Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User:Sbakuria(talk) and Alexander Mashkevitch[edit]

Involved Parties -

User:Sbakuria(talk), User:Bricklayer (talk), User:PhilKnight(talk) and myself.

Issue: User repeatedly reverts to a version of the article which does not meet with consensus. Has ignored warnings and several requests for discussion of the article. Version consistently switched to by Sbakuria has issues with format, neutrality and a possible copyright violation. I can't think of what else can be done, doubt user will ever discuss the article and attempt to reach consensus.

Article's discussion page: Talk:Alexander Mashkevitch.

Requests made on user's talk page [[1]].

Difference after repeated requests for user to halt behaviour:[[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talkcontribs) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested action: A block or a ban for Sbakuria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefox crashed before I could complete edit, sorry.Rtdixon86 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Although adoption or editing restrictions could be conidered, I'd support a site ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I also support a site ban in this case. Bricklayer (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I seem to have a problem as does User:Ohnoitsjamie. This user was originally blocked a few days ago as a possible "Willy on Wheels" vandal, but he insists the name "Willyonwheels1969" is legit; he claims his name is William, was born in 1969 and his nickname as a child was "Willy on Wheels." I'm now getting messages on my talk page from Road Runner Cable IPs in Georgetown, Kentucky with this user demanding apologies, threatening "action," etc. I have tried to reason with this individual to no avail. He wants to edit with this username or variation thereof and both I and Jamie have basically (and politely) told him sorry, ain't happening and here's why. If he's legit, I regret his less than friendly reception. However, one of his first edits was to Jimbo's talk page; he's familiar with this system, claiming he'd mostly edited anonymously before establishing an account. To his credit, he hasn't done any WoW vandalism. No page moves, nothing. Otherwise, I'd dismiss him as just another Willy wannabe. I can't get through to the guy as to the myriad reasons he can't edit under that username. He seems more interested in the username than anything else. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we as a community can state what is and what is not a disruptive username, and that naming yourself after a particular vandal is disruptive no matter if you have good faith intentions. If the user really really realllllllly wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, they're welcome to change their username. If the user is a WoW clone, they'd continue in the manner that they appear to be pursuing. In other words, demands and threats will justify blocks of the ip. Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with Syrthiss. — Satori Son 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Works for me; that's the conclusion I drew, but I wanted to weigh in here. I'll let you all know what he says in response to my last message. If he insists on going down this particular route, I'll request a rangeblock. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a request from this editor, and agree with the above comments. We can't always have the username we would like to have, and that's a fact of life here, whether it is disruptive on the face of it, or by association- which latter case is what we have here. I wanted different usernames, but they were already taken. It didn't bother me, and, er, I didn't shout about it. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
but did anyone block you for using the name of a real life famous (albeit dead) person? (and their glove puppet?) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Syrthiss and Rodhullandemu. We're here to write an encyclopedia with minimal distracting WP:DRAMA and WP:POINT. User has made it clear he's only here for drama and point, and his stated intent to keep creating new accounts is blockable in its own right for the same reasons. DMacks (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, all. The last thing I would want to do is bite a newbie and I tried to reason with him based on his original claim, thinking that would be the end of it. When the hits just kept on coming, I knew this would be trouble. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But newbies can be really tasty :-P No bites, just nibbles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor claiming I am committing a crime[edit]

Resolved: Comment struck. No need to feed the drama llama over this one. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

At this diff, a self-proclaimed lawyer (see first line of User:Dirtlawyer1) is making a claim that I am breaking the law. Specifically, "Frankly, sir, are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law". He goes on further to state "you are dangerously close to engaging in the unlicensed practice of law" [3]. I am specifically requesting this user be blocked for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is in no way the only way to read that comment. A nice message to the editor would have been the preferred step to take here. I have left them a message asking them to avoid ambiguous comments of such nature in the future. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Right. A lawyer says I'm breaking the law, but that's not a legal threat. <cough> He's attempting to intimidate me off of the thread by dropping this accusation at me. He did this not once, but twice. Not to worry, it's not a legal threat you say. Ok, fine. Out goes WP:NLT along with our empty civility policy. Sigh. You do realize this editor is accusing not just me, but EVERYONE who comments on this project on the legal status of images as being engaged in an illegal activity unless they are a lawyer (such as he)? So, we're all supposed to shut up and let him decide the fate of every image? I can't believe this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
He has been warned by 2 of us, and recommended to retract. He did not threaten you with anything - he did not say you are breaking the law, anymore than some of our templates warn that you might be breaking things like 3RR. He was, however, using his supposed position as a lawyer to suppress your input and action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As Bwilkins says, claiming you might break the law is not a legal threat. He did not threaten to report you, to sue you or anything. He was probably just trying to use his status to win an argument (see WP:NPLT). As such, you should have told this user (who has never been told so, at least on his talk page) about WP:NPLT and that he should stop using such language instead of coming here directly. As I wrote above, the comment can be well understood differently (WP:AGF!) and as such, you should have not assumed a policy violation first but a simple error of words chosen. After all, if he continues to use such language after being informed he can still be dealt with accordingly. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, if you're making edits that you consider to be valid and within the wikipedia guidelines, feel free to ignore anything that looks like a legal threat. Legal threats are intended to intimidate. Do not be intimidated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no intention of working further on anything he touches. I do not need to be accused of breaking laws and be told that when I complain about it, I am "squeeling" and "bullying". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Since I seem to be doing a bang up job of misinterpreting today, read his response and decide for yourself whether he continues to claim I am giving out bad legal advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this is not "resolved." If you disagree, I hereby request arbitration. I have written nothing for which I need to apologize. No threat, legal or otherwise, was ever made. Please re-read Hammersoft's comments; I am not the one engaged in WikiBullying in this matter. This escalation is evidence of that. Please do not presume that I am in the wrong merely because the other guy squealed first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the original issue of the image itself, the proper avenue would probably be to remove the speedy deletion tag - esp. since Dirtlawyer1 has provided a lot of new information to review - and bring it to WP:FFD where a more thorough discussion could take place. Regarding the issue of the legal threat - hmmm - how about this: Dirtlawyer1, try to ease up on the language a tad since most of us are volunteers and not lawyers, and Hammersoft, if you're going to work in the rough world of image deletion, you'll definitely need a thick skin. K? Wknight94 talk 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been working in this area for quite a while now. My skin is plenty thick enough. If you doubt it, just look at my userpage. Regardless, I fail to see how I'm supposed to put up with being accused of committing a crime, told I'm "squeeling" and "bullying" when I complain about it, and then apparently shrug my shoulders and say "That's ok, I have a thick skin". What Dirtlawyer1 did was unconscionable. He is still unrepentant, and still believes he acted properly. "I do not believe that I have engaged in any 'behavior' which contravenes policy or good manners" [4]. Honestly? I find it humorous, from a number of vantage points. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused - the image that was tagged that started all of this seems to just be tagged with the "needs a rationale" tag, not a "this isn't/can't be fair use" tag.
Why all the fighting? That's just a "fill out the paperwork" issue... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft says he has been intimidated by Dirtlawyer's legalistic comments. That is sufficient proof that it's a legal threat. Dirtlawyer must withdraw it or be blocked. There is no middle ground on this. If Dirtlawyer has issues with material that may conflict with wikipedia policies, that's another matter. But legal threats, or anything that resemble legal threats, must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I suppose it's possible to divine a legal threat from Dirtlawyer1's comments, I don't think it's of the sort that was ever intended to be covered under WP:NLT. "Hey, Wikipedia users should be careful about this, you guys need help from real lawyers" is very distinct from "Stop that or I'll sue you!!!!!!11" -- which of the two do you think policy intends to prevent? Concerns expressed in good faith probably shouldn't be met with block threats. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The rule is intended to prevent intimidation, and unless Hammersoft is lying to us, he's feeling intimated to the point where he's afraid to edit there. To me, that qualifies, and the dirtlawyer guy should withdraw it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
My problem is that he didn't really threaten any sort of action (unless we're talking about different edits). How can you retract a threat to do an action when there was no action verb in the sentence. " are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters" --- would a retraction be, "you are probably not engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters"? It's an opinion with no real threat to take actual action. Now if he followed that with "...and I will be serving you with court papers" (or whatever it is lawyers do), then that would be a threatened action. That's my 2 cents. It just doesn't seem quite as vicious as it's being made to sound, but maybe I'm jaded from spending part of the day listening to stuff like this gem. Wknight94 talk 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oy. Well, that kinda puts it in perspective. If I'm hearing the other voices right, Hammersoft is being intimated over something that he need have no fear of. As you well know, if some character here threatened me legally, I wouldn't be intimidated at all; I'd tell him to talk to my lawyers. Or just tell him to go to the taxidoimist and get stuffed. A threat of a block, though... that's intimidating. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually this whole thing is quite hilarious. Someone comes here in good faith, provides some interesting background related to a divisive issue with a view towards resolving a potential problem (as opposed to looking for a fight) and ends up getting berated by rule banger with a series of self-important and obstructive rsponses who then decides to turn the whole thing into an unnecessary and overblown drama. Accused of a crime - oh my! But then that's the H-man's style. There's no threat there - I'd be frustrated too being subject H's inexpert drivel. And here all this time I thought the saying was it was the law that was an ass (thank you, Charles Dickens for Oliver Twist). The Hammer needs to chill some and be more respectful of what other editors views and what they can bring to the project. Wiggy! (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, for what it's worth, some states (AZ) don't have real UPL statutes, so the first few diffs are not even an accusation of a crime. However, WP:NLT is unclear whether it's "No Legal Threats" or "No statements which could be reasonably construed as Legal Threats" (which, I'm afraid, User:Dirtlawyer1 has done). Perhaps User:Dirtlawyer1 should make it clear that he has no intention of reporting H (other than possibly to WikiMedia's lawyers) or suggesting that others do so. If that were done, it would be clear that there's no LT, and perhaps we can go on to right of panorama questions.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1 made a comment which Hammersoft perceived as a legal threat. Hammersoft brought the issue here for clarification or further action, as s/he is perfectly entitled to do. Dirtlawyer1 has since clarified that "no threat, legal or otherwise, was ever made."[5] That surely resolves the legal threat issue, though the underlying image dispute remains. Euryalus (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm the odd man out here. Though I agree with Euryalus that no issue remains aside from the underlying dispute, that diff presented above is what I feel NLT was meant to prevent. Remember, a legal threat doesn't require malice. In this case it was a statement where the implication is sufficient to constitute the threat--Hammersoft shouldn't be editing things related to derivative images because his misrepresentation of the legal issue at stake would constitute a crime. That's a perfect example of a legal threat. User:Dirtlawyer1's statement that no threat was ever conveyed isn't strictly accurate. Either way normal dispute resolution can continue now, i guess. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus to block dirtlawyer, here's my advice:

To Hammersoft: Ignore dirtlawyer's threats and edit as you please, within wikipedia guidelines of course.
To Dirtlawyer: Rubbish. You have no legal power here. Begone, before someone drops a house on you.
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go anywhere near that far, bugs. My view is that discussion about what is and isn't a derivative work under US law is both necessary and healthy here. Insofar as dirtlawyer is promoting that, good. What isn't healthy is the use of legal credentials to push around other contributors, whether intended or unintended. Dirt, I'm sure that you are a lawyer, but you aren't my lawyer and you aren't the foundation's lawyer. No one, except mike godwin, speaks for the foundation in legal terms on wikipedia. No one should be tossing around statements that imply that hammersoft could, through the normal editing process, be engaging in unlicensed legal practicing. More importantly, no one should be using their claimed expertise outside of wikipedia as a matter of authority in discussion. If you want to offer your off-wiki experience as knowledge/wisdom, great. But please try and make an effort to avoid appearing as though you are using your status as a lawyer to influence discussions on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "That far" what? You mean dropping a house? I never said that I nor anyone else would drop a house. I merely described what theoretically might happen. If you disagree, I hereby request arbitrariness. I have written nothing for which I need to appy-polly-loggy-gize. No threat, house-al or otherwise, was ever made. I am not the one engaged in WitchOfTheNorthBullying in this matter. This Otis escalator is evidently of that. Please do not pre-zoom that I am in the wrong merely because the Wicked Witch of the East croaked first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Are we broadly agreed that Dirtlawyer1 having made clear he did not intend a legal threat, this issue can be marked resolved? Euryalus (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not he meant it as a legal threat, he meant it to have the same chilling effect on the discussion - and was apparently successful at it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly, and he has not backed down from it, last I knew. I suggest that if he won't remove those comments, we should do it ourselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, this is enough to qualify as backing down - at least from anything that might be considered chilling or threatening. Wknight94 talk 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the paragraph I was lampooning above. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth; Bwilkins is correct. I refuse to work with User:Dirtlawyer1 because he remains adamant that he acted appropriately in accusing me of committing a crime. I will, to my knowledge, never again work on anything he touches because of his apparent belief that his behavior is appropriate. He has been successful in intimidating me away from things he works on. I don't expect any particular action now to be done with respect to him. He will not retract his comments, and nobody can force him to do so. If similar stunts are pulled in the future, I'm at least somewhat confident he will be blocked for it. So, since he's been successful at protecting his sub dominion on Wikipedia and forcing me off of it, since he will not retract his comments, and since this reference point exists for future controversies when he pulls similar stunts, I consider the matter closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, don't back down. Dirtlawyer1 is a newbie trying to throw his weight around. Treat him like any other newbie that's full of himself. He has no legal authority here, and is in no position to do you any harm. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in contesting with a lawyer throwing his weight around over some entries on Wikipedia. I'll avoid anything having to do with University of Florida, the school he attended. If I trip across him in any other area of Wikipedia, I'll avoid him there too. It is a pain, but it is easier that dealing with accusations of me breaking the law. He's not going to retract his comments and he's not going to be blocked for it. So, there's nothing to be done at this point. But, this reference point exists when he tries similar stunts on people in the future. That's enough for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Who ordered the drama llama? I'm sorry, I do think you are being a bit excessive. He's said his piece. What's he going to do about it? Report some anonymous Wikipedian that he can't even be sure is on the same continent as he is to his legal body? And what are they going to do? Report it to Wikipedia? And what is Wikipedia's lawyer going to do (when he stops laughing that is). I don't think anybody yet has ever successfully brought a barrack room lawyer to book for practising without a license. I think you're safe here, I really do. Which is not to say that Dirtlawyer ought not to moderate his tone (which tone is coming off distinctly snotty, and not an asset to the project),. But he can't actually do anything worse to you know...type mean words at you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Dirtlawyer was asked to strikeout the offensive comments, and even advised how to do it. Until he does, he has not backed down. If we have to do it, then someone will also have to give him a short rest for disruption. If he does it himself, I would be happy to merely monitor future interactions and consider this situation closed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I;m sorry. I don't like to disagree with you. But this [6] makes it perfectly clear that no legal threat is made or intended. I don't know what else you want him to say, as he's not going to apologise, and blocking him because he won't apologise is not an acceptable tactic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not there is concensus here to block the guy - Hammersoft, you need to understand that that self-proclaimed lawyer has no more legal authority over anyone here than does my pet goldfish. Ignore him. And if he persists in hassling you, tell him to stick it where the moon don't shine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well put me in the Refuses-to-block-based-on-current-data column. If Hammersoft finds Dirtlawyer too unpalatable to work with, that's fine. I have my own list of such users, and I simply avoid them. "More-trouble-than-it's-worth" is what I call that list. I'm sure I'm on other people's "More-than-trouble-than-it's-worth" lists too. Everyone probably has such a list and everyone is probably on someone else's list too. Does that make everyone blockable? Wknight94 talk 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Block 'em all! Block 'em all! The long and the short and the tall! Or, in lieu of that, either confront them or ignore them. I still think it looks like a legal threat, but opinion seems to be divided, and as I said, Hammersoft has nothing to fear from that character. Many editors come here making legal threats, and most of them eventually get indef'd. If he continues to wave his law degree in people's faces, he won't be around long. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you there - well the last part about toning it down anyway (and I did say that above), but not the Block 'em all part (although some days, I may agree with you on that too). Wknight94 talk 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's more of a metaphor, and is also a parody of a World War II song. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok ... then I will simply remind him about both toning it down, and on how to retract the statements in the spirit of collegial editing (remember, I'm not a fan of blocking unless required). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, I previously requested that BWilkins explain on my Talk page how a reasonable person could interpret my comments as "legal threats." That request was apparently overlooked. I will restate the request of both of you. From my perspective, there seems to be a bias to provide the other gentlemen some measure of moral support and satisfaction, even in the absence of any actual threat. Quite frankly, the overwrought header on this thread and the immediate request to have me blocked are far better examples of intimidation tactics.
In my professional world, I am used to dealing with an objective standard (i.e., how would a reasonable person of average intelligence perceive the situation, and act or react) not a subjective standard (i.e., what one individual may actually believe). In this particular dust-up, the other gentleman's stated reaction is subjective----he writes that he believed he was being threatened or intimidated. By way of illustration, I can honestly and in good faith believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but my subjective belief does not make it so.
Demanding that I apologize for something that I did not write, and something I did not intend, is Orwellian. There is no hidden message. Threatening to delete purportedly threatening language, without explaining how any reasonable person could interpret it as such, is an attempt to chill the debate (and apparently at putting the perceived "newbie" in his place).
No threat was actually made, that has been clarified by me twice before, and acknowledged by several administrators in this thread. If the other gentleman does not like the rough-and-tumble of actually being told that he is wrong, then perhaps he should adopt a more cooperative and less rigid sense of his self-appointed role as a Wiki copyright enforcer. From my reading of his User and Talk pages, he has a history of bullying less-experienced editors who are unable to defend a posted image for which a perfectly valid "free use" or "public domain" rationale may exist if only someone would listen to them and help them.
Is is it not in Wikipedia's interest to preserve all relevant images when there is a valid exception or rationale for doing so? Would it not be better to adopt a mentor-oriented approach in these copyright matters, rather than leaving inexperienced editors to fume in frustration? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Cheese and Rice, just as we're about to mark it resolved, the wikilawyering begins anew ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That....didn't help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

However, if we can all agree that no-one is actually threatening to drag the Hammer off to the cells, perhaps in another venue (in a galaxy far, far away) there could be a discussion about the idea of supporting editors trying to upload images vs the experience that Dirtlawyer plainly feels he had. I know that one can get very blase (I used to work collecting the General Rate many years ago. You quickly become immune to pleading when you find that you have heard every excuse under the sun at least three times) but there may be something worth examining here. I also note with concern that among the very early advice given to Dirtlawyer was to by preference load the image into Commons, as one got better advice from them. That is something that maybe ought to be addressed y/n? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Given his lengthy essay, full of words and music and signifying nothing, I am now convinced that Dirt is an actual attorney. And I see that he repeated his claim that "no reasonable person" would see his comments as a legal threat. So in addition to making legal threats, he is now making personal attacks, calling a number of us "unreasonable". Instead of blustering at length here or anywhere else, he needs to go back to that image he's so concerned about and make sure that the licensing fits within wikipedia's rules about images. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • We have reasonable proof from User:LtPowers now that the image in question is in fact in the public domain (but not because of Dirtlawyer1's interpretation). See the thread where this is discussed. As to the continued insistence by Dirtlawyer1 that he did nothing wrong, meh. See my 14:46, 13 August 2009 comment in this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, I'm new here, but I catch on fast. Rule Number One: First, assume "good faith." Please see the Wikipedia article regarding the Reasonable person standard in the practice of law. It may go a long way to helping you understand my statement above.
Ladies & gentlemen, pursuant to the last comment and suggestion from BWilkins on my Talk page, I will strike the references to the unlicensed practice of law. I do this in the suggested spirit of "collegiality," not because I believe that I have engaged in "legal threats," and certainly not because I have accused anyone of "committing a crime." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Dirtlawyer. Collegiality is A Good Thing, especially since you maintain no threat was intended in the first place. I think that resolves everything? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
D'accord. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
He needs to follow his own rules. Calling those who disagree with him "unreasonable" hardly constitutes an assumption of good faith on his part. However, I commend him for retracting the comments that triggered this section. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to consider that "reasonable person would believe" is a term of art in his field that has slightly different resonance for him than us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Leonardo Ciampa articles[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa[edit]

Some more eyeballs are kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, a situation brought to my attention at the village pump. After the subject of the article posted about the AfD on his blog, the AfD has been clogged with SPAs trying to have the article kept. This has escalated into harassment, attempts to reveal personal information about a user, and what appears to be an entirely frivolous SPI request against two of the editors arguing for the deletion of the article. I have already taken the, admittedly unusual, step of semiprotecting the AfD to stop some of the nastiness, and I'd like to ask that others keep an eye on the page. Many thanks. Cool3 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:THD3 is saying that Mr. Ciampa is attempting to contact him in real life. I can't say whether or not this constitutes real-life harrassment, but it isn't healthy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool3 has mischaracterized the events. See below. RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for blocking of User:Grover cleveland[edit]

 Note: See also this WQA. Nja247 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Note: See also this blocked user's talkpage, which may or may not be relevant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am writing to report vandalism on the part of User:Grover cleveland.

The following diffs show that he vandalized the Leonardo Ciampa article with an overabundance of "fact" tags, citing statements that were utterly uncontroversial:

[7] [8] [9]

With each of these "fact" tags, the information was very easily obtainable, had Mr. Cleveland wished to obtain it. (To give one example: rather than check to see if Mr. Ciampa indeed had CDs there, he threw on a "fact" tag.)

Mr. Cleveland then recommended the Leonardo Ciampa article for deletion. However, the sheer volume of his commentary at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leonardo_Ciampa, and its malice, is disturbing and very not in keeping with Wiki policy.

The claims of "online and offline harassment" seem to be towards Mr. Ciampa himself. That gets into the realm of libel. See [10].

In short, User:Grover cleveland has acted atrociously; someone with thousands of edits under his belt should know better. I respectfully but strongly suggest at least a temporary block of User:Grover cleveland RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RoverRexSpot has been warned about the no legal threats policy. "Gets into the realm of libel" is generally understood to be a legal threat here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This request is as frivolous as the sockpuppet investigation noted above was, and is nothing more than a continuing campaign of harrassment against a couple of users who had the audacity to launch an AfD against a non- or barely notable musician who's taking things personally. This request is petty and vindictive, and certainly not in line with the blocking policy. Resolute 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Time out[edit]

Please stop making threats and wild accusations against each other. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is one of our policies - it's mandatory, not optional. As is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

IP editors and those newly arrived - please do not insult people when you leave comments. Anyone's input into the article and process is welcome, but abusive behavior is not.

The key issue here seems to resolve around notability and reasonableness of challenges to it. That type of issue requires polite and collaborative and constructive discussion on the article talk page or AFD entry. Please talk to each other. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:AGF is a "behavioral guideline", not a policy. It is strongly recommended but certainly not mandatory -- as far as I know, nobody has ever been blocked solely for failing to AGF. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi all, could someone please help out at the Chetniks article...? There's another newb nationalist guy (judging by the HUGE Serbian insignia on his userpage) removing images he doesn't like, deleting sources, and tagging the article with "this section does not cite any references or sources" (the article has quite a lot of sources). He's reverting any removal of the wrong templates, and is pushing his nonsense edits with constant and immediate edit-warring. Apparently I'm "delusional", and I'm infringing his "right to make the article fair" by removing the "vial filth" from Wikipedia. Last time I tried to handle a situation like this I got blocked for edit-warring, could someone lend a hand? He's basically ignoring everything I write on the talkpage and just repeating his opinions... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a directly related Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Chetniks. Perhaps that's the best forum to pursue this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps not? What's to discuss about reverting the addition of incorrect templates and content blanking? The User's edits are poorly concealed POV-pushing. I don't think this "qualifies" as a proper dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Has engaged in a tendentious revert war with all comers for the last week, will not listen to reason, insists University Canada West are crooks or worse and will not accept any version of the article that says otherwise. Ingoman (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User has already been warned for 3RR. If the user steps over the 3RR line, then block away. MuZemike 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RetlawSnellac, Neftchi (formerly Baku87) and copyright issues[edit]

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute


Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion
Description of the dispute and the main evidence

I don't contribute often on English Wikipedia, being mainly active in Armenian WP. While browsing through Commons categories I came across photos of new user RetlawSnellac who registered here: and on commons:

He uploaded 4 pictures to commons claiming to be the author [11]. It caught my attention, because Retlaw Snellac is one of my Flickr contacts, and I do follow his photo stream [12]. Retlaw Snellac is the acronym of his true name, Walter Callens, spelled in reverse. Browsing his folder on Azerbaijan, I checked, and found that all 4 pictures were in fact taken by Retlaw Snellac I know from Flickr. I became curious, because I remember Walter publishes his photos on Flickr under standard, "strict" copyright, as once I checked his Flickr page, to see if I can import some of his photos to Commons. The other obvious reason was, that from lot of nice photos from different countries, only those 4, and only from Azerbaijan were uploaded. Even more, he suddenly shows special interest in discussions related to Azerbaijan.

I wrote him on Flickr, to see if it was really him to upload his photos to Commons and participate in some discussions/voting. His reply was:


Thanks for the information.

Retlaw Snellac from Wikimedia is NOT me.

Kind regards,


The problem here is that the RetlawSnellac on Wikipedia claimed to be the real Walter Callens, uploading his own works, using the date of the real Walters visit to Azerbaijan from flickr to come up with this story, he even explicitly claims to be the real Retlaw, see here.

Upon the incident I contacted another member who too contacted him. I was advised to prepare something about this and report it here, as upon checking this user contribution there seem to be one obvious correlation between this suspicious account and user:Neftchi (formerly Baku87).

Here is the evidence I gathered so far:

Since June 26th, Neftchi edited daily, until July 3rd. Retlaw registered on the 4th and edited until the 7th, Baku87 never edited during that time period. He returned on the 11th and soon request a name change from Baku87 to Neftchi. [13]

  • Ratlaw Snellac addeed this map, which has the same borders as this map uploaded by Neftchi. This was probably done to support the revert war on the ADR article initiated by Neftchi when he adding the map on Jan 2009 [14].
  • Here he announces having uploaded new picture of petroglyphs of Qobustan. Note that the original uploader of those petroglyphs was Netchi(formerly Baku87)[15]. Neftchi then shows an interest in pictures, by switching the pictures[16].
  • On Church of Kish, Retlaw reverts to Neftchi version. The article history indicates that there was an edit warring in process, this user, who registered one day ago, apparently knew the edit war was going on and reverted to Neftchi version.
  • "All by sudden" continues the discussion started by Baku [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] (adds a website owned by a well-known Adil Baguirov)
  • The article Azerbaijani Special Forces was created on June 18 by Neftchi, Fedayee requested a source for an element, which was provided by Retlaw here. Check the article history and see that in fact this user who only registered on July 4, only showed interest in Neftchi contributions.
  • He edits the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article, in which Neftchi is the most active editor.
  • Baku87 started a thread in August 2008 [23]. Almost a year later RatlawSnellac backs him up [24], [25].
  • Retlaw created this article which was copied from here, Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan.
  • Both users show interest in documenting Chinese alleged crimes during the Urumqi riots. Neftchi provides a source in its talkpage. [26] [27] So did RetlawSnellac. [28]
  • RetlawSnellac goes on to add dozens of individuals in the List of Azeris. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Neftchi was by far the most active contributor to that list for the last couple of months. [35]
  • Neftchi adds a picture of a carpet manufacturing in Ganja and here RetlawSnellac adds one on the Carpet Museum.
  • Here RetlawSnellac even leaves a message on the Neftchi talkpage inviting him to use his pictures. This leaves Neftchi to do what he wants with those pictures without having the trouble of using two accounts. Note that the real RetlawSnellac denied having anything to do with this account.
  • Funny here, the fake RetlawSnellac even goes to attempt to have the picture of the so much loved by Neftchi petroglyphs of Qobustan to FA statues.
  • Also see here, most of the edits in the last few months were done by Neftchi. And here, where he supports Neftchi out of nowhere to add the POV tag.
  • Note also that Retlaw claims to be from Belgium/Netherlands. [36], prior to Neftchi name change, this was Baku87's personal page on Wikipedia, which read: Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal.

The pattern between both users, as if he switched from one account to the other, and while one user was contributing the other never was. NeftchiRetlaw.jpg

I do not know Neftchi and never interacted with him, so nothing personal, but impersonation, and compromising whole project by thief of IP and abuse of freedom and trust, is something that in my opinion, can not and should not be tolerated. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged one of his images at commons (File:Carpet Museum in Baku.jpg) with {{subst:npd}}, since I have found it on the flickr website. I'm out of time, I'm afraid, to contribute more now, but these are serious allegations which do need careful investigation. If he is truly who he says he is, he should be able to verify permission at the flickr site or through e-mail. If it should prove that this individual is deliberately misrepresenting himself to commit intentional copyright fraud, then I think it would be appropriate to immediately indefinitely block any and all accounts that may be involved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just received a message in my talk about alleged sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion related to me and RetlawSnellac. I certainly hope this has got nothing to do with me being ethnic Azerbaijani and Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen being Armenian as we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives. I noticed that the only users who have ever accused me in Wikipedia were ethnic Armenian. For example I was accused of having a sockpuppet account called Baki66 thats why I changed my name from Baku87 to Neftchi to prevent confusion. I want to make it clear that I dont know who RetlawSnellac is and its certainly not me, he posted a message in my talk see here and I never replied back to it. I have not talked or had any contact with that user I do have encountered him several times in wikipedia in articles in which I was active, I think he is just checking out my contributions list and works from there. Also notice how all his edits are done after me. This kind of approach is often done by anon-users. So just going through my huge contributions-list and finding any connections with RetlawSnellac is easy work but in no way is that evidence or proof. With this kind of approach I could probably link you to sockpuppetry aswell. I have been a member in wikipedia for a long time and I have never engaged in this kind of forgery so under what motive and reason would I suddenly start now. RetlawSnellac said in my talk page that I was welcome to upload any photo of his Photoalbum in Flickr and gave me this link and also note that the username in Flickr matches the one in wikipedia (that is retlaw snellac), why not approach him instead of me and ask him to verify his identity on both Flickr aswell as in Wikipedia. Neftchi (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
He has been approached in addition to you as both of you have been mentioned in this thread. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. First of all, the main "hero" here, is owner of fake account RetlawSnellac, who did several serious violations and for whom I can not think of any excuse, for that. About you, no believe me you being azeri and me being armenian doesn't really mean anything for me. I had lot of contacts, and worked/lived together with azeris and turks. I'm soo far from being nationalistic or xenophobic in any other way. Also I'm in WP, since late 2006, but in en:wp 99% of my contribs are interwikis to hy:wp. So "we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives" isn't correct, we really haven't meet, neither we worked on same articles. I'm not much into history or politics, and I do avoid Armenian-Azerbaijan related topics, as I find edit wars, one of the biggest and stupidest problems of wikis in general. I'm much into photography and I'm much for Free Software and Free Content, because I do really respect IP rights. Add because I've been following authors works for some period, I felt myself much more obliged, to report this. So If I noticed similar incident done by Armenian, my reaction would be the same. I'm probably most copyright-paranoid in hy:wp. I Hope my motivation is pretty clear now, and no one goes to look for ethnic problems here, and we can come back to incidents. Let me sum it up again, I'm sure RetlawSnellac on wikimedia, is impersonator and thief, as I got reply from author, I'm almost sure RetlawSnellac here is puppet (my expereince of moderating several forums tells me so), what comes to you, you're account has most correlations with RetlawSnellac's contirbs. But I don't think I have any moral right to accuse you in anything, until check is done, by admins. And if it proves you have nothing to do with all this, I'll ask your pardon, for my suspicion. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm back. I've also located several others and tagged them for verification of permission. If there were a contact address for the flickr account owner, I would happily contact him through OTRS so that we could quickly resolve this. If you are in communication with him, can you perchance ask him to get in touch with, explaining that there is an individual on Commons impersonating him and uploading his images without permission? If his e-mail address can be clearly connected to the point of publication, this could resolve matters very quickly, at least as far as the copyright problems are concerned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because this alleged imposter (RetlawSnellac) is going through my contributions list should not make me a suspect of sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion, these are serious accusations. Just think about it, what motive would I have for all this? I upload my own photos, edits my own articles and I have been doing this succesfully for several years now. Perhaps I am a bit overreacting, Im just taken by surprise by all of this. I would like to see RetlawSnellac's explanation to all of this aswell. Neftchi (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... fascinating. And well researched and presented evidence, Xelgen. At the very least, RetlawSnellac seems to have been engaging in activities that not only break Wikipedia rules but which are quite clearly illegal. He has been pretending to be someone he isn't (Walter Callens), has been claiming that he owns the copyright of images which he does not own, has been uploading some of those images to Wikipedia, and has been inviting Neftchi to upload even more of those images to Wikipedia, thus breaking copyright laws. Whether RetlawSnellac and Neftchi are one and the same might be provable using CU evidence - but if they are the same person, the evidence suggesting he has been carefully avoiding being online using two accounts at the same time-period means that he has probably also been using two completely different ISPs. Similarity in editing styles, the identical use of particular words or phrases, might be another way of proving they are the same person (or proving that they are not). Meowy 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There's smth wrong with my ISP, as it's second day I can't access Flickr. So using proxy, I've got to real RetlawSnellac profile on flickr. There is an email address, at the bottom of the page. Guess you can try it, to contact him. And I've just wrote a FlickrMail to him, leaving link to this report, and your instructions to and describe the situation. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
After reading Neftchi’s reply, I feel it is important to clarify few things.
  • Neftchi told, that RetlawSnellac was editing only after him, as do some annonims do. But there are cases, when Neftchi showed interest in some articles only after Retlaw contributed in them. One example is Neftchi's renewed interest in the petroglyphs like here and this clearly after RetlawSnellac. Also, if we dig a bit deeper into RetlawSnellac's contributions, we see controversial edits in articles which Neftchi did not edit (which seems to apparently discredit his claim of a plot against Neftchi). A few more examples: [37], [38], he also created Shirvan Domes. Also check his edits on Saingilo – the disputed region between Azerbaijan and Georgia, this image is in commons too.
  • On the diagram we see how Neftchi takes a break twice, both for about exactly a week. RetlawSnellac posts right after him at both times, and most importantly, only at times. Such "perfect timing" makes plot against Neftchi quite unlikely (untill someone knew he will be on brake).
I'd like to mention, that some of the pictures uploaded by Neftchi, rise some questions to me, as well.
Note that Neftchi again claims to be the author.
I have more in mind, but I'd like to re-check them tomorrow with fresher mind, cause after few hours spent digging contrib. history, I'm afraid to become a suspicious paranoic. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's some pretty hefty evidence of copyright infringement, unless Neftchi is a woman named Erica who lives in Maine. Both of those images clearly predate our usage here. I'll see if I can get an admin who works more routinely with sock puppetry to weigh in on the sock question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you noticed its summer? Thats why I was on a break, what else could I be doing during this time. If I was changing accounts then wouldnt my IP remain the same? So check for IP between mine and that of RetlawSnellac's. Unless you have that it means nothing. And what do those photos have to do with this case, that has got to do with copyright and my previous website - (which is offline now). The fact that your out of topic makes it seem more like a crusade against me. Also note how fellow Armenian Wikipedian collague Meowy suddenly enters the talks, this at least raises the bar of suspicion of your accusations against me. Especcially taking into account Meowy's offensive language against Azerbaijanis, such as in this example, in which I qoute:
We also have to consider the plight of the population of Azerbaijan. They have a medical condition that's rather like a severe nut allergy. At the sight of a map showing the borders of Nagorno Karabakh their necks start to swell up, then they begin to involuntarily jump up and down as if possessed, arms swinging about wildly. If the situation is not quickly relieved by removing the map, their heads will quite literally explode! Many medical papers have been written about this unfortunate condition, but a yet no definitive cure has been found. The ingestion of a very large dose of democracy is known to alleviate the symptoms, but this is something the afflicted are reluctant to undergo because of cultural reasons.
So I would like to know whether this is a anti-Azerbaijani case due to my opposing perspectives regarding both our countries and politics. It could also very well be that you are RetlawSnellac and whilest I was on a break you made edits based on my contributions list and collected so-called-evidence for a case against me; considering you know my history of contributions very well. Anyway as I said before, I could probably find connections with you and some other user aswell and accuse you of socketpuppetry, because this is what kinda evidence you present. What you want you will find.Neftchi (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for inserting some off-topic humour into the thread - and, unlike your uploading of images, at least you are acknowledging the real creator of that satiric piece! However, I think you should be responding to the issues and the questions about your uploading of images that appear to be the work of others. Meowy 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I think what Neftchi is trying to say in his "and what do those photos have to do with this case, that has got to do with copyright and my previous website -" comment is that the photo on the blog by a woman named Erica has actualy been stolen by Erica rather than the other way around. That seems possible. Looking at all the photos in her album there is no evidence she has actually been to Azerbaijan, and the photos show dancers in many locations around the world. So, unless she is extremely well-travelled, it would be common-sense to assume that almost all of the photos in that album have been taken from other sources. Meowy 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree with you that Erica is unlikely to be the photographer of a lot of those images and may not be this one. I'm not entirely sure if Neftchi is either, though. I have confirmed that File:Kara Karayev.jpg was hosted, for instance, on the now defunct website, but I can't confirm that it was hosted there prior to its uploading here by another contributor, and copyright seems questionable, given that the photograph must be, what, 30 or 40 years old? Also, is he the copyright owner of the schoolbook from which this was scanned? Questions like this are worth some clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I had hosted a website called funded by Heydar Aliyev Foundation, but the website was not required anymore and thus I closed it down, its offline now. The photos of Gara Garayev for example is from the database of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation. If your interested in learning more about the Heydar Aliyev Foundation I suggest you visit their official website here. The schoolbook picture is a scan of a schoolbook in Azerbaijan for 4th grade about Azerbaijani history. I wasnt aware that it was not allowed to scan book covers and upload them, I thought since the picture depicted Babek a heroic figure in both Iranian aswell as Azerbaijani cultures it would contribute to the related articles. I would also like to note that we stay on subject as I cannot represent myself while being confronted on several different subjects. I suggest we deal with the current case that is regarding the socketpuppetry and then later move on to copyrights regarding me, otherwise it would simply be unfair for me to represent myself. Neftchi (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you cannot claim copyright to a picture you scan from a schoolbook and license it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. I see that you've used fair use rationales before; unless you can verify that this picture is public domain, you can only use it if it meets the non-free content criteria and you provide a proper fair use rationale. With respect to the others, I see that you were advised in 2006, here, to obtain a letter from Heydar Aliyev Foundation to verify your authorization to release their materials. Did you ever obtain this? I don't see a copy of a letter from them in the OTRS system related to this (though there is one letter from them on an unrelated matter, which agents can see at Ticket:2008101710030661). You should add your comments to the PUF listing, which is linked at your talk page, as that listing will run its course within two weeks' time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I can imagine, one doesn't understand the IP right laws, standards and the different licenses and cases. But I think every child understands, that writing "This work was done entirely by me", under work created by another person, is something "bad" and "wrong". I still, do assume good faith: for example - I can imagine being lazy, to properly provide all the necessary license/rights information. But it's not acceptable, in many ways. Project could be simply sued by real authors - seriously harming project, communities, and idea of Free Content in general. So can you please, look through all your uploads, mark for clean up all the images, you didn't have rights to upload, and provide info on images you really created by yourself, or had rights to upload. So this question never rises again in the future, and doesn't rise mistrust? --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Neftchi, it's second time you try to present this as personal and/or ethnic-biased. First time I ignored that, taking in account we had no contact before, and that you might be surprised by this situation. After all my explanation, and time I've spent trying to be as correct and accurate in facts/evidence rising suspicion to you, I find it quite insulting. If I by any chance would have any personal/national problems with you, I would contact you directly. I do understand, that this is not pleasant for you. Neither it's pleasant/interesting/fun for me. Noitce, that I didn't even put any of your words under doubt, without providing verifiable facts. You already did it several times. And constantly looking for ethnic background, you try to accuse me in nationalism. So I demand for mutual respect and civility.
About Meowy, as I can see you recently had a clash on her talkpage, I think it's natural she was quite interested in your edits at ANI.
I hope we'll finish with personalizing now, and deal with incident and actions, not persons.
Have, you really checked evidences? At both times RetlawSnellac posted really early the days you started to take brakes, check it, that person knew then you would be on vacation if not you. Please let's stick to what is presented, and solve this out fast. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Inconclusive based solely on technical evidence, it can not be ruled out nor proven solely on technical evidence.  Likely based on behavior and edit patterns that they are the same. I'd support indef blocks of the socks and a short block of the master. RlevseTalk 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Update; still unresolved, more feedback requested[edit]

I have listed several images by Neftchi at WP:PUF for clarification of their copyright status. The listing is here. Meanwhile, I have spoken to several admins who work sock puppetry or checkuser, and based on behavioral evidence and regional base of both registered accounts, the concerns are plausible. (see here and here. I have sought feedback from another CU as per suggestion, but would more than welcome other admin opinion here. :) Sock puppetry is not my neighborhood. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking this over once again, I have issued RetlawSnellac (talk · contribs) an indefinite block, and Neftchi (talk · contribs) a one week block (bearing in mind that the image issue is still, as far as I know, unresolved). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly same case, in the past[edit]

I'm not sure if related, but while I was checking Neftchi contribs, I found another case, which looks quite similar, to this one. VanWeesp registered on Jan 10 and loaded related pictures on commons, with questionable rights. The only info I find on VanWeesp on google is hotel in Netherlands not a real person.

  • Take a look at this photo. Now look at a LiveJournal of Ukranian pilot who visited Azerbaijan, for training Azeri pilots, and obviously made that photos during flights. It's written in the mentioned LJ post, anyone speaking Russian can confirm this. Now notice how photo uploaded to commons, was cropped out, to hide the watermarks of real author, and presented as "work done entirely by myself". A style we already know. Guess no need, to talk about dates, here.
  • Same here - a cropped version of Photo at Military today. I'm not sure if last one is the author, but it could be taken from that website, and cropped out for the very same reason.
  • On English wikipedia he also created an account and added those photos, see here. Not all photo's incorporated in articles by him, the rest were added by Neftchi, examples: [39], [40], [41].
  • Neftchi was off wiki from January 8 to January 18 (VanWeesp only edited on Jan 10) and when Neftchi returns, first thing he do is put VanWeesp’s picture here. Note the only contributions by VanWeesp is on articles relating to the Azerbaijani military, articles which Neftchi is the most active contributor of.
  • And majority of photos come from military parade of 2008, Neftchi too added pictures from same parade. See description here for example. This photo again was often seen by me on different forums, with photos weapons (like here), and again uploaded few months before, then they were uploaded here.

Add to this, that photos have small and different dimensions. And the reason is, that photos were taken from web, and then cropped out, to hide the watermarks, as it was with done with Fighter/MRLS photo. After few days I spent checking I'm almost sure all the photos of Neftchi and his puppets were stolen. A person who does create artworks/photos would be much more respectful to photos of others. And to me, Neftchi crossed the line, after which you can hope that at least 10% of images he uploaded, were created by him/or he really had rights to upload them. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This example you have found (original:[42], on Wikipedia:[43]) is a blatant case of a deliberate breach of copyright. VanWeesp, as you said, has simply cropped out the copyright-owner's original copyright information. All of this case is revealing just how much Wikipedia Commons is being used as a way of "laundering" stolen images. The methodology seems to be first upload them to Commons, then insert them into Wikipedia, using their established "Commons" status to avoid any inconvenient copyright questions being asked here. I know from experience that copyright issues on Wikipedia Commons are far more "relaxed" than on Wikipedia itself, and some of its uploaders are allowed to literally get away with theft. However, it isn't proven that Neftchi was aware of the true copyright status of these images - he may have just been searching Wikipedia Commons for suitable images to add into articles here. The connection you have discovered between this thread on [44] and this image uploaded by Neftchi [45] (the same photo is on post 27 of the thread) might just mean that "Zakali" is Neftchi - and if Neftchi is the actual photographer then there is nothing wrong. But is that credible? For example there are photos in that thread depicting similar stages of the same parade which have been taken from opposite sides of the same streets. This suggests two or more photographers at work - propably a lot more than two. Also, the subject matter, plus the closeness to the subject, suggests the involvement of official photographers (i.e. photographers working for the state or the armed forces, which would mean the photographers will not own the copyright of their photos). Meowy 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
For reasons I did not find explained, Zakali is labelled a "Banned user" on Many of the photos contributed by Zakali in the thread on are watermarked "APA", which stands for Azerbaijan Press Agency, and were apparently copied from their site: see here, here and here. In either case, whether Neftchi is Zakali or not, something is rotten here.  --Lambiam 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we should think if Neftchi and Zakali are same persons. There are lots of such forums on the internet, and lot of general forums, have threads with similiar photos of weaponry from all over the world. And there are millions of people from all over the world who kind of fetishy weapon. While I was searching, I've seen at least 20 similar threads. So I propose to leave this aside now. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: I have opened a deletion debate on VanWeesp's images at Commons, since these images must be handled there. It can be found at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan Navy.jpg. User:Rlevse tells me that VanWeesp's contributions on En Wikipedia are too old for check user, so there may be no means of determining if he is anyone's sock. I'm speaking to several admins on Commons about the best handling of the VanWeesp and RetlawSnellac accounts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's pity though we can not technically determine if Neftchi and VanWeesp are really same persons. So we have edit patterns/interests/and fact that only Neftchi was adding to articles photos uploaded by VanWeesp. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: No admin action required. TNXMan 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please start discussing the changes you are making to Single-payer health care on the article talk page. You are drastically rewriting things without any discussion, even after you have been reverted by others. And please read this policy. Your contention in this edit summary that "concensus never defines wikipedia" is categorically incorrect. Consensus-based editing is at the heart of the project, and since at least one editor has disagreed with your changes, you need to start discussing them before editing further. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

consensus-building, yes, but not consensus defining. plus, i explained my edits, while the reversions were *not* explained, and consensus is no excuse for irrelevancy. on this basis, i feel harassed, unduly chastised, and my time and efforts disrespected. just because the admin (as proudly self-identified) bigtimepeace has no basis for their reversion, it doesn't mean that i should be required to do extra legwork, or be threatened with sanction. i suggest that the person taking the action reverting, deleting or creating paragraphs should be able to back it up with at minimum a short and relevant explanation. wikipedia is supposed to be about the written word! relevancy changes with time, and consensus cannot be a catch-all for deletions of significant parts of politically charged current topics. (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i guess the question of abuse also relates to how irrelevant the article was. there were at least three major problem with the leading section on single-payer. the first: there was no identification of the notable controversies in the early paragraphs. the second: the whole thing had been skewed and repeatedly destructively edited to eliminate and/or obscure references to single-payer as a legislative proposal for government-based universal health insurance. the third: the language in general, as is often the case, was unclear, the cumulative effect of *people not taking their time on their writing*. (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is this at the administrators' noticeboard? Looks like a conversation between two users, which in turn seems to suggest it should be located at one or both of their respective user talk pages. (On a side note, administrators are generally expected to say so on their userpages; it's not an ego thing, it's so you know who you're talking to.) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Worth noting that Bigtimepeace hasn't edited this section - his comment above was posted by the IP. The admin category is on his page, too - were you referring to him, or someone else? Nathan T 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes a little more sense if you look at the original post [46] which was to WP/AN, and then the IP moved the bulk of it to WP/ANI. This appears to be a content dispute in which the IP wants to be a consensus of 1. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, yes, I did not post anything in this section (my original comment was on the IPs talk page), and I only happened to see this thread just now as I was not informed of it. I think this can be marked resolved, as there is not much cause for admin action here in my view. The IP editor has been making significant (and sometimes problematic) changes to an article without discussion and in the face of objection, hence my note on their talk page (which was followed by, instead of a reply, the opening of a thread on AN and then on ANI). Quick version: this is a content issue and thus has no place here on this board, unless anyone feels my initial post on the IP editor's talk page was somehow abusive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I did notice you hadn't edited here, but didn't think to mention it; in retrospect, it would have been smart of me to say so. Either way, I agree that this doesn't seem to be a problem as I read it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Wall missing on "On this day" (main page)[edit]

On 13 August 1961, construction of the Berlin Wall started. This should definetely qualify for OTD, but only admins can edit/add it. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirming links eg here (German) and here (English). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're looking for Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Could we have some eyeballs on Special:Contributions/FalunGongDisciple please? The entries look to me like trolling/harassment by a new account. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I would let things settle over a few days. The first 'attack' seems more hyperbolic than anything else. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd cautiously agree. I haven't seen many users that started out on such a footing develop into regular editing, though. In general, when you immediately assume other editors are a conspiracy against you you're already on the event horizon of being blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
DanaUllman (talk · contribs) notified of result. Sanction logged here. Shell babelfish 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 183 FCs served 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While it was withdrawn, it has not been disproven, nor was it withdrawn because of an inability to reproduce the results, nor because another paper debunked it. It was withdrawn because it couldn't be modified as time went on. I see no reason why this is not still a perfectly legitimate study, aside from the fact that it doesn't go against homeopathy and any excuse is an excuse to exclude it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website[1] Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllmanTalk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllmanTalk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [47].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.
The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.
If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic conflict of interest and discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[48]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.
Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.
Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2. [2]
Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.
The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[49]]
I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.
I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllmanTalk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllmanTalk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of oscillococcinum and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (User:JeanandJane) and a new user (User:Dbrisinda), both pro-homeopathy SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. Chillum 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • opposeIt is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Wikipedia could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • His credentials outside Wikipedia are irrelevant they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in wikipedia according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the WP:COI conflic of interest guideline which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Wikipedia in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that User:ScienceApologist was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was User:Peter Damian, and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Wikipedia look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[50]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [51], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as User:NRen2k5 did here [52] or what User:Friday did when he created a section entitled Talk:Homeopathy#It.27s_probably_best_to_ignore_Dana_Ullman.

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article [53] My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllmanTalk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give
For instance, in Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed change on replication of trials, Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Dana has misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen here (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a behaviour problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example this diff, in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or this diff, in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana - What you are trying to do with Wikipedia is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and WP:SYNTH (and in the process, WP:BATTLE, and other related policies).

You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here.

If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Wikipedia. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior.

Fighting the secondary sources battle in Wikipedia is all about what WP:SYNTH and WP:BATTLE show is entirely what Wikipedia is not here for.

If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Wikipedia project. This type of debate is not what we're here for. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --JeanandJane (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE work to support WP:NPOV - we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field.
We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly.
Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth.
Done directly here, however, it's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and bad for Wikipedia.
We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor.
He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not - WP:COI and WP:RS prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here.
But what we and he can't do here is use Wikipedia as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources out there - in reliable venues which we can verifyably find and cite. And then, we can include them.
Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief." No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know.
Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our reliable sources. The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: World Health Organization is attacked by the Lancet for supporting Homeopathy 's efficacy. The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the J Clin Epidemiol.
Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their criticism for the latest meta analyses. Currently excluded from the article!
The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS.
I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/J Clin Epidemiol.paper.
I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban of DanaUllman.

What I've found most frustrating about the editing process for this topic is the screening of allowable RS articles published in respected peer-review journals, and also prominent secondary sources. When a statement that requires support of an RS is advanced, and that source either contends to support the efficacy of homeopathy, or criticizes the results of other anti-homeopathy research, that RS itself is attacked on some obscure grounds, lessening its value by stating it's too old, or it's been detracted (not!), or it's results have been heavily criticized and put to rest, or newer sources invalidate them (as if seminal older RSs suddenly become impertinent). All in an attempt to keep fair and RS supported content at bay. This is not in the least neutral in my opinion. DanaUllman, unfortunately, has been caught in this whirlpool of bias and intransigence. From my perspective, attempting to disassemble it, it seems, has proved overwhelming, to the point where one person cannot be expected to respond to every accusation or criticism made towards him by a group of others (allusion to IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In the short time I've contributing to editing for this article, many criticisms of propositions and suggestions I and others have put forward to make the article more neutral, have been repeatedly attacked even after they have been explained very clearly as to why and the reasons. And counter-suggestions have rarely, if ever, been advanced by the anti-homeopathy quorum. It seems as though a strong case of viral IDIDNTHEARTHAT is sweeping the forum.

As far as misrepresentation of RSs goes -- virtually *everyone* on the homeopathy talk page that has attempted to say anything substantive, has misrepresented sources by selectively quoting from them, selectively summarizing them, or biasely paraphrasing them, and then failing to notice a statement in some other part of the article which puts this interpretation into serious question. If DanaUllman is guilty of this, he is in *very* good company. Even so, I don't really blame editors for this if it's occasional, as perhaps this is due to unintentional zeal of having found what appears to be clear evidence in support of one's POV, to the blind exclusion of all else.

I don't believe DanaUllman should be banned, as I've learned a great deal from his participation in the discussion. He provides a unique perspective that is refreshing in (what I perceive to be) an already highly anti-homeopathy-biased forum. I've addressed specifically in the talk page two of the areas I see as biased, and now I've noticed a third involving the citing of publication bias -- but only in one direction in support of anti-homeopathy views, when there are *many* examples of publication bias in the opposite direction as well (the talk page reference lists many of them). But I haven't yet gotten around to addressing this latest issue on the talk page.

If DanaUllman is ultimately banned (which I don't support or agree with), then I would at minimum suggest banning at least two or three editors from the anti-homeopathy side as well -- those who are especially culpable in creating repeated and consistent obstacles to constructive editing and more neutral improvements based on the merit of arguments advanced and RSs to support these arguments.

Dbrisinda (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that "editors from the anti-homeopathy side" should be banned in some kind of cold war style tit-for-tat seems needlessly confrontationalist. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with banning

But Agree with Dbrisinda above. While I would support DanaUllman not being able to edit the actual homeopathy article because of a conflict of interests, I see an attempt at totally banning him as the anti-homeopaths just trying to lock away any and all resistance.

I have also said this before, and will say it again: If a homeopathic doctor can not be used for input, research, and statistics on their subject of expertise, then all physicians must be banned from editing medicine related articles, as it is a conflict of interest, regardless of how up in the air the subject matter is.

It's pretty clear that every editor that contributes to Homeopathy puts their opinions first. Anti-homeopathic editors will always search the Earth for any studies that disprove the efficacy, and shoot down anything otherwise, while pro-homeopathic editors will always search for studies that prove the efficacy while shooting down anything that disproves it. To be quite frank and honest, everyone (Including myself) needs to take a break from the subject and come back to it with an editors neutral point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗoiaɲ τ ¢ 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I have had some concerns that I have pointed out to Dana and he has been very responsive and understanding. He is a COI editor and he acknowledges this, and he has not recently attempted to edit the Homeopathy article or any related article to my knowledge. What he has done is participate in Talk page conversations related to Homeopathy, a subject in which he has expertise other editors do not. I believe that those most strongly accusing him of bad behavior have engaged in similar actions, cherry picking and selectively representing sources in order to portray homeopathy in the most negative possible light. As far as the claim of synthesis, the policy applies mainly in article space, not to the same extent in Talk space, where editors of all sides frequently synthesize in the course of discussion. The article has been one sided for a long time and I very much appreciate the input of others who can explain the other point of view and help us to achieve a more balanced presentation. I believe that Dana would benefit very much from helping improve Wikipedia in other articles unrelated to homeopathy, but I do not think a topic ban is necessary, nor would it be fair to single him out. —Whig (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Ban - It's time to see if Dana can edit articles (articlespace) other than Homeopathy. I recommend (initially) a 1 month article ban from Homeopathy. If Dana edits nothing else in this time, it's extended to 3 months. If there are still no edits to any other aricles - then indefinite ban implemented. I'm thinking that Dana needs to give the overall Community confidence that he isn't a one-trick pony and is actually interested in the project, rather than just one article out of millions. Of course if he violates the ban, then blocks can be issued per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Dana hasn't edited the Homeopathy article recently, and has expressed his intention not to do so, I don't think an article ban from Homeopathy is meaningful. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Dana is testing the Communities (short) paitence with him. I congratulate you that you are trying to help him. I'm trying to help him too - I don't want to see him permabanned, so how can he be encouraged to help himself? How about he go an edit another article - or discuss another article? His singleminded focus on homeopathy isn't helpful for him as a Wikipedian. If he doesn't diversify, well what is the Community going to do? Shot info (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Dana is trying to test anyone's patience, but I appreciate that some people are frustrated, and I do agree it would be good for Dana and the project if he would edit some other article. I'm not sure what more I can do to encourage him: I think it would increase both his understanding of the project and his respect from others involved in the project. I don't think a formal ban is necessary to encourage positive behavior, only to prevent negative behavior, but what mechanism can do this? I'm open to ideas too, because the goal all of us share should be improvement of the encyclopedia. —Whig (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note and reminder[edit]

If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article remains under Arbcom sanction. If there are admins out there who have rhinoceros-thick hides and want to help sort things out, please do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, we have even gotten back where people will place POV tags at the top of the article because their proposed changes were all shot down at the talk page because of not being in agreement with what the high-quality sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice how many editors dispute the neutrality of the article? .--JeanandJane (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is moot because, once it was discussed thoroughly, they failed to show that the article didn't represent sources accurately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Or they failed to convince the editors who added those sources that there was a neutrality issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV dispute never ended, and I continue to believe that the article should be tagged, but I have not personally added the tag recently. —Whig (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
We're governed by WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience specifically deals with articles such as Homeopathy. That some editors disagree with it, and want a purely sympathetic view doesn't make the article a violation of NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing for a purely sympathetic view. Perhaps you would like a purely hostile view? —Whig (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The tag says in plain english that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" (By some editors). This is far from how some editors seem to think it reads: "A new topic disputing the neutrality of this article has appeared" or "This topic is not neutral". The tag simply states that some authors disagree with the stonewalling of the likes of User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Enric Naval, User: Verbal, and User:Brunton (And to a lesser extent by a few others to fill the gaps). The tag discussion, however, is for the talk page. If DanaUllman is causing chaos, its only because those 4 previously mentioned editors go absolutely haywire when someone disputes their studies (Which because they've been published later, somehow supercede the earlier studies... But haven't been around long enough for much peer review. Convenient, huh?). Dana has not (And has even privately said to me that he has no intention of doing so) edited the Homeopathy page, and has merely provided insight and discussion on the talk page. This is perfectly allowable. If you can't handle these comments, don't respond to them! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Floydian, you've been here enough years to know what WP:PSCI says. You've been here enough years to know that, for any subject, no matter how wacky, a few ostensibly reliable sources exist supporting it. You ought to know that some articles are the subject of continual campaigns to push them to meet a non-scientific point of view. Homeopathy is akin to Creationism. If Ssomeone showed up to the Evolution article with books by various Intelligent design proponents, and was abusing the scientific literature to find random quotes that seemed, out of context, to support his point, but, when you looked them up, didn't, would you still be complaining that the pro-science side was stonewalling? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the policies regarding this, and I only believe that the term fringe belief needs to be changed, as the common person reads that as "Very few or next to no people on the planet believe in this." I am also aware of what history can teach us, and that's not to trust everything that is handed to you immediately. The merits of this medicine are not widely understood, and studies are bouncing back and forth every decade changing the opinion of it. I am aware of what money can do to the world and that things that aren't marketable are always at a disadvantage to the things that are. Just like at Wikipedia, consensus is not always achieved merely by numbers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There was just a long discussion on the Talk page about this and it was pointed out that the article does not call Homeopathy a fringe belief. It remains that some editors continue to refer to it as fringe in comments and edit summaries, however. I don't think there is reliable sourcing for characterizing it as such, and evidence of prevalence to the contrary exists. —Whig (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If I might get back to the original point... all of the above only reinforces that we really need some uninvolved admins to maintain order. Pretty please? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This I will agree with. A neutral admin who has no opinion of the topic either way needs to stand as a mediator, and possibly an overseer of edits. Consensus should be declared by this admin as opposed to the passionate editors of the topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This ANI shows that it is important, perhaps essential, for some non-involved admins to participate in the homeopathy article. The ANI is evidence of one group of editors, who have a strong POV on homeopathy, who want to mute someone who doesn’t have their POV. Even though I have not made a single edit (!) to the article and have provided references to RS, their solution is to mute me. I sincerely hope that non-involved admins consider policing these editors who may be abusing wiki policies.
As for specific assertions above, I take issues with Shoemaker’s statement where he asserts I am “known to misrepresent sources,” but his “evidence” is simply not there. I encourage people to read his link to the Talk pages and see for yourself.
For the record, homeopathy does not simply have “some” studies that show efficacy; there are meta-analyses on the treatment of specific conditions that show this, and there is evidence of replication of studies, and yet, the article at present says that there are no replications of trials with positive results. Ironically, the reference that presently exists of this statement is reference #12 that is dated 1995! Despite my and others efforts to change this misinformation, this outdated information still exists, as does the 1995 reference. DanaUllmanTalk 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested resolution[edit]

  • DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is strongly warned against general discussion of the topic, especially for specific issues where he is (or has been) directly involved or acting as an explicit advocate. Conduct contrary to this warning will be regarded as disruptive.
  • DanaUllman is strongly advised to communicate in a direct, frank, and clear fashion. This requires avoiding vague references, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, selective omissions, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of the discussion. Failure to communicate clearly and honestly will be treated as disruptive conduct.
  • All editors in this topic area are explicitly warned against soapboxing and treating the area as a battleground.
  • Editors in this topic area are strongly encouraged to utilize avenues of soliciting community feedback when there is an intractable disagreement or other impasse in discussion. This includes, but is not limited to, requests for comment and various content noticboards (such as for NPOV, reliable sourcing, original research, and fringe theories). All such requests should neutrally report the disagreement and solicit feedback.
    • Failure to seek out such community feedback or other forms of dispute resolution while persisting in edit warring and/or talk page arguments will be handled as disruptive conduct. Rejection of community feedback will be treated as disruptive behavior. Extremely biased or advocacy style requests on those noticeboards will also be treated as disruptive behavior.

This specifically addresses DanaUllman's conduct, while also addressing disruptive behavior by other editors. This should not be the basis for further (or practically endless) second chances. It should be regarded as a "final warning" and provides a clear basis for admins to act decisively. Thoughts? Comments? --Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this do something that the arbitration case didn't already do? Any reasonable editor would have taken a year-long ban as a hint that a change in behavior is needed, right? Friday (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I still don't see how Dana Ullman has done anything wrong to deserve any warnings, let alone a final warning. He is not editing the article (And therefore is not engaging in vandalous advocacy), and the only "disruptions" are editors spazzing out at his comments on the talk page. All his comments are dedicated to improving the articles, none of them have to be carried out, or even taken into consideration if there is a general disagreement. Long arguments and discussion needn't be construed as a disruption, but rather as a means to some new resolution. My suggestions:
  • Fully protect the article (Including from any admins involved with the article) so that only a neutral party can make the final edits to it. This way, nobody can accuse another of taking ownership of the article.
  • Split the talk page into one dealing with style and one dealing with content. The content talk page should be labeled as a place where passions roar, and that comments should not be taken or delivered personally and should stick to improving the topic at hand.
The second is a bit unreasonable, but here is the alternative: Banning anyone that stands behind their opinions from editing Homeopathy or its talk page and related subjects. This isn't tribal warfare, I know we can be more democratic about this instead of being socialists crushing the rebellion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
What he does wrong: He's wasting the time of editors on the talk page. He misrepresents sources, and has a severe tendency toward "I didn't heard that". I believe he's proven himself unable to be a useful contributor here. You want us to change our standard operating procedure to accommodate one guy? I believe there is a simpler, more common solution, already suggested above. Friday (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
1) Editors waste their own breath (... or strain their finger muscles) responding if they are unswayable in the first place.
2) He hasn't edited the article, so he hasn't misrepresented anything nor contributed to it. Its a talk page, and anything on a talk page is merely a suggestion or comment which is put forth to review by others.
3) I don't want to change operating procedures, but I don't want a communist wikipedia where editors go cry foul whenever somebody disagrees with them and the perpetrator gets a midnight visit from which they don't return. If he is misrepresenting sources, you say "You're misrepresenting sources there", and ignore it. You are suggesting we silence the only professional involved with the subject on wikipedia because you want things to just be silent and left alone, as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ