Homeopathy edit war/Where are they now

A large number of advocates for and against homeopathy have been blocked, desysoped or banned. This page is a record of the fates of these editors.

Ed Poor

• 14:59, 1 March 2005 Ed Poor (talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Ed Poor (=sysop, steward, developer)
• 12:42, 10 January 2008 NoSeptember (talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Ed Poor to (none) ‎

"I became less active a couple of years ago, a group of tag team editors discovered they could pin a false accusation of POV pushing and "undue weight" on me and got me banned from the Intelligent Design article. Ironically, the result is that the article condemns ID instead of being neutral. Note: I don't want the article to endorse ID - to be neutral on a controversial topic, a Wikipedia article should neither endorse nor condemn any viewpoint." (see) Edits to the homeopathy article between 2002-03-25 13:46 and 2002-03-25 13:47.

Jim62sch

Edits to the homeopathy article between 2007-06-16 and 2008-02-04

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch - warned not to harass people

Hobby: working with people like FeloniousMonk, Orangemarlin, Filll and "Odd nature" ("ID cabal") to make on-Wikipedia lists such as "individuals associated with Dominionism" and academics associated with creationism.

Jossi

Edits to the Wikipedia homeopathy article from 2008-01-22 to 2008-05-19. Now blocked for "Abusive sockpupeteer in violation of arbcom sanctions". see

• Jan. 23, 2008. Notes: "undue weight to the critical viewpoints" in the introduction to the article", "This is an article about Homeopathy, not about the critical view of homeopathy."
• struggle over pseudoscience category, responds to "So quit whining" comment from Filll.
• calls for one revert only editing

Orangemarlin

Edits to the homeopathy article between 2007-06-16 and 2009-03-06

Investigated by ArbCom and submitted to mentoring.

Block log

PouponOnToast

1 July 2008 Abusing multiple accounts: Apparent bad-hand sockpuppet Edits to the homeopathy article between 2008-01-23 and 2008-02-11 21:39.

• User:DepartedUser
• User:Hipocrite

ScienceApologist

Edits to the homeopathy article between 2007-10-10 and 2008-07-20

block log

Banned for 3 months (12 March 2009) by ArbCom for "Fringe Science" editing

Vanished user

• Possibly the most prolific Wikipedia skeptic of homeopathy (it is hard to be sure with all the puppet accounts).
• First known edit in early 2006. Edits to the homeopathy article between 2007-02-18 and 2008-02-08.
• He was an administrator from March 2007 until February 2008 when brought up before ArbCom for biting newcomers with unpopular views, which resulted in him resigning as an administrator.
• He was briefly a candidate for the Wikipedia ArbCom in December 2007: "I've not shunned controversy - I've done a lot of work on Homeopathy" then he later said, "I withdraw. I do not think I could work with the Arbcom."
• While editing as Shoemaker's Holiday he has had edits to the homeopathy article between 2008-04-15 and 2009-05-14. He tried to regain his adminship, but his past caught up with him.
• Claimed to be quitting Wikipedia in June 2009.
• ArbCom Statement

Vanished User deleted this section of this article, calling it "blatant lies"

Filll

Many edits to the homeopathy article 2007-07-12 to 2008-03-17

"Succusion? That is a nonstandard term that does not appear in a dictionary and is ill-defined in all the homeopathic literature, most of which we cannot cite because it is not peer-reviewed or in mainstream venues"

Compare to the discussion of succussion here.

Interactions with "Dragons flight" led to a reprimand. "you will have your head handed to you"

• explaining the popularity of homeopathy: Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting. This study was previously discussed at the talk page for the Wikipedia article, which provoked Filll to comment:
• "This sort of worthless nonsense spewed on the talk pages ad infinitum discourages real productive editors and destroys Wikipedia as a project"
• "you do not know science, you do not know scientific protocol or medicine or really anything except how to troll and make other more reasoned and reasonable editors disgusted with your antics"
• "Do not embarasss yourself Whig further with this kind of nonsense"
• "Whig's comments should be summarily removed from the talk page on sight because of trolling concerns"
• "I am sorry that your POV has blinded you to reality"
• "Since you are unqualified, you clearly have no business being here at this article"

Peter morrell

This kind of comment: "you hate homeopathy and have been on a crusade to destroy these artciles, haven't you?" earned a block 20 July 2007

"I am a major published historian of this subject" - his collection articles on Homeopathy

Many edits to the homoopathy article from 2006-05-08 to 2008-05-13

• Talk page comment by Peter morrell: "This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO" which provoked Filll to reply: "the overwhelming majority of the article should be written this way. From the POV of science and conventional medicine".