Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision

Arbitrators

Arbitrators participating in this case:

Blnguyen
Charles Matthews
Flcelloguy (now recused, see below)
FloNight
Fred Bauder
Jdforrester
Jpgordon
Kirill Lokshin
Morven
Paul August
SimonP
UninvitedCompany

There are 12 arbitrators active on this case and 1 is recused (see below), so the majority is 6.

Raul654 is currently inactive. Mackensen was appointed as an arbitrator after this case was opened, so he is considered non-participating unless he states otherwise.

I am recusing myself from this case because of a recent mistake I made, inadvertantly replying to an email sent to me and adding an address included in there, misunderstanding something after only scanning through the email initially. In any case, I'm going to go ahead and be conservative and recuse; this makes 10 active arbitrators, but the majority remains the same. Clerks or anyone helping out, feel free to correct anything if I've missed something. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute "facts" 3.2 and 3.3

I don't see evidence for Quackwatch not being considered a WP:RS on some matters, which would make 3.2 inapplicable to Fyslee. Ilena's site, on the other hand....

~~I also don't see evidence of 3.3 with respect to Fyslee, but I could easily be wrong.~~

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now see fact 3.3, but the question as to whether Quackwatch can be a WP:RS has not been established globally, or in any of the other proposals here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

There is no doubt that Quackwatch has a point of view, but it does publish a lot of well-argued material, and in some areas at least it would appear to pass WP:RS, in that it includes well-research and cited information. Links wo QW are not, in and of themselves, a problem, I think, since a lot of strongly-promoted alternative medicine does lack any evidential basis, and sites which expose this will rarely be very different in character from QW. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this concern - Quackwatch is acceptable IMO, as many sites with a position are. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we stick with more neutral and respected organizations (such as Academy of Science) rather than low-brow trash-talkers (suchas Quackwatch), we will all benefit from a more intelligent encyclopedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's been added to the volume of pages (over fifty I find at a cursory glance) it has concerns me greatly, as one of the people working to fight spam on Wikipedia. I have recused myself from action because of this arbitration case, but if it is added in similar volumes again, I am certain a Shadowbot operator will put the bot on "Nuke". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::It should be noted is that Levine believes that the Society of Scientific Exploration and their journal is also a suitable and respectable scientific organisation (see Journal of Scientific Exploration) regardless of any dissenting discussion, argument, or evidence thereof. Given that respectable organisations endorse Quackwatch (see the article), who defines this “respectability”? The real world finds it respectable. Dodgy organisations (such as the SSE) don't [[1]]. So who is more "respectable"? Shot info 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the best you can do to make your case is defame your detractors, you've already lost. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::::AGF, there's no claim against Levine other than his claim that "QW is not respectible" does not gel with "the real world" and/or WP:RS. Shot info 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Apologies, just read the clerk note. Shot info 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

I wasn't aware that non-ArbCom members were allowed to comment on these pages.
The fate of Quackwatch is not the subject of this ArbCom. It is too important a matter to be dealt with here and in this manner. The scientific and consumer protection communities (including the FTC) would take it as a slap in the face, since many of its articles are considered reliable information and are widely sourced by universities, journalists, government committees, etc.. Other of its articles are suitable as representative of the skeptical POV, and yet others aren't suitable at all. When dealing with such a large website, with hundreds of articles, court cases, scientific documents, op eds, news reports, etc., containing thousands of pages, written by myriad different scientific, medical, journalists, and other authors, one should not simply discount the whole site. Each use and link must be judged on its own merits and for its intended purpose here. Therefore this matter should be postponed to a separate forum where experts on the subject, including the webmaster, can participate. This site has been the subject of a witchhunt by many editors here, who wish to suppress the POV it represents, and such POV suppression is not permitted here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- To misquote Essjay - You have no right to free speech on Wikipedia, so there is no suppression here. "Congress shall make no law ..." - we're not congress, we're the cabal. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Peter M Dodge: When Fyslee said "such POV suppression is not permitted here", I'm sure (because I know him as an editor well) that what he meant was that a group of editors cannot, even under the guise of consensus, exclude a significant POV. Of course, as the ArbCom, you're free to ultimately make the determination of how to weigh all these factors. But that's not what he's talking about here, and to read him otherwise is, I fear, emblematic of the sort of lack of WP:AGF that has led to the proposal of banning Fyslee even being taken seriously. I urge ArbCom members to delve into Fyslee's editing history, and discuss it with admins familiar with his editing. Fyslee has strong views, and may have lost his cool lately, but overall his editing is very much grounded in VER and NPOV. Fyslee is one of the few scientifically-minded editors around here who really get the spirit of principles 15-18 in the recent ArbCom case on pseudoscience. I was very impressed with the way those principles were elucidated. This case is narrower, and I hope you delve deeper into Fyslee's history here. To accuse him of some sort of non-compliant pattern of edits, let alone sanction him with something on the order of a ban, would be to miss the forest for the trees. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Only arbitrators may edit the /Proposed Decision page. Other editors may comment on this talkpage. To be useful, comments should be brief, to-the-point, and directly address issues concerning the proposed decision. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute all "facts" 3.*

This is not right.

The diff for Fact 3.1 could easily be considered to indicate that Fyslee, himself, was contemplating suicide. That would indicate he's a bit unbalanced, but that would make that link not a personal attack.

The diff for Fact 3.2 does include a link which has been removed from that article, but the reference to QW's comment on the subject is there. I don't see the link as unallowable, merely unnecessary. In other words, the text for fact 3.2 does not indicate he's done anything wrong.

The text for Fact 3.3 also doesn't indicate he's done anything wrong.

At this point, I don't object to the summary for 3.1 or 3.3, as I do think he has recently been uncivil and disruptive. However, if you (ArbCom) cannot come up with actual examples of improper activities of Fyslee, it lends discredit to the entire process. (If you go back to his first edits, you will find places where he added references to his own blog, which clearly is inappropriate and falls under fact 3.2. But Levine couldn't find an example more recent than a year ago....)

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. As recently as last Decemeber he was moving around one of his vanity links placed on Mucoid plaque (all the while removing links which he deemed were inappropriate external links). The vanity link was finally found and deleted by another editor. Please see my evidence entry for complete coverage. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving around ... vanity links" isnot the same as "adding vanity links". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the inclusion of his external link, which was never used as a source, served to provide useful information for a very long time, and was replaced only when better information was finally found. This is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Fyslee added it as a new editor to the article when it had no sources, and other editors let it remain, apparently while it was useful. --Ronz 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was protecting his vanity link and had been doing so for nearly a year. Fyslee was handling the vanity link across many edits on Mucoid plaque. He had many opportunities to delete the link. He had previously deleted many links to other blogs (his site is a blog) and he had previously deleted other people's vanity links (his link is a vanity link). Clearly he knew and understood the WP:EL policies and clearly he was knowingly violating these policies to serve his own interests. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Levine2112, for once again confirming something I have never denied -- I made newbie mistakes and have not kept track of them. ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.") Other more experienced editors have deleted or kept them according to the existing consensus on the particular article. When the link was deleted I noticed the occurrence and did not protest. (I had added that one.) By then I was aware that it should not be defended. I have now done a thorough search of Wikipedia and have only found one link, and I deleted it. I don't think it had been added by myself. You found three, so we're really talking about massive use of links to my blog, and usually not by myself. My blog happens to be a large repository for lots of articles and news reports that are RS, so people often cite it since the original is long since unavailabe. As far as protecting my own interests is concerned, what "interests" could they be? Certainly not commercial, in contrast to the subject of the article, which is a huge money making sCAM. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had been moving that link around all year, well past your newbie days. You were clearly aware of it and yet you left it there (all the while deleting other links which failed WP:EL. Finally someone else deleted your vanity link very recently. How do you justify not deleting it yourself? Remember, this isn't about money, so your derrogatory comparison to what you call "sCam" is out of place. Your interest lies in passing off your opinions as facts. This is counter-productive to creating an encyclopia of value. You want the world to all know what you know so they will all believe what you believe. And I am sure you are on this crusade with the noblest of intentions - for what you feel is the betterment of people's health. But that still doesn't justify this knowing violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim I "had been moving that link around all year". Hmmm. Don't recall it. I occasionally popped in in confrontation with a user who rather vigorously tried to own the article. If all you can find is one link that other editors saw fit to keep, then you're really grabbing at straws. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were only a handful of serious editors on that article from the time you added it until the time your vanity link was found and removed. That they overlooked it and that you chose to remain silent about it for nearly a year was to your own benefit. Finally, a new editor to the article discovered the link and removed it with this to say. Of course you didn't dispute it because you knew this editor was right and you knew it was a vanity link. Basically, you knew better but you figured you'd let it slide until someone else discovered it. So yes, keep doing what you are doing and recurse Wikipedia thoroughly now for all of your other vanity links which you may have let slide. You found one and I found a couple others. Are there any more? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever discuss these changes with the editor in question, Fyslee? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question, a single-purpose account, was blocked shortly thereafter for persistent and disruptive POV-pushing on that article. Although I do think he was right to remove the blog as a source, for what it's worth. MastCell 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex post facto?

Part of the proposed decision rules against Fyslee's links to Quackwatch.com on the basis that this is an unreliable site, even though at the time when he added those links the source was accepted by the Wikipedia community. Taken together with the proposed remedy against him, this has the appearance of retroactive and punitive action.

These links by Fyslee are assailable on WP:SPAM and WP:COI grounds. Yet, as a matter of precedent, Wikipedia editors deserve reasonable peace of mind that they may add sources to articles without fear that they may be sitebanned at some later date because a known and accepted source is later deemed unreliable by the community.

As a side note, Quackwatch.com is overseen by a retired medical doctor. So it meets at least the basic threshold of a reliability: a qualified professional operating within his area of expertise. If the Committee rules against it as an encyclopedic source I hope it offers reasoning that can guide the community in evaluating disputed sources in future discussions. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is put on the editor who adds a link to provide that the link added helps the project in some way. If the site does not, then it will be removed. Agressively re-adding the site will result in sanctions. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Fyslee was the first to link to that well-known site from Wikipedia. If other users' links were not deleted per WP:RS then he bore no unique burden to re-demonstrate that the site was acceptable. The Committee could specifically disallow that site in the future or it could sanction Fyslee on other grounds, but it would be unsound to single out him alone for retroactive action on this particular basis. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova - Quackwatch links tend to be controversial, and I foresee editors arguing that "ArbCom said Quackwatch was unreliable." Is that the intent of the ruling? It says "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee", and goes on to mention Quackwatch as an example. Am I to understand that the ruling is making a blanket statement that Quackwatch is henceforth an unreliable source? If that's not the intent, please clarify - because I think some editors will interpret it that way, and I'd rather have clarity now rather than wikilawyering later. Also, as Durova asked, what does that imply for the numerous sites on the other side of the fence which are widely used as sources, and have a similar partisan agenda? MastCell 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the working use is as a non-promotional source of notable sentiment or group/self-description or self (related) description of position and priniciples where the link is the best source available. This problem is compounded by extended, almost circular support when a site's WP presence becomes a link farm. I had difficulty measuring & recognizing the scope of the problem myself without numerous comments from several editors.--I'clast 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I do not agree with the overgeneral sounding "...source was accepted by the Wikipedia community" when very disparate editors concerned with different fields and articles were overwhelmed as specifically informed individuals with the QW-related "monolith" frequently cited as "science", about things QW clearly knew little about or communicated serious, even fundamental misperceptions, that if its authors didn't know, should have known and corrected, years ago. Because of some circular information paths in our society, QW support here often traces back QW's media presence, decades before. We all can thank the many DO, JD, MD and/or PhD's and other brackgrounds here who were gracious enough to collaborate this past year or two, that asked their many questions, were fair, perceptive and informed enough to edit highly controversial contributions based on relevant sources *without* this situation occurring despite their first inclination to believe commonly known but problematic sources.

Second, this RfArb is about the health of this community, not punishment, and unfortunately it is "strong medicine". Despite some issues that still have not fully surfaced, it is a major step toward some kind of working balance, with a warning for all. When the dust settles, hopefully trust and collaboration with better sources will occur across a pacific Pacific.--I'clast 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the first point, although certain editors do and have taken issue with the site, the community accepted it - as another editor demonstrated, Wikipedia has about 800 links to it and Fyslee contributed only about 2% - 3% of that number. To the best of my knowledge the site's acceptability as a reliable source was not even a subject of community debate (in some appropriate forum such as the talk page of WP:RS) until this particular arbitration opened. To address the second point, I doubt it helps the overall health of the Wikipedia community for the arbitration committee to create this particular precedent. Yes, Fyslee deserves sanctions. The present sanctions could be justified on sounder grounds than this, as my opening post to this thread notes. Durova^Charge! 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be concerned about any site calling itself Foowatch as being potentially in the same category as Foosucks.com; that is, biased and sensationalistic. It would be far better to use Quackwatch as a meta-resource. That is, if Quackwatch notes a medical journal article or other reliable source that debunks something, use the article as the source, not Quackwatch itself. Thatcher131 07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that 100%, and would always prefer a more iron-clad and less controversial source over Quackwatch. Usually it's no problem to find them. The only niche I've found Quackwatch useful for is, again, obviously unscientific claims like mucoid plaque. There is no medical literature on it - because if you ask any physician or specialist, they'll tell you the idea is unfounded and it doesn't exist, outside of one entrepreneur who markets the idea. But one needs a source actually stating this negative - and here Quackwatch has a brief statement from a specialist saying it's BS, which is useful. Again, I'd never claim Quackwatch was unbiased or open-minded, and I'd always prefer to cite the primary literature or less controversial sources, but it is useful as a source in highly selected cases. A blanket statement from ArbCom removes the flexibility to discuss such cases as they arise - that's my only concern. MastCell 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. Using Quackwatch as a meta-resource is a good and common practice which we need to do oftener here. As the largest database of its kind anywhere, it is a vast and rich resource for many types of information and sources related to alternative medicine, many health related topics, and what it calls quackery, health fraud, scams, etc... The articles can be used differently depending on their topic, quality, subject matter, and their intended use here at Wikipedia.

An article can be used (behind the scenes) as a meta-resource for finding relevant scientific research and other resources on the topic, that could then be used as sources and links, rather than Quackwatch itself. I am rather pleased when someone replaces a Quackwatch reference here with a better scientific resource that still makes the same point and backs up the text as a good reference. The information is the point, not the source. If better sources can do the job, that's great.

At other times the article itself can be used as an example of the biased skeptical POV revealing the "other side of the coin," which is also a legitimate use. Of course all such instances will also need to be couched in NPOV language. After all, we present verifiable opinions here, not "truth". -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some considerations in a hurry

Most editors commenting on remedies for Fyslee and some commenting on remedies for Ilena have (in the Proposed remedies section of the Workshop page) indicated that they do not agree with some of the remedies currently voted in by 5 arbitrators already, and would prefer to change the more severe remedies to more lenient ones. I fear that their comments are being overlooked. See e.g. Fyslee banned. See also the sections above.

One of the statements extensively discussed very late in the process was finding of fact 3.2, see here. I commented there yesterday, blissfully unaware that this split had already happened and had resulted in (3.3) (see below). As such I defended the use of QuackWatch on a per case basis but missed that Fyslee had suddenly been deemed to have been aggressively adding partisan viewpoints instead of aggressively adding partisan links (a big difference, see below).

Some considerations (mainly based on those comments, mostly applying to Fyslee):

Partisan viewpoints: Finding of fact (3.3)

"Fyslee in his editing aggressively advances the partisan viewpoints expressed on his own website and those associated with Quackwatch."

I became aware of finding of fact 3.3 very late in the process, because it has not been posted on the Workshop page. I did not know the Proposed decision page was already being filled and voting had started, and I was not aware of the discussion on this talk page. I (and I think others) were busy collecting evidence and defending articles, hampered by the disruption on the arbitration pages and article pages caused by Ilena. I am only starting to comment on it now, when five arbitrators have already voted. This is all quite off-the-cuff, in a hurry, not quite thought through yet.

Back to the finding of fact: Those viewpoints have not been qualified or quantified, which leaves wide open the following possibility: (1) that Fyslee has only rarely, if ever, added partisan viewpoints and, conversely, (2) that the viewpoints he has added are virtually always mainstream science POVs that can often be (or have since become) sourcable in reliable sources without relying on Quackwatch, related sites or his blog. The latter is maintained by most editors on the Workshop page. So far, no one has advanced even one example of a partisan viewpoint added by Fyslee, let alone indicated why the community would leave such viewpoints standing. When proven, the consistent addition of partisan viewpoints would suggest an article or topic ban (or probation). Although unproven, a ban of this kind is currently proposed as a remedy (and so far accepted by five arbitrators).

I believe this finding of fact is unproven and needs to be investigated before a final decision can be reached. AvB ÷ talk 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that finding accepts some unsupported accusations at face value and unduly deprecates Fyslee's overall editing history Durova^Charge! 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan links

The complaint brought against Fyslee in this respect is that he has added and defended an unknown number of "partisan links" (to QuackWatch, related sites, and his own blog). Also unknown is whether this was done with or without consensus, and introduced POVs that are not sourced or sourcable elsewhere. The complaint of using his blog on some occasions may be invalid in cases where there is a consensus to link to blog pages that reproduce notable, relevant articles that have been, but no longer are, available, or only for a fee, elsewhere in a reliable source. So far, a number of diffs (less than 20) of "partisan" links or sources added by Fyslee during the last three to four months have been documented; however, it has also been documented that the encyclopedia contains some 800 links to Quackwatch and related sites, and it is not known if this number of links added by one editor is truly out of the ordinary. Also unexplained is the fact that the community has left these links or sources in place. When proven, the consistent addition of partisan links and sources would suggest a ban or probation regarding the use of such links. This is, however, unproven, and a remedy of this kind is currently not being proposed. AvB ÷ talk 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI/vanity links

One thing I think Fyslee has done was his addition of links where the possibility of a COI could be advanced, not that the additions have often been against our (other) rules. Consistently adding possibly COI or vanity related links and sources suggests a ban or probation regarding the use of such links, whereas occasional additions may warrant a less drastic remedy. Although it has not been proven that Fyslee's addition of these links was influenced by his COI, the mere appearance of such influences should be avoided. However, a remedy of this kind is currently not being proposed. AvB ÷ talk 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FloNight has proposed this remedy cautioning (my paraphrase) editors vulnerable to COI accusations to reach consensus on the talk page to avoid the appearance of a COI in cases where other editors question their edits. AvB ÷ talk 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this observation. COI would be a better basis for action here. Durova^Charge! 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the appearance of COI and vanity links should be avoided. The oft repeated charge (not mentioned here) of "spamming" (by Wikipedia's own defintion) has never been proven with even a single example. I have not added any links to my own site, blog, or my webrings, since my newbie days. I had done it only a few times, and when I learned it was wrong, I stopped. I have since discovered that others have also linked to them, likely because my blog contains hundreds of scientific reports and published articles no longer available elsewhere. In a recent search (the last couple days), only 4-5 links to my blog were found here at Wikipedia, and some of them had been added by others. I consider continued accusations of this variety to now be straw man attacks to be ignored as irrelevant and used to damage my credibility, thus reflecting on the accuser and not on myself.

I learned my lesson early and certainly have no intention or desire to start again. I fully agree with the current policy regarding not using blogs and the type of informal personal website I have, unless used in an article about the owner. (I am not notable enough for that honor!) None of my sites (or Barrett's for that matter) are commercial ones, as is also claimed, so that type of COI (which the COI rules here emphasize the most) aren't relevant either in this ArbCom. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my evidence, Fyslee failed to delete one of his vanity links for nearly a year, all the while working on the article and the external links. Here is an example of him working with the external links (and even him removing another commerical link) but yet failing to remove his own vanity link, which at that point he had left posted for about 11 months.

Barrett's sites are commercial sites. That ask for donations and feature sponsored advertisement. They also reference Barrett's own self-publishing book company. But as I have mentioned before, this isn't a financial COI necessarily. This is a POV-push; trying to make sure that their POV on various Alternative Medicine subjects is passed off as fact. That means pushing their POV on article space as well as spamming external links to Barrett's sites in order to boost Google Rank. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how failing to delete that link violates COI if other editors accepted it. That is a very weak argument, and strikes me as piling on. Putting the link there in the first place is a minor and forgiveable error for an (at the time) novice editor. Barrett is partisan, but that does not mean that Fyslee's linking to his site is a POV-push. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim Butler's comment above. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a comment about the reliability of Quackwatch/NCAHF that to my knowledge hasn’t been addressed in earlier wiki-discussions. I find the topic of alternative medicine therapies quite interesting. However, distinguishing between what’s innovative and potentially groundbreaking and what is useless and, in the worst case, fraudulent can be problematic. There is a clear need for a neutral source that is able to comment on and evaluate new CAM methods. Unfortunately, Quackwatch is not that source.

When reading Quackwatch it quickly becomes evident that their point of departure is that everything outside mainstream conventional medicine is “questionable”, “quackery” or pure fraud. A few examples: Their list of therapies to stay away from includes every possible alternative treatment, their list of dubious organizations lists every possible CAM related organization, including the most reputable such as Bastyr University. Quackwatch even lists the federal government elite research institution National Institute of Health (NIH Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine)[2] on their warning list. Even the government’s smallest concession toward Complementary medicine is attacked. For example the WHCCAMP (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy)[3], the IOM (Institute of Medicine)[4] and, NCCAM (National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine)[5] Rather than giving new treatments a fair chance to prove themselves and examining the evidence, Quackwatch revels in trashing it.

Quackwatch allegedly acts as a concerned protector of the consumer, warning about the risks of CAM treatments. However, they never mention the risks of conventional drugs or obvious deceptions when they originate from big pharma such as Vioxx and Fen-phen. Neither do they say anything about the risks of malpractice by conventional doctors. On issues such as pesticides, food additives, and GMO, they systematically take an industry-friendly position and deride any concerns. Some consumer protectors!

It is perfectly legitimate to point out that CAM proponents might have a financial conflict of interest that clouds their impartiality. It is also a legitimate – though partisan – position to claim that CAM treatments never work and that conventional medicine is the only reliable option. But Quackwatch’s claim that they are an underdog consumer protector is dishonest since they turn a blind eye towards big pharma, conventional medicine, and risks with chemicals in the food supply. Quackwatch is sailing under a false flag. Their claimed mission is a deception.

In addition, Quackwatch/NCAHF does not provide any financial disclosure, which is the hallmark of credible opinion forming organizations that want to show their independence and be taken seriously. Quackwatch comes across as being a deceptive, intellectually dishonest, and unreliable source. I would even go so far as to say that it borders on being extremist. MaxPont 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good arguments for being very careful about Quackwatch. I wouldn't argue, though, that Fyslee has used links to that site in any way other than good faith. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New remedies?

Preventing points 2 and 3 above from occurring and/or recurring does not require a topic ban. Such accusations would be eradicated if Fyslee were no longer to add as a link, or use as a source, QuackWatch, related sites, or his own blog (regardless of whether or not the view he advances is a majority or minority view), or to edit articles related to Quackwatch, Ilena Rosenthal or http://www.humanticsfoundation.com, via probation or ban. AvB ÷ talk 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe FloNight's newly proposed remedy has the exact same effect as the one suggested above, with the added advantages of being less accommodating to Fyslee's detractors and more reasonable in terms of possible (but as far as I am concerned still unproved) damage caused in the past and to be prevented in the future. With "possible damage" I mean: possibly making Wikipedia vulnerable to accusations of COI-influenced content such as leveled by Ilena and Levine2112. AvB ÷ talk 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

The length of this topic ban is not mentioned in the remedy. Also, why a ban where a probation would suffice? The same may apply to Ilena. AvB ÷ talk 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is about the topic ban for Fyslee - then I have asked the Fred about this via email, who says that the ban proposed is indefinite, though the ArbCom might want to clarify that here, as others seem to have the same questions I had. Cheers Lethaniol 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. I'll add a link. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strong appeal for justice from Fyslee

(Continuing from the "Misc." point above):

In all fairness (otherwise I am clearly being treated punitively), this would also result in professionals being banned from editing articles related to their own profession. So, for example, no chiropractors should be editing all the chiropractic articles, as they certainly have a very strong financial COI, which is the worst kind of COI. It would also result in editors who have a POV about a subject being banned from editing that subject. Is this really where we're heading? I hope not.

It should only be the actual editing and its content that matters. Local consensus can take care of local disagreements, and blocks and dispute resolution can take care of disruption and attitude problems. Nothing that serious has been deemed necessary in my case, except one block. That block was a 3RR where no one could agree on the definition of the meaning of "revert". (My first edit on a not currently disputed spot ended up being counted as a revert, so I ended up with four and was blocked. The current rules on 3RR are still unclear on that point, and muddy and unclear rules lead to unjust and unevenly applied judgments.) Since then I have simply withdrawn from the situation, which is the whole point of the 3RR rule anyway.

So instead of dispute resolution, I have learned to choose dispute avoidance and withdrawal when possible. I am learning to avoid "hot" editors when things get warmed up, to be more civil, to avoid humor (which seems to be interpreted by them as incivility), to avoid being so open, since it too seems to often be interpreted as incivility, etc.. I am learning.

The concept of being banned for unblockable offenses is an awfully slippery slope that contravenes all concepts of justice, with unforeseeable consequences. I hope that the ArbCom members will reconsider and reword the proposal and change their votes. The judgments made at this ArbCom should not become the subject of future speculations and disputes resulting from unclear or unjust decisions that will haunt it and cast a shadow over these proceedings. There should be no blemishes or doubts about the decisions made here, or suspicions of a miscarriage of justice.

That is my appeal. Please reconsider. I have learned much and can still contribute in a constructive manner. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom ruling may create an impression of a significant extension of WP:COI, which would prohibit professionals from contributing to articles in their field. I don't think this was the intent of WP:COI, and if the ruling is so interpreted, I'll appeal to User:Jimbo. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment here on my perception of Fyslee's general pattern of editing on WP. Fyslee and I disagree on certain things, e.g the efficacy of acupuncture, but I see no pattern of POV-pushing on his part. On the contrary, in my experience he has been civil, objective and fair. WP needs more editors like him. I've specifically asked him in the past to have a look at the aforementioned article to make sure it's up to speed on NPOV and VER. If Fyslee has been uncivil in this particular case involving Ilena, fine, that conduct may be sanctionable; but the sanction should be proportional to the actual lapse, and should take into account the editor's overall contributions. I object in very strong terms to the idea that Fyslee's overall pattern of edits on WP has been noncompliant with any policy or guideline. Banning him from editing articles on alt-med for any supposed pattern involving 3.1, 3.2 a/o 3.3 would be a travesty. Thanks for listening, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree with Arthur above on COI. I'm an acupuncturist myself, btw, and have invested a great deal of time attempting to improve that article, including writing for the enemy. If Fyslee has a COI, then I must too. No good deed goes unpunished? Let's be sane and welcome expert editors rather than whacking them over the head with weak COI objections. - Jim Butler^(talk) 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim is saying here confirms the facts also described by many other editors in this arbitration, including myself. Perhaps the most striking example would be Dematt, a chiropractor who views both Fyslee and Ilena as his friends. (Dematt seems to have left the project torn apart by his own (excellent) role in this arbitration). These and other defenses by so many editors in good standing who have worked with Fyslee on many occasions are sending a clear message. The fact that he seems to have so few detractors here says something about his alleged policy violations, allegations culminating in something not found in the charges: the purported pushing of "partisan viewpoints". What it says is this: it didn't happen.

Think! Those who are pushing a minority viewpoint as a majority POV are not welcome here. Their edits are reverted. They don't last 8,000+ edits or 15 months like Fyslee. I don't think the arbitrators who have voted so far realize it, but they are going against the voice of the community as seen in the relative longevity of material added by Fyslee, yet they are listening to Fyslee's detractors as if they don't have a glaring COI and as if they have proved their accusations. AvB ÷ talk 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Fyslee's appeal for justice. In the Discussion by Arbitrators section of the Proposed decision page, quoting from Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Fred Bauder stated: "Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for advocacy or propaganda." An excellent response to how Ilena tried to use Wikipedia. It is also a good response to Fyslee's actions. Not as a violator of that rule, but as its protector. That's also the sum total of his misdeeds here: he bit a newbie while defending Wikipedia's neutrality. Then again, he already knew her mission, while she had misjudged his: Fyslee is here to help build an excellent, neutral, free encyclopedia. AvB ÷ talk 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence shows that Fyslee had a mission the moment he arrived at Wikipedia - to push his viewpoint through vanity links, link spamming, editing despite COI, supressing other POVs, enflaming his "opposition" and generally abusive behavior. His behavior with Ilena - the moment she arrived - was atrocious - and it continues. I don't see Fyslee as a protector of Wikipedia policy, but rather as a protector of his own interests. Sometimes that means enforcing Wikipedia policy and sometimes that means working the system, enciting wars and gross misconduct. That he has a lot of allies showing up here to defend him is nice, but it still doesn't change what he has done at Wikipedia. I submit my evidence as it stands and I leave the rest in the hands of the ArbCom. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levine2112 - I'm genuinely surprised at the negative light in which you intrepret Fyslee's conduct, and must reiterate my disagreement, which I hope you'll take in the warm and broad-minded spirit with which you and I have worked together for some time on WP. I think it's important to draw a distinction between the evidence at hand (i.e., various diffs) and how one interprets it. I cannot comment on Barrett v. Rosenthal because I haven't followed it. But I can and should comment on Fyslee's editing in general, where I don't perceive any inappropriate pattern over time. Specifically, I would disagree with your conclusions as follows: "vanity links" - per my previous comment; "link spamming" - per Durova; "editing despite COI" - per Arthur Rubin; "supressing other POVs, enflaming his "opposition" and generally abusive behavior" -- I find such descriptions baffling; they do not, IMO, reflect the same Fyslee with whom I, and others like User:Dematt and User:Gleng, have enjoyed collaborating (diff). (In fact, User:Gleng's departure, as discussed on his user page, sounds a relevant cautionary note.)

Without doubt, Wikipedia has seen its share of contentious, "pseudoskeptical" editors, but Fyslee isn't one of them. On the contrary, I've repeatedly seen him choosing collaboration and NPOV over ideology, e.g. his agreement with the concerns you expressed at AN/I last December over a problem editor who was also a "skeptic" (diff). That was a situation where a ban was clearly in order. I don't see such a pattern here. best, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My observations of Fyslee is that he is on a search-and-destroy mission when it comes to the good reputation of chiropractic. I am not sure if this is relevent to this hearing but know Fyslee's life mission is to make people believe chiropractic is a scam...or as he calls it a sCAM...so-called alternative medicine. Oof! He posts misinformation about chiropractic being dangerous...citing studies that purposefully "mix up" chiro stats with other professions...all the while disregarding the best studies which strongly attest to chiropractic's incredible safety. If Fyslee seems to be collaborative it is only him trying to work the system. I have had him do it to me before...I collaborate...listen to him...then eventually he spins chiropractic in the most negative light imaginable. I do not know anything about about Barrett v. Rosenthal other than having heard of Stephen Barrett...an infamous chiro basher. I do know Fyslee and Barrett have a close relationship and work together in anti-chiro hate campaigns on the internet and beyond. I have read mention of "conflict of interest" in these procedings...so know that Fyslee has a large one and has been trying to hide that. For those of us who know him in the "real" world, we know better. Make no mistake about it...Fyslee and Barrett are chiro-bashing compadres. That is why I must agree with the proposal to ban Fyslee from editing any articles related to chiropractic...I believe it is more general... he cannot edit any alternative medicine article...that seems just about right. By the way as a passionate chiropractor myself I feel I might have a conflict of interest in editing these articles...I usually keep my distance but am regularly apalled by what passes as reliable statements of fact in Fyslee's mind. Ugh! I should have stayed away from this...now I am all worked up. Okay...I am done venting. Good luck with these procedings. I got to stay away from this stuff...it is just makes me freak-out. TheDoctorIsIn 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctorIsIn seems to be confusing my real-life POV and utterances with my actual editing. The only thing that counts here is what's in the article. In my newbie days I may have crossed the line in some instances, but otherwise my edits have been sourced, and even the best sourced contributions have often been deleted by the chiropractors who edit those articles. There has been quite a bit of whitewashing going on there in a manner that would have effectively made the main article a sales brochure. I haven't even begun to try to include the well-documented and easily sourced accusations of quackery within chiropractic. The protective wall put up by those editors is so formiddable that I quickly gave up on that idea. It will no doubt need to be a separate article, but it would immediately be tagged with a speedy delete no matter how well sourced. It still needs to be done since it's an important part of chiropractic's history, but it would be hopeless to try. I doubt that Jimbo himself would succeed.

It was only after the arrival of Dematt, a chiropractor himself, that the article really began to grow. He understood NPOV and the other chiros couldn't accuse him of a COI or other straw man arguments of that nature. He then developed the article into what it is today, and what a great job he has done!

As to the charge that Barrett and I "work together", well that's not true. He does his thing and I do mine. We just happen to have similar POV. Mine was well developed before I ever heard of him, and my POV is further informed by my contacts with chiropractors themselves and my extensive study of the subject for many years. No, what counts here is not my personal POV. Having a POV is not forbidden here. It's the actual edits themselves. If my edits are improper or poorly sourced, I expect them to be edited or deleted. Fair enough. That has rarely been the case. No, even my best additions with good sources have been systematically deleted. Only Dematt has understood that ignoring criticisms is against NPOV. If there is a COI problem here, it's with editors who have a vested financial interest in whitewashing those articles. There is more than one side to that coin, and Wikipedia requires that all significant POV be included without selling them. I can understand the objections to my POV, but any such objections should be laid aside when determining the suitability of my edits. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lethaniol

I will put my thoughts here, as they directly relate to Fyslee’s request above. It is also time to disclose that I have been mentoring Fyslee by email, at the request of Durova, since the time I first became in involved in this ArbCom case. My main reason for not disclosing this fact earlier is that I felt it would prejudice my involvement in areas not related to Fyslee’s case, which I thought I could help by bringing another neutral viewpoint to. As it happens, my advice to Ilena has been very similar to that which I have given to Fyslee – to concentrate on their own user conduct, not the detailed interpretation of policy (which the ArbCom will be experts in) or the adverse conduct of others (which is IMHO can only be a small mitigating factor in both Fyslee’s and Ilena’s cases).

I will not be commenting on any interpretation of policies, or any users’ conduct other than Fyslee, accept to say that some conduct on both sides appears to be far from perfect – hence I strongly support Thatcher’s suggested remedy of an article/topic probation.

During my short mentoring of Fylsee, I have seen that although he has his own strong points of view, very importantly he appears to care for the integrity and development of Wikipedia beyond using it just as a platform for his own views. Unfortunately Fylsee has become bogged down in the interpretation of policies during this ArbCom, and has not adequately defended himself here. Most important is the fact that he has only just now commented on how he should be and will be improving his conduct in the future, which is the crux of the case against his further participation in the topics at hand. Furthermore, until recently (unlike Ilena) Fylsee has not had the benefit of a mentor to help improve such conduct.

Other users have defended Fylsee based on a broad range of positive contributions he has made. The question we need to ask ourselves now, is whether we can continue to harness such future positive contributions, while decreasing the impact of any negative contributions. If Fylsee had only edited in a negative manner then obviously we would want a full topic/site ban, but if we wish to retain the positive contributions that do exist in Fylsee’s editing, then some other remedy needs to be considered. The problem with an indefinite topic ban is that it does not encourage any improvement in user conduct, as well as losing positive contributions.

Therefore alternatives need to be investigated, such as: allowing comments on the topic talk pages; a limited ban (time length); a full ban but a review of Fylsee’s conduct after a certain time to see if it has improved and remove ban if so; a probation period (as recommended by Durova) with a rapidly escalating block regime if Fylsee conduct does not improve. If these are alternatives are coupled to the mentorship that I am willing to offer, they stand IMHO a decent chance of succeeding in bringing Fylsee’s conduct up to scratch. If it does not work, then either ArbCom remedies or the usual Admin powers, can be brought to bear on Fyslee.

(Note that I have not mentioned anything about POV pushing or COI, as basically even the users with the strongest of views or conflict of interests can still contribute positively if their conduct allows for it).

So I hope the ArbCom reconsiders the proposed remedy with respect to a full topic ban on Fyslee, proposing an alternative that will encourage positive conduct and contributions, which with the aid of mentorship, will help improve and not damage Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

Comment: My read is that none of the proposed decisions includes a full topic ban for Fyslee - he would still be able to comment and discuss on article talk pages, but would be banned from direct edits in the article space. Otherwise I agree with your points, and as I've said elsewhere my 2¢ would favor topic probation for the reasons you've discussed. MastCell 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are right MastCell thank you - rereading the topic ban remedy for Fyslee it specifically states that "He may comment and make suggestions on talk pages." - my bad for missing this. Cheers Lethaniol 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue of the time length of any contemplated full-topic ban is at the moment not specified. I suggest specifying some finite period(s) among which to choose, if indeed a ban is undertaken. thank you - Jim Butler^(talk) 09:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI should not extend to editing items on one's profession. If it does, what is the bloody point of Wikipedia? Is it to become a second-hand piece of non-information that has scared away all knowledgeable editors? Feh. I've known Fyslee for a while and I've found hm to be an excellent editor and highly knowledgeable contributor. The proposed remedy is like chopping off one's foot to cure a damned hangnail. Jim62sch 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not edited on Wikipedia for a while but was astonished to see this case. The Fyslee that I knew made his personal opinions very clear on article Talk pages, but in his edits to articles was extremely careful to be accurate, and was meticulously attentive to WP policies, and open to reasoned discussion. In my experience he was, as Jim has said, an excellent editor and highly knowledgeable.Gleng 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. :Fsylee is an interesting case, IMO, because everybody who's dealt with him knows he can be infuriating at times, yet many hold that he should not be banned. I'm among them. So my proposed remedy is: Just send "Bruno and Vinnie from NJ" over to have a little talk with him. ;-) But make sure you get a promise from him not to do certain things, whatever exactly they're agreed to be by the arbcom. Seriously, he is an asset to WP, especially absent his tendentiousness and angry arguing. It would be more helpful for Fyslee to agree to take a more balanced and tolerant approach than to lose him altogether. IMHO. Fyslee hopefully should, IMO, agree to stay away from chiropractic and Quackwatch and use his excellent knowledge and skills elsewhere, tempered by perhaps a bit more self-imposed patience and a promise to WP to avoid 3RR's at risk of some type of penalty agreed to in advance.

Admins, please take into account, too, that much of this case revolved around Fyslee's encounters with a shrewd and habitual "victim-bully" whom I choose not to mention by name. As regards the concept of "vicitm-bullies", see, e.g. [6]. ... Kenosis 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some people have expressed concern about banning or taking action against Fyslee due to COI reasons. However although I haven't read the situation depth, it appears they have misunderstood the COI concerns. From what I understand, no one is saying Fyslee shouldn't be allowed to edit an article on alternative medicine because he is involved in a site against it just as no one is saying a doctor shouldn't be able to edit an article on medicine or a chiropractic on chriropracticity (sp?). What is being said is people can't and shouldn't edit articles to include references to their our sites etc nor should they edit articles which are partially about them or a site they own Nil Einne 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parity of sources

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is parity of sources. While I don't think quackwatch should be used as a source to dispute things like claims backed up by respected scientific studies, it certainly seems to be a reliable enough source for articles about fringe topics which have barely acceptable sources supporting them and aren't taken seriously to even be refuted by scientific publications.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources says "...if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may generally include material gleaned from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Verifiable critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed." (note that I'm not accusing any particular topic of being a fringe theory, just pointing out that Quackwatch is a potentially useful source in such cases)

I'm a bit alarmed by any finding that makes a blanket declaration that a site like Quackwatch is unreliable. This has the potential to make it easier for POV slanting in articles about fringe topics. Not to mention that I thought ArbCom only covered behaviour, not content? Does this mean that ArbCom is willing to give approval or disapproval to sources and sites? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have agreed that QW articles in some cases are acceptable, Quackwatch use is further complicated by two points: (1) that the principal author/editor of QW etc is also a Wikipeida editor; (2) that WP is already a QW linkfarm with hundreds of links. How about mandating an author who needs one new QW link desparately has to edit out (replace or delete) two from the farm above the last 100? We better take this discussion else where if you are interested.--I'clast 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While both of those points deserve attention, I don't see why either is a reason to declare QW "unreliable" as a whole. Doing so could be interpreted by some as justification for removing all QW links, acceptable or not. Something like "use of sources in a partisan way" would probably be better since the problem seems to be more how the source was used than the source itself. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee

I've emailed the ArbCom mailing list asking other arbitrators to review this talk page and their votes related to Fyslee. I do not think that the evidence supports the Findings and Remedy related to him. FloNight 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to dance. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It only takes one to be completely uncooperative, disruptive, and antagonizing. No one to date handled Ilena well. Some did the best they could. Everyone let a completely inappropriate situation drag out far too long. --Ronz 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Ronz; it's false equivalence to compare Fyslee's conduct with Ilena, particularly given that Fyslee has thousands of edits, and any supposed ongoing "pattern" of biased editing on his part has resulted in exactly ZERO blocks by admins until now. Again, to ban him for a supposed pattern is ex-post-facto, which is completely inappropriate, even in a "benign monarchy". FloNight's reevaluation of the excessive sanctions contemplated for Fyslee is heartening. I say this as both a scientist and alt-med practitioner who has valued what Fyslee brings to the mix; collaboration with him has been a pleasure because I value the challenge of trying to get the article right. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - During the period where I intervened I found it necessary to block Ilena twice, yet Fyslee's behavior did not escalate to the point where a formal warning was necessary. Although he had some problems, he was responsive and mostly cooperative to my feedback and suggestions. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, actually Fyslee has been blocked at least once for edit warring with me. I would also like to mention that here Fyslee falsely accused me of violating 3RR and was unpolite enough to exclaim "Yipee!" when he thought he had busted me. Fyslee wound up apologizing later after I showed him I didn't violate 3RR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that Fyslee's behavior deserves sanctions. My disagreement is over the contention that his actions amount to parity with Ilena's. At Wikipedia we seek to keep and reform editors who can be productive. I would have preferred to keep Ilena also, but she refused to deviate from her chosen trajectory. Perhaps at some point in the future if she ceases her aggressive stance toward this website and its policies we could welcome her back. It would be retributive and even vindictive to construct an argument against one editor because the other participant at a dispute has been sitebanned. Fyslee has struck through and apologized for his missteps upon request. He has sought guidance from the best mentor I know. He has edited well on a broad range of topics and earned barnstars. I wish he had conducted himself better in this dispute. Probably everyone here wishes that. Yet he is not the mirror image of Ilena. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I see a parity between how Ilena treated Fyslee to how Fyslee treated Ilena. They both brought their outside dispute to Wikipedia, both edited inappropriately, both added vanity links and both violated COI. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yet Fyslee verified his complaints with relevant evidence and demonstrated remorse for his mistakes. He accepted valid feedback and made efforts to reform. She seldom substantiated her claims with relevant evidence and to the best of my knowledge she neither apologized for her misconduct nor acknowleged where she was mistaken. Fyslee also edited many other topics and interacted with many other editors without getting into conflicts. Ilena was a single purpose account (or very nearly so) who spread strife nearly everywhere she went. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Disruption is disruption, no matter what veneer of civility it is put under. I begin to understand now what Elaragirl means when she calls people off for fake civility. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And Ilena was clearly always disruptive. Fyslee's responses to her disruptions were often disruptive as well, but the same could be said with almost everyone's interactions with her. If more editors had listened to Fyslee's complaints about her earlier, this problem would have been settled in December, with Ilena most likely banned for constant disruptive editing and failing to learn and follow wiki policy. --Ronz 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:AGF constrains us from describing civil behavior as a veneer unless the evidence leads us to that conclusion. From the time I responded to Ilena's request for help until the present, I have not seen convincing evidence that Fyslee is anything worse than a mostly productive and responsible editor who allowed a disruptive person to push his buttons. I state this opinion as someone uninvolved in any of the articles where either Ilena or Fyslee edited and as a coauthor of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Specifically, it is not the business of users who have been in direct conflict with an editor to conclude whether that editor is disruptive. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe it was Dmcdevit once said to me, "Assume good faith is not a suicide pact." ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, ironically, I suspect no one could vouch for the truth of that better than Fyslee. Another good aphorism is: "Acting screwed-up in a screwed-up situation is not screwed up." Fortunately, WP is in general a pretty non-screwed up place. FloNight and others are wisely looking at the bigger picture of what Fyslee has contributed. Jim Butler^(talk) 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112 wrote this (see above). Once again he failed to add the necessary diffs and context as found on the relevant article talk page, Jaranda's talk page, Levine2112's talk page, Fyslees' talk page and AN/3RR. What really happened: Fyslee thought that Levine2112 had reached 4RR. He did not report it but proposed to discuss Levine's 4RR on the talk page.(diff) Levine2112 retaliated(diff) by reporting Fyslee for a 4RR.(diff)(diff) Jaranda blocked Fyslee and Levine2112.(diff) Fyslee explained that that both were at 3RR (getting Levine off the hook before arguing his own case) and that he had been mistaken about Levine2112's 4RR.(diff)(diff) For the latter he apologized to all and Levine2112.(diff) Jaranda then responded:

I made a mistake with the block, looking it closer I saw some kind of removal of links in four difs, one was a removal of another link which I thought it was a revert. I apologize. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)(diff)[reply]

As anyone can see, Fyslee's first and only block was incorrect. I do not understand why Levine2112 remembers differently; after all he incorrectly reported Fyslee (and not vice versa as suggested by Levine2112: unpolite enough to exclaim "Yipee!" when he thought he had busted me. AvB ÷ talk 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was there confusion (which has never been properly addressed) about the counting, the 3RR rule does not apply to such clearly BLP situations, so even if I had made X number of reverts, the block was inappropriate. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 08:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112 ~~accepted Jaranda's apology but ignored Fyslee's. He~~ did not apologize to Jaranda or Fyslee for the incorrect and precocious AN/3RR report. He did not thank Fyslee for successfully arguing his case with Jaranda. And now, five months later, he has completely turned that case around and believes he can use it against Fyslee.

Since Levine2112 remembers incorrectly, this is additional confirmation of his habit of giving evidence that on close inspection does not incriminate Fyslee in any way (I have documented this habit on the Evidence page).

All in all I can no longer ignore the disturbing feeling that his assessment of Fyslee, i.e. the way Levine2112 understands his behavior, character and intentions as a Wikipedian, is, unwittingly, colored to the degree of being a total mischaracterization. If I may venture a guess, the coloring may be due to the fact that Fyslee has the natural advantage here at Wikipedia, where mainstream science is the majority POV by default (Guy has advanced this possibility very early in this arbitration). This must be very frustrating for proponents of what at best is the minority scientific view and at worst out-and-out quackery. Especially if their own editing, unlike Fyslee's, bespeaks a lack of understanding of NPOV.

Please note that I assume Levine2112 did this in good faith and this was really how he remembered it. I'm also assuming his apparent less-than-perfect understanding of NPOV is really just that, and not part of an effort to, at best, test the POV limits of NPOV editing, or, at worst, simply undermine NPOV. AvB ÷ talk 08:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AvB, you are completely mischaracterizing what happened in the 3RR violation by Fyslee. The diffs which I provided in the AN/I clearly demonstrate that Fyslee violated the rule. I provided four diffs. Fyslee then miscounted twice; stating that he did not violated 3RR and I did. Yet Fyslee nor Jarranda could produce more than 3 diffs when I asked them to. Yes, I did report Fyslee to AN/I but not before giving him a clear warning that he was about to violate 3RR. My AN/I report was accurate. Fyslee then tried some Wikilawyering to turn the tables on me. (Even if he did truly miscount, cheering "Yipee!" isn't exactly civil behavior on his part.) Jarranda apologized to me for allowing Fyslee's confusion to confound his/her judgement and yes, despite how AvB is mischaracterizing everything, I did accept Jarranda's apology graciously and I accepted Fyslee's apology graciously. AvB, since you are so interested in defending Fyslee, I would suggest that you reread all of the diffs before you cast your judgement upon me. In fact, I will assume good faith that you didn't read all of the diffs before commented, rather than claim you are purposefully mischaracterizing the events in order to defend Fyslee. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the arbitrators will check out the diffs for themselves. It's all quite transparent. As to your aspersions, I'm sure you did not intend to use a false dichotomy, which is not exactly convincing. I'll explain. Assuming good faith means that you assume I believe my reading of the diffs is correct and that I assume you believe your reading is correct. I'm doing the latter. You, on the other hand, clearly assume that I have either not read my own diffs or purposefully mischaracterized events. However, both options are preposterous if you assume good faith. The elegant solution is that I have read them, and have provided what I believe is a a good description. It is true that my description contradicts much of your description. But that does not mean that my description is incorrect or give you the right to cast aspersions on my intentions. AvB ÷ talk 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What aspersions? I assumed good faith in that your mischaracterization was not purposeful, but rather based on a lack of reading all of the relevant diffs. How else could you explain your statement that I ignored Fyslee's and Jarranda's apology? I clearly did not ignore their apologies, but rather graciously accepted them. Thus your characterization of the event was wrong. Why? I don't know. But for the sake of AGF, I assumed that you didn't read all of the relevant diffs. There's nothing preposterous there, unless you did read the diffs, chose to ignore them, and in turn spun this clear-cut example of Fyslee's incivility into an attack on me. I am going to stick to my position and assume the former -- that you were unaware of all of the relevant diffs. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: You assumed I either failed to read my own diffs or willfully mischaracterized events. Both are aspersions. As to spin: even if I did not find that method as nauseating as I do, I still would never try it since I think others will see right through it. Just like I see right through it when others try it. AvB ÷ talk 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you didn't read your own diffs. I said you didn't read the diffs. And by that I meant that you didn't read the relevant diffs to this issue -- Fyslee 3RR debacle. No aspersion on you and if you are interpreting one out of what I wrote, I apologize, but know that it wasn't my intention. Okay, AvB. I see that you now are willing to concede that I did accept Fyslee's apology. I apprecitate that. I would also appreciate that you make a similar edit to your entry on the evidence page. So now what is left to your point? That I should have apologized to Fyslee for bringing him to AN/I for his 3RR violation? Why? I warned him not to violate 3RR and he did anyway. I am still not sure why you think I should have apologized to Jarranda. For what? I don't think Jarranda was expecting one from me, nor was one warranted. I am thankful that Jarranda saw through Fyslee's wikilawyering and admitted his/her mistake. I believe I thanks Jarranda for that, but know that my last request to Jarranda -- to remove the unwarranted block from my log -- went unanswered. Had Jarranda responded, I certainly would have been even more thankful to Jarranda. So what is left of your point here? Perhaps you should strike the whole thing out of evidence. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you of the point I'm making, and you're disputing (copied from above):

Levine2112 wrote this (see above). Once again he failed to add the necessary diffs and context as found on the relevant article talk page, Jaranda's talk page, Levine2112's talk page, Fyslees' talk page and AN/3RR. What really happened: Fyslee thought that Levine2112 had reached 4RR. He did not report it but proposed to discuss Levine's 4RR on the talk page.(diff) Levine2112 retaliated(diff) by reporting Fyslee for a 4RR.(diff)(diff) Jaranda blocked Fyslee and Levine2112.(diff) Fyslee explained that that both were at 3RR (getting Levine off the hook before arguing his own case) and that he had been mistaken about Levine2112's 4RR.(diff)(diff) For the latter he apologized to all and Levine2112.(diff) Jaranda then responded: I made a mistake with the block, looking it closer I saw some kind of removal of links in four difs, one was a removal of another link which I thought it was a revert. I apologize. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)(diff). As anyone can see, Fyslee's first and only block was incorrect.[reply]

You're asking me what's left of my point disputing your narrative? Here's a sampling: You claim the block was correct, I claim it was not. You claim Jaranda apologized to you, I claim Jaranda apologized to you and Fyslee. You claim that Fyslee attacked you for a 3RR violation, I claim he warned you in advance and tried to talk about it with you on the talk page after you had ignored the warning. I claim that you reported Fyslee for what you believed was a 4RR, while Fyslee did not report you for what he believed was a 4RR. I suggest that the entire episode with Jaranda would have been avoided if you had responded to Fyslee on the talk page. You claim that "Fyslee wound up apologizing later after I showed him I didn't violate 3RR". I claim Fyslee showed you and Jaranda that you incorrectly reported Fyslee at AN/3RR. AvB ÷ talk 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have diffs that show Fyslee's block was not warranted? I provided four diffs which show he violated 3RR. Do you have a diff that shows Jaranda apologizng to Fyslee for giving him an unwarranted block? I have provided a diff that shows Jaranda apologizing to me for giving me an unwarranted block. Do you have a diff that shows me ignoring Fyslee's warning? I have provided a diff which shows me warning Fyslee and him still violating 3RR. Now then, Fyslee had a point that his violation of 3RR was justified based on BLP. Regardless, he violated 3RR and thus was blocked. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your evidence you write that Levine2112 did not apologize to Jaranda or Fyslee for the incorrect and precocious AN/3RR report. He did not thank Fyslee for successfully arguing his case with Jaranda. The 3RR violation on Fyslee was correct and I am unsure what you mean by "precocious" other than an aspersion directed at me. And for the record, I did thank Fyslee. I told him that I appreciated it. That's gratitude. Bottomline, your evidence is a total misrepresentation. Now that you know the truth, I would expect you to fix it or delete it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112, you are going around in circles. Please find your answers and links above.

Your problem is very simple, Levine. You rely on your own interpretation of the 3RR policy and do not accept my opinion on the policy, your 3RR report, or Fyslee's diffs and explanation that got the both of you off the hook. At the core of the problem we find the first "revert" claimed by you: 21:25, 13 October 2006. It's not a revert as defined in the policy at the time since it was not undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part in the 24 hours preceding it. But you've amply demonstrated that nothing I say can convince you since you do not accept my Wikipedia expertise regarding our policies. So you really shouldn't be asking me for proof. Simply ask Jaranda or any other admin you think you can trust to correctly interpret and apply the policy as of 13-14 October 2006. Or you can do nothing; I can assure you that the arbitrators will know 3RR when they see it, and that they will not see it if it isn't there.

I'm going to bed, it's 1:45 AM here. AvB ÷ talk 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good night. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the evidence on games and incivility with Fyslee[7]. Hopefully this latest evidence is clear enough to demonstrate some of the problems in altmed articles and with Fyslee's tactics. "Conventional" editors can appear, drummed from nowhere, yell "conventional", outvote and flood out votes on AfD, RfC, "consensus" etc about subjects these "magic" editors may know jack about, and establish it as "conventional" and "consensus". It is especially annoying when they are claiming it about old, medical prejudices in direct contravention of current medical science or other sciences and will not/cannot distinguish it, establish scientific priority on it when shown supposed "mainstream sources" are shown WP:V fallacious, or even recognize there is an issue. This why I have usually had far better luck with a number of conventional academics, researchers & MD than plain QW followers, after a *lot* of referencing & explaining. This science recognition problem is still showing up in some of the arbs comments right now, as to which "mainstream" is best.--I'clast 09:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'clast, the "attack"[8] of which you accuse Fyslee[9] is nothing more than his defense against some of your accusations in this ArbCom case. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most persistent problems at this arbitration (and the investigation that preceded it) is that some participants conflate attack with defense. That is, their own habitual response to critical input is to attack and they interpret any response to their own attacks as counterattack. This is an encyclopedia, not a game of basketball where people score quick points and hope the referees miss the fouls. WP:AGF and WP:NOT#Not a battleground are policy. Durova^Charge! 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to point out that AGF is a guideline, not a policy. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel compelled to point out that AGF has been both used and ignored in order to drag out the problems with Ilena for 2.5 months longer than need be. AGF was used improperly with Ilena to let her continue her disruptive editing long after it should have been stopped. It was and is currently being ignored with Fyslee in order to blame him for Ilena's editing. --Ronz 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so we are clear, it was Fyslee who assumed bad faith in Ilena from the moment she arrived at Wikipedia. That is among the cheif reasons why we are here today. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wikilegal but not civil, done in an extra offensive manner. Are you folks going to address the points or not? This RFAR is turning into another such "magic" flash flood of people that are citing without context and background with the specific situations & references. I cited a clear example of gaming the system on a POV fork. Well? The science/fact/partisan/spammy POV problems of QW are not being meaningfully addressed either. Article-by-article "democracy" on QW references with the flash vote floods won't solve it, guarantees more. It won't even be mediocracy; more like mendacity. Most editors think they can spot the hidden bs; well they can't - they don't even have clues. A significant fraction go rogue when fact checking (WP:V) etc is spelled out and applied on QW attacks. In areas of his interest, Prof Kauffman unwound 8 QW articles, a heresy trial would be less unpleasant. I, more or less, have diced 3-4 QW articles in a year at WP and 2 significant other "conventional favorite references" that keep on giving. Fyslee even after the trolls. I suspect significant others might do 1-6. We are talking serious slow learning. You propose we do this through 2-3-4000 QW related pages of partisan, anti-scientific, hidden subreptions? Many folks are still in deep denial here. The QW references are already far too uncritically, numerously applied, and those that would remain need "black box warnings" attached. Fyslee's games, reflexive QW reverts and sanctimonious warnings over bogus references like BCCA don't help WP.

Score quick points? You've got to be kidding, I do the long, mind-numbing heavy lifting.--I'clast 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I understand very little of what you have just said. Most respectfully, please can you re-explain. Cheers Lethaniol 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with FloNight, who started this talk section, that the evidence in this RfA does not warrant any of the remedies specifically directed to Fyslee that have been proposed thus far. I would want to add, as I intimated in another section above, that all the particiipating admins should in my opinion be familiar with the general notion of a "victim-bully", outlined here. In my opinion, the approach of the 'victim-bully" is characteristic of the approach of Fyslee's adversary that initially led to this RfA. Fyslee, in a private email conversation I recently had with him, agrees that some further adaptations of his own approach are merited. I had previously observed that he had already adapted his approach significantly over the course of his participation in WP, and in my estimation now sees how his approach was vulnerable to getting entangled by what in my opinion is a form of "victim-bully" approach characteristic of his initial adversary in this proceeding, an entanglement that has become fairly central to this RfA.

It would not, in my estimation, be productive for any significant sanction against Fyslee to arise out of this RfC. Conceiveably there might be another RfC in the future meriting sanctions, of course, because of Fyslee's somwhat agressive skeptical approach that has often been his wont. But again, he's toned the approach down significantly in recent months and appears capable of exercising a greater degree of restraint as regards topics that involve a holistic orientation. But either way, this RfC is not the appropriate forum for any significant kind of sanction, in my opinion. I wonder, though, if it is still within the scope of this RfC for Fyslee to propose a "settlement agreement" setting forth whatever self-limits he might agree to in advance, assuming the arbcom also agrees? I mean, why not let Fyslee propose a specific resolution to all this? if he wants to, of course. ... Kenosis 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Litmus test

It has been proposed by a number of other users, that Fylsee's previous poor conduct was due to ever increasing conflict and antagonism with Ilena. Now that Ilena has been banned for a while now, can I suggest a certain test. That is, has Fylsee conduct been much improved or not? If it has not improved then harsh remedies might be needed. If it has improved, then we should use WP:AGF, and keep Fylsee for the sake of the improvement of Wikipedia. Now I understand that Fylsee may be treading carefully during this ArbCom, but this test should still give us some indication whether Fylsee can be a valuable editor in the future or not. In any case "milder" remedies (such a probation) can be used to help prevent Fylsee's conduct from straying into the inappropriate again.

Note this is ArbCom is not about "Justice", but about the improvement of Wikipedia. If Fylsee has turned a corner, and now stands a reasonable chance of acting for the benefit of Wikipedia, then harsh remedies will only seek to damage Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that may work out, I don't think it is very fair to Ilena. We may as well say let's ban Fyslee but not Ilena and therefore Ilena's conduct would be improved. That wouldn't be fair either, would it? I don't beleive Ilena was ever given a chance to constructively edit Wikipedia. From the moment she arrived, she was antagonized. It would be unfair to ban her and not Fyslee. If we are here to improve Wikipedia, then think of the precedent your request would be setting. If there are two people bringing an external war onto Wikipedia, then the remedy is to arbitrarily choose one editor to be banned? That doesn't seem just nor does it seem very Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think you miss a number of points. This is not about being "fair" or "just", but doing what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Also Ilena was not arbitrarily banned, it was relatively obvious that it was always going to be the case from her continued and persistent poor conduct. I am not suggesting the precedent you suggest, just that we should take into account Fylsee's work and conduct since Ilena has been banned, as it may give a valuable insight into how he will act in the future - to do otherwise would be to waste valuable evidence. Cheers Lethaniol 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that many people (myself included) feel that Ilena was not chosen "arbitrarily" for harsher punishment, but that her conduct was in fact worse than Fyslee's and showed less potential for improvement. From such a perspective, it would be "unfair" to sanction both equally, or nearly equally; in other words, "fairness" depends on one's underlying take on the situation. Obviously, this is a distinction which has been argued to death and is now up to ArbCom. MastCell 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena was never given a real chance to improve. She was persistently antagonized by Fyslee. Judging Fyslee's behavioral improvement since Ilena had been banned is completely unfair to Ilena. How do we know Ilena wouldn't have improved her behavior too if Fyslee had been the one banned first. Don't forget, Ilena's "continued and persistent poor conduct" was a direct result of Fyslee (a more experienced editor) riding her from the moment she arrived at Wikipedia. They had an outside conflict which they both carried onto Wikipedia and made a huge mess. They are equally culpable and thus should receive equal sanctions. Being just is in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop with the obvious nonsense, please. Ilena was given far too many chances to improve, and she failed them all dramatically. If Fyslee had never even been an editor here, we'd still have had the same problems with Ilena, she'd just have one less editor to attack and blame. --Ronz 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair to make that assumption. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anyone to make any assumptions. I am summarizing what I think are very obvious conclusions from the evidence, hence "obvious nonsense" to the statement "Ilena was never given a real chance to improve" and the continued blaming her behavior on Fyslee. --Ronz 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again reiterate that justice is not as important as you make out Levine. Imagine two users that both commit the same exact offence, but one is repentant and the other is not. It would be "just" to treat them the same (i.e. they each have an equal chance to improve their conduct), but not as far as the remedies imposed which would be different, as one of the users is far more likely to re-offend than the other (remember Wikipedia never seek s remedies to punish users, but simply to protect Wikipedia).

The question is, has Fylsee's conduct improved since this ArbCom and more specifically since Ilena has been banned? I.e. is there hope that Flysee can be more positive than negative for Wikipedia in the future? Cheers Lethaniol 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I mean right after Ilena was blocked, Fyslee did not AGF and wrongly accused a newbie of being Ilena's sockpuppet. You tell me. Did Fyslee's behavior improve in the wake of Ilena's ban? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the best example anyone can supply, an obviously honest mistake, then yes, he's improved. --Ronz 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake and perhaps an honest one. But it still demonstrates a poor assumption about another editor and one that was based on bad faith and an external battle. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)This represents a good summary of the problems at this case: While I think that may work out, I don't think it is very fair to Ilena. We may as well say let's ban Fyslee but not Ilena and therefore Ilena's conduct would be improved. That wouldn't be fair either, would it?

Both of the above alternatives are inappropriate because they link sanctions on one editor to another editor's decisions. Each editor's conduct stands on its own merits. Everyone in Wikipedia deserves the reasonable expectation that ArbCom would never impose a sanction because somebody else acted inappropriately. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My "alternative" was meant to lead this discussion toward the conclusion which you have reached. We are dealing with two editors who each have allegedly acted inappropriately. The rest is for the ArbCom to decide. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't follow the point of your earlier post. It responded to this very sensible statement from Lethaniol: If Fylsee has turned a corner, and now stands a reasonable chance of acting for the benefit of Wikipedia, then harsh remedies will only seek to damage Wikipedia. He makes no mention of Ilena and I fail to see the linkage your post attempts to establish between their remedies. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair to give Fyslee the chance that he didn't allow Ilena to have. Ostensibly, Fyslee is responsible for pushing Ilena to the point of getting banned. Sure he may act better now that he got Ilena banned, but what happens when his next rival shows up on Wikipedia. Will he also antagonize that editor and never give them a chance to improve? I agree that we can treat Fyslee and Ilena as separate editors, but with regards to this RfA, they are very much tied and at the very least equally culpable. To ban one and not the other is not justice. What is best for Wikipedia is that there is no incivility, hostility, link spamming, POV-pushing or POV-supression. Getting rid of just Ilena does not solve these issues as they relate to this RfA. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the finding about "responsibility for one's own actions" precisely because we're still hearing that "Fyslee is responsible for pushing Ilena to the point of getting banned." No. Ilena is responsible for reaching that point. Her welcome was not as harsh as you make it out to be; she had the benefit of an unofficial mentor (Peter) and several experienced editors in her corner. Fyslee's behavior is, appropriately, drawing scrutiny, but to blame him for Ilena's career here is part of the ongoing problem. I used the word "enabling" in the past, and perhaps that was too harsh, but there was a willingness to make excuses for Ilena, blaming the hostile environment and not calling her on her more egregious violations of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. This end result is unfortunate, but not unpredictable. MastCell 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to be noted that regardless of the ArbCom decision, Ilena was blocked indef trying to publish information that I'clast/Naut(+others???) gave to her. Information that Ilena attempted to publish and something which a senior admin (Slimvirgin) decided was very inappropriate. It does also need to be pointed out that now according to I'clast/Naut(+others???)'s latest evidence, this information that Ilena was blocked over was in fact in error (doesn’t really matter if the current information is in error as well, but that hasn’t stopped him from letting others hang for his error). This does add a detail of poignant irony to the "debate" that is raging, something that does apply to the litmus test because yes indeed, Ilena would have been blocked for doing something that WP policy disagrees with. Of course that she was encouraged and galled into doing so by one of her staunchest of "defenders" is probably to her regret. Of course Levine's persistent "Are you the son of Barrett" on my talkpage probably didn't help her line of thinking very much as well. Anybody would think that between this pair, they were actively undermining her with the "help" they gave her. But then again, helping Ilena is not their aim, attacking one of their perceived opponents and making a source of scientific information "unreliable", that’s the real aim. Shot info 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot, I really hope that those pronouns aren't directed at me. As I said on your talk page, I was simpley trying to clarify the accusation. If you would have told me "no I am not", I would have accepted that and moved on. So when you say "this pair" above, I hope you are not pairing me and anyone else. I have quite honestly attested that I have had no knowledge of Fyslee, Stephen Barrett, Tim Bolen, or Ilena Rosenthal before arriving at Wikipedia in late 2005. I never heard of Quackwatch before coming to Wikipedia. I am not out to get Quackwatch booted because I don't like it; it is just that in my experience with it on Wikipedia, I have never found it to be a suitable or reliable source. In fact, I have found it to be deliberately deceptive and subversively misinformative. I am not part of any health freedom fighter movement. I am not a gun for hire paid to defend others or POVs on Wikipedia. I don't participate in offsite blogs or discussion groups or mailing lists that deal with Barrett or Quackwatch or Rosenthal or Bolen. In short, I am just a Wikipedian, plain-and-simple. No hidden agendas or motives. No conflicts of interest. In good faith I attest that all of this to be true. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not sure whether Ilena was ever going to last on Wikipedia. From what others have said, it seems she ignored most of the advice on how to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Her indefinite ban came from breaking one rule too many!

Moving on though, I would like again to try and separate Fylsee's conduct away from everything else. Since Ilena's block, so far Levine2112 has only mentioned Fylsee's sockpuppet accusations against Healthzealot. Is there any other bad conduct Fylsee has been up to? Cheers Lethaniol 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now we will never be sure whether Ilena was ever going to last on Wikipedia. Too bad. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"helping Ilena is not their aim, attacking one of their perceived opponents and making a source of scientific information "unreliable", that’s the real aim." [[10]] Shot info 23:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking Quackwatch. Nor is it a perceived opponent of mine. Nor is a source of scientific information. My aim here is to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. I don't appreciate your lack of good faith in me, Shot info. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I view what many editors are doing on that talk page as spinning. Spinning Fyslee's actions to not look so bad. Spinning Quackwatch to seem like a reliable source. I am just trying to keep it on the level." (see link above) QED, you regard Fyslee's actions as bad. You regard Quackwatch as not a reliable source. AGF has nothing to do with it, you said it and I'm just pointing out your stated POV. Shot info 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality check

Above, Lethaniol asks: "Is there any other bad conduct Fylsee has been up to?" Here are a couple of bad things that Fyslee has not done:

(1) Disruptive POV-pushing by citing Quackwatch. FloNight's comment is right on. Quackwatch has its "issues", but there is plenty of scientific baby in its arguably "pseudoskeptical" bathwater. Quackwatch may err on the side of dismissing as total BS stuff that is merely "not proven", but make no mistake: lots of notable scientists think along those lines. Read the first few sources cited at Alternative_medicine#Alternative_definitions if you don't believe me (contemporaneous version here).

(2) Having COI in any respect. First, I agree with Arthur Rubin that COI should not be overextended to prohibit professionals from editing within their field. Second, Fyslee does not have a close enough relationship to Quackwatch to justify a COI accusation, as I said earlier. Third, to be blunt, something itself about our COI guideline is screwed up if an editor is punished for who he "is" as opposed to (or in addition to) what he "does". It's absurd to assert that off-WP blogging about science and alternative medicine is COI at all; COI should only be cautionary. If Fyslee has a COI, then so would Richard Dawkins and the other scientists cited at Alternative Medicine if they were to edit at WP. And that would be an absurd finding, since we'd like WP to be the kind of place that really good scientists would want to edit, and be inclined to take seriously, right?

I'm going to call it as I see it (not to "escalate" the debate, but indeed to sound an alarm bell): neither Wikipedia nor science is a democracy, but the ArbCom is not intended to be equipped to rule on issues of science, and is verging on the brink of veering into bizarro-wikiality land with Fyslee: finding 3.3 and related issues in this case. It's time to take a breath, back up, go back to the fork in the road, and take a different turn. That includes carefully delineating what "bad" things Fyslee has and has not done. It would be very bad for WP even to have the appearance of ~~banning~~ sanctioning someone for making edits that are along the lines of what people like Marcia Angell say. WP should at least deign to tolerate the inclusion of views, and people who hold them, that mainstream science itself does. Thanks! Jim Butler^(talk) 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully have to take issue with Jim and Flonight about Quackwatch being "... supported by the mainstream scientific point of view”. Some editors have previously agreed that in limited cases, Quackwatch may represent a notable point of view or sentiment of some individuals or groups on medicine or, perhaps, science; or may contain useful references. Quackwatch simply is not “settled science”; rather than reflect the popular view, Quackwatch appears to attempt to drive the popular view. The fundamental problem is that when Quackwatch articles are subjected to scrutiny by knowledgeable, specialized readers for WP:NPOV, WP:V and source text research (WP:RS), Quackwatch articles *are* being found substantially wanting.

Although the source article [11] has been vigorously contested by Quackwatch favorable editors on a selective preferred usage of WP:RS rather than the general policy, the following conclusion needs to be seriously considered for every Quackwatch article applied at Wikipedia: “All 8 pages from www.Quackwatch.com ...were found to be contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo” The statement is in fact applicable on other Quackwatch articles outside the eight Quackwatch articles it was originally written for. Although I did not know of this exact statement at the time last year, its uncomfortable substance is why some ardent Quackwatch supporters could become extremely upset when shown major, current science publications, well within WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV that demonstrated the undisclaimed Quackwatch articles were inappropriately used as mainstream scientific and medical references, when “contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo” clearly applied to their proposals with Quackwatch articles as sources.

There is also the question whether Quackwatch effectively functions as self-published website of a well known, partisan editor at Wikipedia.

Fyslee has great difficulty accepting this problem on such sources that had been repeatedly discussed as discredited such asBCCA (see 3.(d)) as well as some Quackwatch subjects.

My earlier discussion[12] about Fyslee gaming the system to protect a Quackwatch POV would also seem to qualify as an example of dispruptive POV pushing by protecting Quackwatch articles and the related WP subjects from scrutiny and comparison.--I'clast 16:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Quackwatch doesn't represent the mainstream scientific POV, but does frequently represent a highly skeptical POV that is significant and well within mainstream science. Dawkins and Angell, and many others, suffice to prove that point beyond any reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that Quackwatch is without significant flaws as a source, I agree. But it does mean that wholesale (post-facto) dismissing of Quackwatch, and of Fyslee for being one of many editors who cited them, is completely inappropriate. The piling on and spin against Fyslee from I'clast and Levine2112 and others needs to be called out for what it is. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'clast piling on a half dozen+ new faces here at RFAR? Yeah, right. Wholesale or relatively uncritical acceptance of Quackwatch *is* an important question. I *did* protest and note these problems at the time. In the flash flood cases, no doubt Fylsee & Co were laughing up their sleeves so hard, they couldn't be bothered. In individual cases, I had to repeatedly redrill Fyslee *again* about the science & opinion parts of links previously discredited and repeatedly noted (e.g. BCCA). I've got to run but I'll be back. Questioning my good faith may prove unproductive.--I'clast 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'clast, I didn't mean to question your good faith, or Levine2112's, but I do think some comments from you both misjudge both scientific opinion and Fyslee's own good faith. Please accept my apology. What I want to reemphasize is the issue of Quackwatch and Dawkins and the sci mainstream, and its bearing on the bogus allegations of "COI" and "partisan" editing and "disruption" from Fyslee. I didn't mean to distract attention from that point. On Quackwatch, I agree with MastCell's and Lethaniol's comments below.[13] regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Quackwatch favorable editors"? Sounds like anyone that doesn't agree with you is being accused of bias. Not the way to make a point when discussion NPOV issues. --Ronz 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that relative reliability arguments (e.g. "source X says source Y is unreliable") will get us very far, or that we should be engaged in such a debate as Wikipedia editors (as private citizens is another matter). Rather than argue whether the Journal of Scientific Exploration or Quackwatch is more reliable, or which one "debunks" the other, I think both can be used if absolutely necessary, but their biases/agendas should be made clear. I agree that Quackwatch isn't settled science; it's an interpretation of the science, informed by a particular point of view, and frequently but not always reflects a "mainstream" view. It does have an advocacy angle, as User:I'clast pointed out. Does that mean it's a "partisan" source, in the sense of WP:RS? Should it ever be used as a source? My preference would be handle such things on a case-by-case basis with discussion on article talk pages, rather than by fiat. MastCell 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am more or less agreeing with MastCell here on the case-by-case basis for QW as *absolutely necessary* for thin subject areas where a substantial POV question is not presented and QW is the best apparent source available or at least a decent counterpoint. First in, first out when better references are available.

More primarily as noted by Peter earlier (below), Thatcher's metaresource approaches should be used as reliable sources. For sources of notable sentiment, the Quackwatch link should be annoted. A " black box warning would be usually appropriate. Without sullying good faith of many editors, the previously broadcast QW links seriously need to addressed and revisited in this manner.

Because Quackwatch and its progenitors go back almost/about 40 years and its related individuals propensity for filing or threatening lawsuits, it has been flying below the academic radar and given a free pass for a long, long time. One academic is not likely able to broadly confort random Quackwatch articles, they are well crafted opinion articles that give many readers the simulated look and feel of settled science. Rather what is happening is that specialized readers are finding deep placed flaws, either foundational or surreptious barbed points, in all or most of the handful or so of articles in their academic expertise or familiarity. Quackwatch's unannounced grandfathered position *is* one of the more interesting challenges in scientific literacy today.

The willy nilly use of QW links appear to frequently contravene Wikipedia principles and policies in different places, this appears to be a very bad approach and an unsound practice.--I'clast 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think Thathcer has given us a reasonable compromise: Don't use it as a source, use it as a meta resource to find information to source. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. Quackwatch often bases its opinions on supportive research only, and ignores conflicting research -- see confirmation bias. However, the research Quackwatch cites may well be good sources. Typically, a Quackwatch article has a references section from which an editor can find some citations which may be more reliable than Quackwatch (i.e. a research study, a peer-reviewed journal, a scientific magazine article, et cetera). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's an excellent compromise and intend to use it as such. I don't think Quackwatch should be used as a primary scientific source. Any time a Quackwatch reference can be replaced by a non-Quackwatch reference, I'll support it 100%. The only sticking points are that some documents are not available online except via Quackwatch (primarily legal and court documents), and that occasionally Quackwatch's opinion may be useful, provided it is stated as opinion (not fact), the source/agenda is made clear, and it is presented in a balanced way. Believe me, I have no interest in using Quackwatch as a source for the heck of it, but I guess I have a fundamental issue with this kind of thing being decided here, rather than by consensus on the relevant talk pages. If a blanket decision from ArbCom says "Quackwatch is unreliable" (and therefore not to be used as a source under any circumstances), I think it unecessarily ties editors' hands in ways that can't be foreseen right now (and it's hardly the most unreliable/partisan source in use on medical/alt-med articles, on the subject of "ignoring conflicting research" and confirmation bias). But I can live with whatever; Quackwatch is not something I want to spend a lot more of my Wikipedia time on. MastCell 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree with MastCell - when a non-Quackwatch ref can be used, then only use Quackwatch as a meta source. But if occasionally something is published by Quackwatch only, or we want to use their opinion, then we would need to ref their website. To have a blanket ban on using Quackwatch as a source, would be highly inappropriate, likely be abused, and would not allow for flexibility that Wikipedia is a currently benefiting from. For the ArbCom to set such a blanket precedent, would have huge repercussions. Cheers Lethaniol 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreement with Lethaniol and MastCell on this. --Jim Butler^(talk) 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm unaware if this is the case in the States, in Canada, all court descisions above municipal courts are available online, or will be made available online per a citizen's request under the Access to Information Act. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much the same deal in the US. Okay, I think we arriving at a conclusion for Quackwatch as used as reference/citation. Now then, what about Quackwatch articles being dropped in the external links sections? A great deal of Wikipedia articles have or had Quackwatch (and/or NCAHF, HomeoWatch, ChiroBase, CaseWatch, MLMWatch, etc.) in the external links section. While I feel that the external links are a slight bit more lenient in terms of RS, my main contention with Quackwatch makes me uneasy with seeing in so many external links sections -- that is that Quackwatch all to often presents its opinions as facts and thus can mislead the reader. There was a great deal of contention (for instance) at the actual Quackwatch Wikipedia article in that external links section for putting in a link to Tim Bolen's Quackpotwatch. The main issue with those in support of deleting it is that it contained opinions and innuendo passed off as facts and was therefore a poor source of information. (Please correct me if I am wrong about this.) Well, the same could and has been said about Quackwatch -- it contains opinions and innuendo passed off as facts and therefore is a poor source of information. While I agree with MastCell that this ArbCom shouldn't decide the end-all-be-all for the fate of Quackwatch links, I think that if we come to a general consensus here, it will save us some headaches on the individual article level. What do you all think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to reach such consensus, though the discussion is useful for future reference. I'm assuming no one has any instances of Fyslee's behaviour to discuss, other than after-the-fact accusations of him adding links that some people now find inappropriate. --Ronz 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That and that he falsely and zealously accused newbie HealthZealot of being Ilena's sockpuppet. Yes, so maybe consensus wasn't the right word. I just figure that if we could agree on something here regarding Quackwatch external links, then on the individual articles we can save ourselves some legwork. What we would agree on here would be a rule of thumb but not policy though. I don't know. I just think collaboration is a good idea and anything to ease that process on Wikipedia is equally a good idea. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally a minimalist with external links and would not push to include Quackwatch, nor would I generally be opposed to removing it from EL sections where it already exists, provided this doesn't unbalance the section in some major way. Sorry to get off topic, but it's hard to pass up an opportunity where we seem to be on the same page. About User:Healthzealot, the circumstances were certainly suspicious as to sock/meatpuppetry; although it probably could have been handled better, I don't think it's evidence that Fyslee is incorrigible. MastCell 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Levine2112 - "I think we arriving at a conclusion for Quackwatch as used as reference/citation. Now then, what about Quackwatch articles being dropped in the external links sections?" - you are totally jumping the gun. For starters if a decision by the ArbCom is going to be made here, it is not by the editors discussing it on this talk page, any conclusion will have to wait on the Arbitrators. Furthermore I strongly believe such consensus should involve all the community, not just those discussing this ArbCom case.

Again I stress - there has been zero consensus reached here yet - which is obvious by the fact that a number of editors disagree with you that it has.

Finally even if we came to the conclusion and consensus that we did not want to ever reference Quackwatch again, this should not be used against Fylsee - as this decision would have been made after the fact. Cheers Lethaniol 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It seems several editors here do agree that Quackwatch isn't always the best source and should be used more as a meta-source from which to glean more reliable sources. We may not have a consensus here on that, not is one warranted. I just thought since we are all discussing this here now, that we can all agree on certain factors which would help us edit Alt Med related articles more collaboratively in the future. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one big problem Levine - I suspect that a lot of Alt Med related editors, are 1. Not reading this thread and 2. Not having an input into this thread. This discussion needs to be taken to the community level. Cheers Lethaniol 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. That's why I don't think we should be dictating policy or guidelines here. Just trying to spurn some agreement among those whoare participating here who are some of the leading contributors to to Alt Med articles. That way when we do encounter Quackwatch issues on the article level, at least we all can be at some sort of prior agreement. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that any "agreement" on the talk pages of this ArbCom should be used with extreme care at the article level - because it will only take one person to disagree for such an agreement to become worthless. Better to leave it to the ArbCom to make their decisions. If they do not make any decisions about the use of Quackwatch as source then open up an RfC on the matter afterwards. Cheers Lethaniol 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fylsee's behaviour on track

So far the only poor conduct that has been laid against Fylsee since Ilena has left - is the poor handling of the sockpuppet issues surrounding User:Healthzealot. Unless more evidence is forthcoming, it looks like there is a lot of hope that Fylsee's conduct has improved (and will continue?), and therefore that he should not be topic banned, as he can still contribute positively. Cheers Lethaniol 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it was a good demonstration of behavior when he immediately deleted Tim Bolen's comments from the Quackwatch talk page. Basically, I fear that Fyslee's treatment of people with whom he has external conflicts has not changed. Since Ilena left, has that been put to the test? I don't know. But what happens when someone else with whom Fyslee has an external conflict arrives on the scene? More of the same behavior? I don't know. Now to play devil's advocate. What if it was Fyslee who was blocked and Ilena remained. Now the person with whom she has an external conflict is gone. Wouldn't we expect her behavior to improve? That's why I don't think it is fair to ban Ilena and not Fyslee. Then again, the proposal isn't to ban Fyslee, is it? But rather just to block Fyslee from Alt Med articles. Maybe his sanction and Ilena's aren't equal for good reason, but they should both be sanctioned. A warning here won't solve the issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that this is good evidence to bring up! The fact that Tim Bolen virtually issued legal threats against all Wikipedians, and that he is now up for an indefinite ban, based on the edits he and added, and that Fylsee removed, suggest that what Fylsee did was appropriate. Anything else? Cheers Lethaniol 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to interject something here. Of all the things I've ever done here, deleting Bolen's BLP violation (we are required to delete such things immediately on sight, IIRC - at least that's what the BLP template has previously stated) elicited the most support I can recall. It was supported on the talk page and off-wiki by a number of editors, admins, and even ArbCom members. I sought advice before doing it from many, and I was commended for doing it. BLP violations are very serious business. If any real mistake is made in such a case, it can always be undone, so if any error is to be made, it must be on the side of preventing BLP violations from occurring or remaining visible.

The only ones who objected were Levine2112 and Stbalbach, who seem to place Quackpot Watch and Quackwatch on the same level as attack sites. There just happens to be a very large difference. That they can't see that difference is very telling.

1. Bolen's site is purely ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, and direct libel, and his deposition is very revealing regarding this. The site is his repository for his email newsletters. It fails every imaginable policy and guideline here for use in any situation but one -- use in an article about Bolen himself.

2. OTOH, Quackwatch is a huge site with hundreds of contributors and advisers, with widely different types of information. There is no great dependence on ad homs, although the process of exposing deceptions and fraudulent behavior necessarily involves debunking, and exposing actions and attitudes of those so accused, and that involves revealing personal information. This is not the type of thing normally considered an ad hominem attack, which is what is done when one has no good answer, so one attacks the messenger rather than debunk their message. Quackwatch just does total debunking.

It is worrying that these two editors don't see this great difference. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112, if you wish to demonstrate that Fyslee's edit to the Quackwatch talk page is inappropriate, please support the accusation with a relevant link. Nothing that does or doesn't happen to Fyslee has any bearing upon "fairness" toward Ilena: she was indef blocked for revealing what she believed was personal information about another user. SlimVirgin's decision was firmly grounded in precedent and, since Fyslee hasn't made a similar violation, no parity whatsoever exists. We've been over the matters of relevant evidence and false linkage repeatedly: if you have some new point to raise or some fresh evidence for the Committee to consider, please bring such things to their attention. Yet it serves no useful purpose to repeat unverified, misleading, and irrelevant arguments, and persistent continuance of that activity may exhaust the assumption of good faith and result in a user conduct request for comment on your behavior based upon what is becoming an increasingly reasonable interpretation of your participation: deliberate misinformation and disruption of an arbitration case. Due to my own involvement I would not use my sysop tools, yet that does not impede me from opening these questions to the community for broader input. Please, substantiate what you claim. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled that Durova claimed that Fyslee was removing a legal threat that Bolen was lodging against all of Wikipedia editors. I read what Bolen wrote and I don't see a legal threat. I see some cautionary advice given to protect editors from frivolous libel lawsuits (text removed per WP:BLP) but no legal threat. Quackwatch is filled with attacks. It labels people as quacks and disciplines as quackery. To say that it is anything but an attck site would be misleading. There is a lot of fiction there and a lot innuendo. Honestly, I don't find Quackwatch or Quackpotwatch all that reliable. This is why I equate them as similiar unreliable and bad sources of information. The only reason I argued to keep Quackpotwatch as an external link on Quackwatch was per an agreement reached last year. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please check your facts. It was Lethaniol who made that assertion, not I. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm I think this is a thinly veiled legal threat: One more thing - In my opinion, what happened to Ilena Rosenthal does not apply to you at Wickipedia because you are an EDITED publication which makes each of you separately and together legally liable for the content of your presentation. So step carefully. Cheers Lethaniol 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it a sound legal warning. Telling editors to be careful or (text removed per WP:BLP) might slap a libel suit on you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest people read Wikipedia:No legal threats and make up their own minds. Cheers Lethaniol 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the legal threat is typical for Bolen, and he has always meant it as a personal threat to silence critics. It's quite common for him to issue such veiled threats. Intimidation is one of his favorite tools.

Regardless of how one interprets the legal threat, the rest of his post was bad enough to warrant deletion. It is factually inaccurate, tells direct untruths, and is therefore libelous. Bolen knows perfectly well that several of the things he wrote there are not true, since he has been corrected many times. Such attacks serve no purpose but to bring his war against Barrett to Wikipedia, immediately after Ilena had done the same. His previous message on March 1, and the previous vandalisms made from the other IPs in the same range reveal he has misused Wikipedia several times. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a legal threat. If you are interpretting that it was, then what was Bolen threatening? Clearly you have prior outside knowledge of Bolen, Fyslee. You have been named in a lawsuit filed by him. I just don't think that it was proper for you to be the one to delete it. As for the truth of what Bolen wrote, it would have been better to discuss those things before deleting it. How do we know they aren't true? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between legal advice and legal threats. Bolen was giving advice. (text removed per WP:BLP) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that removal for BLP is justified. Stephen Barrett's bio clearly shows that he sues quite frequently for libel. Bolen was warning editors about that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was Fyslee's reasoning for deletion: "rmv Tim Bolen's gross violation of BLP on many points. Wikipedia can't risk anything by housing his allegations and bringing his war here". Clearly, Fyslee has a pre-existing opinion (and conflict) with Bolen and took it out on Wikipedia. (Just as he did with Ilena.) Of course Fyslee doesn't want Bolen bringing his "war" here. Fyslee already brought his war and doesn't want the "enemy" showing up on the front lines. This is unacceptable behavior. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Levine can you link to the agreement to "keep Quackpotwatch as an external link on Quackwatch" please. Cheers Lethaniol 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here in the Quackpotwatch AFD it was agreed that Quackpotwatch be covered in Quackwatch. That was acceptable to me. But over the past year, I watched the coverage dwindle from a section to a paragraph to a sentence to a mere external link and now nothing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there was consensus last summer. AfD's aren't permanently binding - if consensus agrees the article doesn't need to mention it, what's the problem? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been consensus to remove it. Only edit wars and talk page disputes. I recognize and fully support consensus. In fact, I was calling for a vote on the talk page of Quackwatch. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As experienced editors will know, Wikipedia rarely does voting - see Wikipedia:Straw polls. Suggesting a vote is rarely appropraite and consensus should always be sought. Cheers Lethaniol 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a consensus, if not a vote? I don't want to get into a semantic debate, but there is little agreement at Quackwatch regarding the Quackpotwatch link. If there is a consensus to remove it, then remove it. Fine by me. I abide by consensus. But the fact is, it was removed before attaining any consensus. I had sugggested reinstated it until one could be reached. That never happened. Anyhow, this is wayyyyy off topic. I brought up Quackpotwatch for matters of comparison only. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk there, it sure looks more like consensus than bullying, I only see a couple editors supporting the inclusion. Are you sure you're just declaring it "not consensus" because it doesn't include you? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think "bullying" was good either. That's is why I removed it. But you will agree that there is heated debate. not necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn't say there is much of a consensus there though. There are about 3-4 editors in support of keeping the link and about 4-5 in support of deleting it. And yes, I am sure I am declaring it not consensus because of no agreement. Not because it doesn't included me. AGF, please. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of whether the Quackpotwatch link should be there or not - if consensus can not be reached by the users involved, then a WP:RFC may be required to help get outside opinions on the issue, and help break the deadlock. Cheers Lethaniol 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Levine2112, that you've ventured well into false equivalence territory regarding Ilena and Fyslee (especially comparing the former's hypothetical edits to the latter's real ones). Fyslee's edits recently speak for themselves. I'm off to discuss some articles with him now, in fact. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will never know how Ilena's hypothetical recent edits would have looked. All we can do is speculate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A history of 8 months of persistent, utterly refractory disruption makes such speculation relatively straightforward. I don't see how the proposed action against Ilena is in any way precipitate. MastCell 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illena was just coming into her own and began editing collaboratively on several articles. Let's not forget that Fyslee was editting about 6 months longer that Ilena. In that time, he managed to spam Wikipedia with dozens of Quackwatch and related links, add several vanity links, and treat editors with opposing views with uncivility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine, if you wish to pursue that thesis further I could complete my draft evidence statement, which I worked on before Ilena's indef block and which had seemed unnecessary afterward, in which I identify serious behavioral patterns rigorously verified with extensive diffs to support my assessment that Ilena knew exactly what she was doing and was playing dumb to exploit Wikipedia's WP:AGF policy. As the editor for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created, I am skilled and experienced at that sort of investigation. It isn't far from completion and I am confident it would lessen her chances of reinstatement, should she petition to have her editing privileges restored. Would you like to proceed with that line of discussion? Durova^Charge! 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's worth posting your evidence, since there seems to be a persistent belief that Ilena was a victim, was never given a fair chance, was still a newbie 8 months in, is no worse than Fyslee, etc. It's past time to put the idea that she's a Wikimartyr to rest. MastCell 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, distractions aside, unless there is more evidence coming, it's obvious that Fyslee's conduct has improved immensely. --Ronz 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Durova should include all of her evidence on the proper page. My feeling remains that Ilena was a victim upon her arrival at Wikipedia. A bit gruff, yes. But nothing more than what one might expect from a passionate newbie. That being said, if Durova has evidence to show the contrary, I would certainly be open to it. But forget me. It would be of value to the ArbCom. I also agree that Fyslee's behavior has improved. Aside from the false accusations on HealthZealot and biting newbie Bolen, Fyslee hasn't been spamming/defending links to Quackwatch and related sites, he hasn't been adding/defending his own vanity links, he has been much more civil, has ceased his edit wars and his pov-pushing has been reduced to a minimum. I still believe that he has a conflict of interest when it comes to Alternative Medicine and Barrett-related articles, but that aside, his edits to these kinds of articles of late has been on the up-and-up for the most part. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Levine, the evidence I already posted identifies me as female. I'll see if I can wrap up the draft sometime tomorrow. Durova^Charge! 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on this comment from Fyslee to a newbie? Kind of a veiled threat or just a threat? This is from Feb 20th 2007. So it is pretty recent. It seems like he is threatening to out someone's RL identity, but I may be misinterpreting. Any thoughts? By the way, I have seen other instances both on and off of Wikipedia of Fyslee taunting users (like Ilena) with conspiracy theories, suggesting that they suffer from paranoid delusions. I see the humor in it, but I imagine that it is irritaing and antagonistic to those on the receiving end. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: Not a threat in WP or legal terms. Fyslee removed it later that day (diff). I have been meaning to alert the arbitrators to this retraction. Fred Bauder took the lead when he wrote about his view of Fyslee: "Should there be doubt, check this out" (diff), referencing the same edit without calling attention to the fact that Fyslee had retracted it over 24 hours earlier.

Question to more ArbCom-savvy readers: would it help if I mailed Fyslee's retraction to the arbitrators?

Question to Levine: Could you please supply the diffs of the new accusations above? Spotting conspiracy theories sounds like Fyslee all right, although I doubt he has said it often of other Wikipedia users; but suggesting on Wikipedia that other editors suffer from (paranoid) delusions sounds much more like Ilena.(diff) AvB ÷ talk 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, AvB. Rather than add the diffs here, I went ahead and added them to the evidence page here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another new reinterpretion of unwitnessed history, again. The answer is that Alan2012 is an occasional, thoughtful contributor of hard-to-find mainstream references on altmed, who has shied away from many confrontational situations since last August on serious WP articles where Fyslee was around to observe also. Fyslee surely knows that Alan doesn't stick around if Alan's blood pressure starts going up. As far COI, Alan is plainspoken and open about his work background, more so than the larger fraction of conventional health editors here. Fyslee's statement normally would be simply out of line, instead of now tampering with a shy witness of relatively little edit experience, whom I believe mostly observes. *This* is one of the problems with Fyslee, sweet things in your ear and then, "chomp" or "tee-hee-hee". No amount of fresh syrup will cure the latter part, and I would be concerned about the syrup supply. It concerns me that Fyslee wouldn't hold such a "friendly offer of advice" back at such a critcal time or didn't delete it much sooner, say 15-20 minutes later.--I'clast 12:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your mention of Alan's blood pressure I infer that you do see how such things affect people, so you should understand how having to undergo an arbitration like this will affect experienced and dedicated Wikipedians like Fyslee even without being confronted with diffless innuendo as posted by Alan. 15-20 minutes? It probably took him much longer to cool down enough. I would have left Wikipedia by then if I had been Fyslee, simply because of the way such stress levels affect my health.

I'clast, it would help if you would not supply diffless innuendos about other editors. Please remember that this is an arbitration and provide some evidence. Otherwise it's not allowed, if only per WP:BLP. Which has been massively ignored by some of Fyslee's detractors on these pages, to the extent that I for one do not understand why these things are not removed by uninvolved editors and why the offenders are not blocked by uninvolved admins. From the policy: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." AvB ÷ talk 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Alan2012 - my experience is that they are not as "shy" as you make out I'clast - see [14] which is quite forthright, though that in no way excuses Fyslee's comments on Alan2012's talk page.

Also I would like to make the point that the comments on Alan2012's talk page were added BEFORE Ilena was banned. My initial question was whether Fyslee's behaviour had improved or not since Ilena's ban. So though the Alan2012 edit is relevant to the ArbCom, and has been discussed in detail elsewhere, it does not help in answering my question. Cheers Lethaniol 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shy" because he seems reticent, not delicately spoken.

Although I did expect Fyslee to take my updated evidence section[15] seriously and for him to reply in his self interest, there are elements to his reply[16] that I felt were ill-advised, self-contradictory[17] and not reconcilatory in any way when I modified my criticism and left him a note[18]. This strikes me as an indication of "business as usual" down the road. I see more syrup, not substance.--I'clast 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) PS I've just established the editor's RL identity and COI. He has been quite open about it actually, giving his full name on several user talk pages. He also provided his e-mail address and gave away his IP-address; both trace back to the same ISP and sort of naturally lead to his home page. Maybe Fyslee was hurt by the fact that someone of "stature," someone he respected, had shown up here to speak out against him, or by the fact that the editor was testifying based on a viewpoint not acquired on Wikipedia. Another explanation would be that the viewpoint was nothing more than negative spin put on Fyslee's positive learning curve. The similarly incensing possibility that the editor had been canvassed must have crossed his mind - this is, after all, not a regular user (contribs) who logged on to explain that Ilena was assuming good faith. He did so, I'm sure unintentionally, in an offensively incorrect spot, namely in the middle of Fyslee's own Evidence section (diff). Later on he posted a comment on the main arbitration page (diff). Both edits were diffless and should have been ignored by the arbitrators. I now personally confirm the COI of this editor which in my opinion should prohibit him from speaking out against Fyslee without declaring this interest. Since we're apparently not to provide an editor's RL ID even if posted to WP before, I'll have to leave it at that. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan's real life details were so easy find, I've always considered that a more than adequate disclosure, especially in comparison to most other editors here.--I'clast 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly good enough for normal editing, I would have no problem whatsoever with that. In fact, like anyone else, Alan2012 is allowed to edit without providing real-life identification, credentials, etc. It's just that when editor Alan2012 provides a comment in an arbitration, how are arbitrators to know about his relevant COI? They are not expected to go through anyone's edit history to see what their COI could be. It's better that editors declare possibly relevant COIs themselves when participating in an arbitration. In this case it is my expressed opinion that Alan2012's evidence should be disregarded. Probably superfluously anyway in view of the lack of diffs. AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have any COI to declare or are we all assuming that none of us have anything to do with Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, Ilena Rosenthal, Fyslee, or NCAHF outside of Wikipedia and none of us are hired advocates for any of the aforementioned? I admit to having received emails from Fyslee and Ilena via Wikipedia occasionally and only concerning Wikipedia in content. Other than that, I have had no contact with any of these people or organizations outside of Wikipedia. I admit to not even knowing about these people or organization before coming to Wikipedia. I truly don't feel that I have any COI here. I attest that this declaration is true to the best of my knowledge. Anyone else care to make such a declaration? No obligation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading up at WP:COI especially this bit:

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

If people wish to reveal their COI that is their choice - your comment I'clast "in comparison to most other editors here" makes it sound like you think all users should reveal their COI. Whether you believe that or not, that is not what Wikipedia believes. Remember "discuss the article, not the editor", in this case Fysleee is not up for a topic ban because of his COI, but because of his inappropriate conduct i.e. things like incivility. Though his COI is important for his motivations, it does not follow that his COI is responsible for his good or bad conduct. Cheers Lethaniol 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification *I* am not nattering Fyslee about any COI. I simply said that Alan2012 had better addressed any COI about himself than most of any of Alan's critics. The COI that *I have pursued* pertains to another editor about Ilena and specifically does not refer to Fyslee. Fyslee's complaint about my COI work with respect to another editor is specious and muddies the situation by involving himself in other parties' matters trying to discredit me, whinging on that it does matter to him. Much earlier, I completely & specifically relieved Fyslee from that AN / COI discussion[19][20]. and still do. My normal view about COI is pretty tolerant - I put up with a socktroll Vioxx lawyer doing pro malo work for three months, was somewhat tempted, more for trolling, but he embarrassed himself so badly that the sock finally disappeared before I washed the dirty socks.--I'clast 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what I'clast is trying to say in as many words as possible is he believes that I have a COI as I am either 1. Daniel Barrett, son of Stephen_Barrett and/or 2. Another person who interacts with Ilena on USENET. Either way it has little to do with Ilena's behaviour, nor of I'clasts peculiar hounding of this matter in this ArbCom, nor with WP:COI, nor with reality for that matter. Although it is worth noting that I'clast gave Ilena the information that she proceeded to shoot herself with. Anybody with a wry sense of humour would note the irony, and agree in saying with friends like this, who needs enemies!. Shot info 06:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Uncyclopedia. Personal attacks, humourous or not, should be avoided. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 07:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee's behaviour on track (2)

So far the only poor conduct that has been laid against Fyslee since Ilena has left - is the poor handling of the sockpuppet issues surrounding User:Healthzealot. Unless more evidence is forthcoming, it looks like there is a lot of hope that Fylsee's conduct has improved (and will continue?), and therefore that he should not be topic banned, as he can still contribute positively. Cheers Lethaniol 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I've copied the above from the previous section. Anyone missing anything, please add below. AvB ÷ talk 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

Relevant contributions so far:

Levine2112 has suggested that Fyslee's edits of Tim Bolen's contributions may not have been appropriate to a certain degree.(diff). Responses are here.
I'clast: Although I did expect Fyslee to take my updated evidence section[21] seriously and for him to reply in his self interest, there are elements to his reply[22] that I felt were ill-advised, self-contradictory[23] and not reconcilatory in any way when I modified my criticism and left him a note[24]. This strikes me as an indication of "business as usual" down the road. I see more syrup, not substance.--I'clast 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (diff)[reply]
Levine2112 has suggested that Fyslee handled the Ilena versus Healthzealot suspected sockpupetty situation poorly.

AvB ÷ talk 15:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add evidence to the evidence subpage. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for #1 and #3, they are already part of my evidence section. Thanks, AvB, for the summary and keeping things organized! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time constraints

I'd better leave word here in case the arbitration concludes before I can get back to this: when I posted yesterday I had anticipated that my time would be pretty free to follow up on my offer of completing my draft evidence statement at this arbitration. Some unrelated issues have cropped up since then, and unfortunately those other matters need to take priority. I'll get back here and make good on the offer if my time allows. You have my apologies if this presents an inconvenience. Although my planned presentation could make a difference in some commentators' opinions on this case I doubt a full statement would have much impact on the formal outcome (which is why I had left it incomplete this long). Regards, Durova^Charge! 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]