Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Barrett v. Rosenthal

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random user 39849958 (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 12 March 2007 (→Fyslee: true stories). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:11, 12 March 2007 by Random user 39849958 (talk | contribs) (→Fyslee: true stories)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Arbitrators

Arbitrators participating in this case:

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

As of March 10, 2007, there are 11 arbitrators active on this case and 1 is recused (see below), so the majority is 6.

Morven and Raul654 are 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

:::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 ]. So who is more "respectable"? Shot info 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

:::::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)

Two points:

  1. I wasn't aware that non-ArbCom members were allowed to comment on these pages.
  2. 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)
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 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Moving around ... vanity links" isnot the same as "adding vanity links". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages policy. -- Levine2112 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • 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)
I doubt Fyslee was the first to link to that well-known site from Misplaced Pages. 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 16:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
First I do not agree with the overgeneral sounding "...source was accepted by the Misplaced Pages 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)
To address the first point, although certain editors do and have taken issue with the site, the community accepted it - as another editor demonstrated, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages.
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
I agree with this observation. COI would be a better basis for action here. Durova 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the appearance of COI and vanity links should be avoided. The oft repeated charge (not mentioned here) of "spamming" (by Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
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 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jim Butler's comment above. Durova 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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) 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), the IOM (Institute of Medicine) and, NCCAM (National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine) 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)

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 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages vulnerable to accusations of COI-influenced content such as leveled by Ilena and Levine2112. AvB ÷ talk 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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


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)

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)
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 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

I second Fyslee's appeal for justice. In the Discussion by Arbitrators section of the Proposed decision page, quoting from Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, Fred Bauder stated: "Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate vehicle for advocacy or propaganda." An excellent response to how Ilena tried to use Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's neutrality. Then again, he already knew her mission, while she had misjudged his: Fyslee is here to help build an excellent, neutral, 💕. AvB ÷ talk 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My evidence shows that Fyslee had a mission the moment he arrived at Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages policy, but rather as a protector of his own interests. Sometimes that means enforcing Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. I submit my evidence as it stands and I leave the rest in the hands of the ArbCom. -- Levine2112 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
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, Misplaced Pages 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 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Cheers Lethaniol 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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 09:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
COI should not extend to editing items on one's profession. If it does, what is the bloody point of Misplaced Pages? 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have not edited on Misplaced Pages 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)

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. . ... Kenosis 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

Misplaced Pages: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)

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)
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)

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)

  • It takes two to dance. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • 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 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
          • 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 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree that Fyslee's behavior deserves sanctions. My disagreement is over the contention that his actions amount to parity with Ilena's. At Misplaced Pages 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 03:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I see a parity between how Ilena treated Fyslee to how Fyslee treated Ilena. They both brought their outside dispute to Misplaced Pages, both edited inappropriately, both added vanity links and both violated COI. -- Levine2112 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
                • 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 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • 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)
                    • 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)
                      • 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 Misplaced Pages: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 19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


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 ANI. 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 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)(diff)

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)

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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
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 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the evidence on games and incivility with Fyslee. 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)

I'clast, the "attack" of which you accuse Fyslee is nothing more than his defense against some of your accusations in this ArbCom case. thx, Jim Butler 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
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 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)