Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC).

---

• Whig (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

User Whig has been involved in disputes at the Homeopathy article for the past week or so and despite numerous attempts by myself and others, this user has failed to make any attempts to resolve the disputes in a constructive manner. This user has repeatedly been threatening and rude to several editors and engages in edit wars and canvassing in an attempt to further his/her motives.

The desired outcome of this RFC is that the user drastically alter his/her editing style and procedures as well as attitude toward wikipedia. The desired outcome is that this user also apologize for his/her threatening remarks, incivility, and edit wars. This user has also had a previous RFC with essentially the same things brought up but for other topics and by other users: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig

This user has:

• Made threatening remarks towards me and other users.
• Engaged in edit wars to further disputes.
• Refused to acknowledge any attempts to resolve disputes despite exhaustive attempts.
• Replied with threats and filibustering when attempts to resolve disputes were made.
• User has a history of above mentioned behavior.

Diffs are in ascending order of their occurrence, earliest first.

1. refers to Vanished User as "POV warrior in revert summary
2. user calls my statement that article is NPOV "defensive"
3. user refers to other user as "bias" and insults him
4. states that adam cuerden "ruthlessly ignores facts"
5. Whig engages in edit war over Vanished's removal of his insults. 1, 2, 3.
6. user resorts to sarcasm
7. User accuses Vanished of being "rude" and "owning" the homeopathy article
8. User engages in edit war over POV tag on homeopathy article: 1, 2, 3, 4.
9. user refers to me and other editors as "pov warriors
10. user uses "RFC" as a threat against me and claims that I harassed him via E-mail
11. user threatens to make public E-mail correspondence between him and I. In the E-mails I was totally civil and attempted to resolve disputes. I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to him publicizing the E-mails as I have nothing to hide. After a few E-mails he basically demanded that I stop E-mailing him and then accused me of "harassment". I have not sent him an E-mail since. I would be more than happy to forward all of the E-mails to a neutral party as proof of no wrongdoing on my part BTW.
12. User calls me "contentious" for stating that reverting over and over is defined as an "edit war"
13. user accuses me of "owning" article, says I don't AGF, and then complains that I am biased
14. User starts ANOTHER edit war which resulted in him being blocked for 12 hours: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. block log
15. user attempts to recruit other editors to engage in edit war
16. user request unblock stating that "I have done nothing to disrupt"

1. WP:3RR
2. WP:CANVASS
3. WP:GAME
4. WP:AGF
5. WP:CIVIL
6. WP:TEND

1. user dismisses note from other user on edit warring
2. user dismisses admin attempt to resolve edit war
3. user dismisses my attempt to resolve dispute
4. User refuses to summarize his disputes with article so that it can be improved:1, 2,
5. user refuses another request to summarize disputes and then threatens me
6. user refuses (again) to summarize disputes and then insults me

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Vanished User ^talk 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC) See below for my discussion.
2. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Skinwalker 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I too have asked him for a summary of his views, only to be met with an unexplicated reference to the Organon (a highly esoteric text) and a personal attack[1]. His excessive reverts (typically) don't cross over into an explicit violation of 3RR, but are clearly designed to game the system. More problematic is his behavior on Talk:Homeopathy, which I see as filibustering, as well as his abject refusal to engage with editors who don't agree with him.[reply]

1. Despite despising this process... ScienceApologist 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. JoshuaZ 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vanished User ^talk 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Filll 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. LuckyLouie 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC) - Whig's extreme behavior is unquestionably detrimental to WP and needs to change.[reply]
7. Agree with ScienceApologist, but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. Whig needs to go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8.  – ornis⚙ 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Fyslee / talk 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Skinwalker 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Moreschi ^Talk 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kenosis 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started dealing with Whig, [2], he seemed confused as to how no molecules of the original substance could be in the solution after serial dilution. I tried to help by taking him through the math, explaining that there's a limited number of molecules in the original, undiluted substance, and that homeopathy dilutes things to levels higher than the number of original molecules, so leaving only a small chance of any molecule being present in the end dilution given to the patient.

God, how he's thrown that back in my teeth over and over. He chose to listen only to the bit where I explained that some of the least-diluted homeopathic remedies would, mathematically, probably have some molecules (though likely at undetectable amounts) and then kept quoting me over and over in an attempt to claim that we couldn't say that "Although at many of the highest dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain" (though I think it was "at many common homeopathic dilutions" when he started) because at some of the lowest dilutions some molecules might remain.[3][4][5] (etc.) Vanished User ^talk 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Filll 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. JoshuaZ 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Despite despising this process... ScienceApologist 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7.  – ornis⚙ 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. -- Fyslee / talk 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Skinwalker 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Moreschi ^Talk 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kenosis 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Tendentious quibbling over minor, well-documented points has been my experience with this editor as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Give an inch... Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whig does not understand the NPOV policy. This is his wish for the homeopathy article:

I think we need to be clear, all articles must be written from NPOV. That is absolute and non-negotiable. I am not asking for a pro-Homeopathy article. That would be absurd and as wrong as an anti-Homeopathy article. But an article which is about Scientific critiques of homeopathy can describe those critiques, and another on Homeopathy which is descriptive of the subject itself. Whig 06:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC) diff.

His annoyance that criticism forms a substantial part of this article is the reason for this conflict and his disruptive behavior. Tim Vickers 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Vanished User ^talk 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Despite despising this process... ScienceApologist 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5.  – ornis⚙ 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. •Jim62sch• 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Filll 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. JoshuaZ 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. If you want to split out criticism into a seperate article under the guise of NPOV, then you don't understand what NPOV means. -Amarkov moo! 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. possibly better suited to another project - for example Wikinfo.--Addhoc 15:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Skinwalker 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Needs to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Again. And again. And again...Moreschi ^Talk 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Kenosis 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Per Amarkov and Moreschi. Raymond Arritt 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. This, and similar misunderstandings of WP:V, are the root issue. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Addhoc's comment is correct: user seems to conflate NPOV with a sympathetic point of view, which we specifically rejected as a community. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll try to be brief. I’m new to this request for comment business.

I think there are several factors that make this a difficult discussion.

• The subject matter, homeopathy, arouses strong opinions. Some people are contemptuous of the whole thing. Others, as far as I can judge, seem to think there may be some merit in it.

• There are strong differences as to an appropriate “balance” in the article between explaining homeopathy and pointing out the problems with it.

• There is what I consider a technical issue as to whether the “balance” between positive and negative has to be maintained within individual sentences, within each paragraph, on an alternating paragraph basis, by putting criticism into a separate section, or an appendix, or a separate article. Most if not all of these options have been raised in recent discussions.

• There is a lack of a discussion process or format. Attempts have been made to introduce some structure, but without success in my view.

• Editor Whig has taken a lot of criticism partly because of some things he has written, but also because there are several people taking what might be called a “strictly scientific” POV. In other words, there are several people very ready to argue with him.

• There are tendencies to assume detailed knowledge of homeopathy and to lump all homeopathy, old and modern, together as having the same views. In other words, (in my opinion) a lack of recognition of diversity and a tendency to apply criticism with a broad brush. (Maybe the people making sweeping statements really do have a sufficient background of knowledge to support the statements. I do not know.) Here is an example: “All homeopaths believe that dilution increases the medicinal powers of a compound.”

Another example: “All homeopaths, including you it seems, agree with Hahnemann on the existence of these unmeasurable spirit-like properties”. These are very sweeping statements.

• There is inconsistency. For example, quoting from the article (Oct 4) "It should be noted however that not all homeopaths advocated extremely high potencies.”

From the article, (Oct 10) “Homeopathy has been unsupported by scientific research since its inception. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations, which would often leave none of the active ingredient, is inconsistent with the well observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs.”

The problem here is that the 2nd quote criticizes homeopathy in general for something the 1st statement says does not apply to all of homeopathy.

• This discussion might have gone better if there was more assumption of good faith, and general good humor. Some discussion is extremely tense.

For example, the request referred to in an earlier section above as “I too have asked him for a summary of his views” actually reads: “(ed conflict)I'm sorry but, no, Whig, you have decidedly not summarized what you claim to be POV problems in this article, though you are correct about the "at length" part. You've been spouting gibberish about how quantum theory somehow justifies homeopathy and you've seriously misrepresented the conclusions of peer-reviewed research. Do us a favor, and tell us in 500 words or less what your major issues with the article are. If you can't do that, please be on your way and let us write an encyclopedia in peace.”

In summary, I think there are a bunch of problems, not all of which can be laid at the feet of any one person. Wanderer57 06:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whig 01:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

This is an NPOV dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whig 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sm565 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Indeed it is. -Amarkov moo! 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meritless RfC, which per Wanderer57 deserves careful scrutiny of all involved submitters and the links they have included for possible mischaracterization.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whig 01:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is vexatious and abusive, and I am being told I must defend myself against false charges unsupported by the links, that I must uphold some burden. I admit exceeding three reverts in one day one time, in order to maintain a POV tag on an article which has been severely NON-NPOV. I have done nothing deserving an inquisition.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whig 03:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am especially vexed by administrators who threaten me with bans if I do not respond to this RfC in a way that they approve of, and who refuse to look at the links that the subscribers have submitted, but go on to endorse complaints against me and write new rants about how I don't cooperate enough.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whig 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one editor who spoke up in my behalf has been threatened with a RfC for doing so. Wanderer57's last comment [6] on the Talk page was shortly followed by a threat [7] from Filll.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whig 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. "shortly followed" It was just 20 minutes later. Wanderer57 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I've looked over the debate on Talk:Homeopathy -- where all of this has been taking place -- & in my opinion the discussion between Whig & everyone else can be summarized as follows:

Others: We can only use reliable sources in this article.

Whig: Fine. My sources are reliable.

Other: What we mean by "reliable sources" are sources written by scientists, published in peer-reviewed publications.

Whig: My sources are reliable.

Repeat the above until you want to pound your head at a wall. An immovable object has met an irresistable force.

Now, I'll admit that the standards that the other side have in this discussion are higher than I would prefer -- there are often many potential sources for a given article that aren't peer-reviewed, gilt-edged & immaculate. (I don't know what they would be on the topic of homeopathy, but I'd be surprised if they don't exist in one form or another.) But caution & trustworthiness would defend the conservative approach that the other side has taken. And they have the weight of Wikipedia custom on their side: the principles of reliable sources give far more weight to citing recognized experts with credentials than those without credentials.

However, we are not limited to only using this small group of authorities. After all, experts can be wrong. The way that this is done is by using a rational, persuasive approach to explain why someone who isn't at first glance is a reliable source (or vice versa, someone who should be is not). I don't know how this would be done in regards to Homeopathy, but if I were in Whig's place, I would make an effort to do just that; but I haven't seen him make that effort. Even if the other side didn't listen, it would convince Wikipedians outside the conversation that he might have a point.

But stubbornness alone, without any attempt to address the concerns of the other side, is just being disruptive. And polarizing.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. llywrch 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Tim Vickers 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Vanished User ^talk 05:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC) With slight reservations, since the level of reliability depends on what it's being used for.
5. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   PS from llywrch: My statement should be read as it stands. If you have questions about what I meant, please contact me -- don't add your own explanations. Thanks you. -- llywrch 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. -- Fyslee / talk 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Moreschi ^Talk 12:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. JoshuaZ 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Whig does not seem to care what other people think. On the talk page of this RfC, he attacked the validity of the concerns raised ([8]), but has refused to provide any counter-evidence or rationale for this statement, insisting that he need not provide evidence and that "the record speaks for itself". ([9] [10]) He also has claimed that it does not matter if others have concerns ([11]). This apparent philosophy that only his opinions are relevant is not helpful to resolving any dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -Amarkov moo! 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. -Vanished User ^talk 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
3. -Tim Vickers 23:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. -Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moreschi ^Talk 12:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. JoshuaZ 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Joe 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kenosis 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Raymond Arritt 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. -- Fyslee / talk 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This RFC already has enough proof in it that Whig is a disruptive editor who adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and who wastes the time and energy of productive editors. The most important function of the arbitration committee is to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. Take Whig to arbitration.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
2. Moreschi ^Talk 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although at this time the editor is currently being limited in editing capability and is on 1rr and civility restrictions. He's currently attempting to protest the restrictions and wants to start an arbitration. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Filll 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Don't waste time with an arbitration.[reply]

The community has addressed this issue through an article ban on Homeopathy, a 1RR restriction, and civility parole for User:Whig. Thus far Whig has adhered to these conditions, which is the most favorable outcome for all concerned. I do not see a need for Arbcom involvement on the routine matter of an obstreperous editor given that the community is handling the situation fairly and effectively.

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.