and as Scientizzle points out, the rename was carried out in such a way that it's not exactly hard to put 2 + 2 together if anyone cares.

I will say upfront that I'm not really familiar with the extent of privacy issues in this case. Given that, and the fact that Oversight is involved, I will not proceed with this suggestion or email anything to anyone unless I hear from the Committee that they think this approach is reasonable and respects the privacy of those concerned. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should probably note, since SH has posted an emailed copy of the evidence page, that I have not emailed him. I did not consider the discussion by the Arbs below sufficient go-ahead. No opinion on whether or not it should be posted, but I thought I'd make clear that I did not email it. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution by Enric Naval[edit]

Ahem, I know that someone said that it was a lot of work, but could some nice arb or admin go to the deleted history of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence and delete the offending paragraphs revisions? It's not just Shoemaker's problem here, it's also that User:DanaUllman's ban has expired and people is commenting at an ANI thread bout his return without the possibility of pointing them to the evidence page so they can see what were the alleged problems.

Also, an oversighter please confirm that the other user (whoever he is) has oversighted edits outing Shoemaker, and please link to the deleted revisions so we people will not say that they don't exist.

Also, please solve this before Shoemaker hurts himself.

Also, consider telling bainer to not open the topic anymore. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: (in reference to Carcharoth's comment) Well, let's make an author list then. Anyways, editors could only edit under their own section so it's trivial to identify what part they wrote. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

• I've retitled this from Request to finally do what you've been promising to do for an entire year: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence (which is a little too long). AGK 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Nothing has changed since the prior request for clarification. Two users - one of whom was yourself, Shoemaker's Holiday - were engaged in outing each other on the evidence page, going back to some of the earliest revisions. As MBisanz said in his comment during the last request, even putting GFDL issues aside, it's not feasible to reconstruct a coherent version of the page. There are only two findings of fact in the case, neither of which suffer egregiously from the evidence page being deleted (the statements, along with article talk pages, largely cover it), so there is no benefit to be gained substantial enough to justify expending many hours of volunteer time on such a task. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally, arbitration pages are at most courtesy-blanked rather than deleted, but if there is a need for deletion of this page, I don't see how the deletion is causing any specific ongoing harm, so I would urge the requesting party to be more specific if he wishes to pursue this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MastCell's suggestion might be one possible solution here; another is that any administrators who might need to address issues for the returned editors can simply be pointed to the page and check the deleted revisions (I know that is not perfect, as non-admins couldn't access it, but it still seems reasonable to me so far). I will add, though, that if someone wanted to restore a redacted current version, I don't see any GFDL concern, because all the posts on an evidence page are labelled with the proposer's name anyway, so that's not an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting here that of the current 14 arbitrators, 10 were not arbitrators in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday, when you file amendment requests to old cases, and comment on the promises or actions of past ArbComs, please bear that in mind. My view is that the evidence should be available, if some way can be found to remove what needs to be removed. Like Newyorkbrad, I don't see the GFDL concern as prohibitive. Constructing an author list is possible in this case, and this is in any case an internal page, not intended for publication. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This request has gone stale and the evidence page seems to have been restored. Unless anyone wants to raise new points here, I suggest this request be archived and any further points or objections be raised in a new request. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Risker (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---