Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

message: The above-linked current AN discussion by Wizardry Dragon demonstrates my feelings more adequately than I could do by rephrasing them here - context is a beautiful thing. For ease of identification, I provide the following diffs, which outline my participation in the discussion at WP:AN: 
*DB1, 11:35, January 19, 2007
*DB2, 14:02, January 20, 2007
*DB3, 23:23, January 20, 2007
*DB4, 03:11, January 21, 2007
I initially opposed an indefinite block of Ilena, for a variety of reasons - see DB1 for my full opposal. I also respectfully request the Arbitration Committee read Sarah Ewart's initial objecton - 11:03, January 19, 2007 - on the issue, that were posted just before mine (and hence are just above it in the discussion). As such, I acknowledged at the time (and still do acknowledge - see DB2) that both users acted in a way which could only be described as deplorable, however to issue a community-based sanction of any sort on one user would be heavyhanded, unfair and not encompassing the situation fully. I suggested a firm, final warning citing precedents set both by this Committee and those established as a guideline on Wikipedia, namely WP:HA. I hinged a lot of hope on the fact that all parties would agree to formal mediation via the Mediation Committee, however unfortunately one user rejected this proposal.
As such, as I elaborated in DB2, I felt we were out of options short of blocking both users indefinitely, which I personally felt would be overkill given the situation. The only two options I thought were logically possible at 14:00 (UTC) January 20 were to file a RFC or else come here. The latter recieved the most favour amongst those involved, with a well-reasoned statement by Durova - 21:49, January 20, 2007 - highlighting the potential problems of an RFC.
As such, as I stated in DB3, I see no other solution to this mess. Reluctance has pushed this dispute here, and I hope the Committee accept this case to be the final determiner in a problem which has been compounded by numerous decisions by a couple ofthe named parties.
I wish to also acknowledge DB4. One of the parties listed has indicated that they believe this request should be rejected on the grounds that it is provocative. I would like to clarify that this user is the one who decided to stop the Mediation by rejecting it, leaving no alternative. I cite the ever-reliable Newyorkbrad - 03:13, January 21, 2007 - on this point also.
I am normally one to criticise about how this Committee takes on too many cases that could be resolved through the Mediation Committee and/or Requests for Comment, however I have no doubt that this case should be accepted on the grounds that all other means of resolution have been exhausted. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by peripherally-involved Daniel 

message: My involvement is as an editor in some BvR related articles (NCAHF, Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett). Ilena's situation raises several disquieting issues about Wikipedia, its accuracy and WP:BLP.  What do we owe the living subjects of articles in terms of accuracy and fairness, in the face of significant systemic bias at WP when they have unique verifiable information or insight, even if they are not immediately well prepared for our culture and environment? Particularly where their real life adversaries are not only Wiki saavy, but so well integrated and dominant in the Wiki environment as to be so commonly accepted as to be cited as V RS fact sources for items they most certainly are not, that we collectively are blind to their biases and infuences? Even when this Wiki world directly & severely collides hard with the real world results and we still can't hear the question much less the answer accurately, even for fairly knowledgable independent editors (myself & a lawyer/editor)? I have been surprised how difficult accurately addressing these issues has been in the face of more numerous but oblivious or conflicted editors. I myself strain to hear Ilena accurately when she addresses systemic issues that drown her out, and do include Fyslee. Although I would recommend that they simply avoid each other, that has not been possible because both have great interests in the same articles where they can also provide special insight & questions but a large editorial imbalance exists.--I'clast 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by peripherally involved [[User:I'clast|I'clast]]

message: I should just like to point out that I am not Fyslee and have not had anything to do with him, not that having had anything to do with him would have been bad or anything. Just in case people were wondering. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by entirely uninvolved [[User:Fys|Fys]]

message: I am not a party to this action, but I felt compelled to comment.  I have not had any interaction with Ilena, nor made any contributions to the article in question, but I have had some interaction with Fyslee, some of which have been less than productive, for which I take some responsibility as I could have handled it better.  
A concern was raised by Jance (maybe others) that Ilena has revealed Real World information about Fyslee.  I feel it should be pointed out that it was Fyslee who posted Real World information about himself on his talk page when he set it up.  User page  He posted his name, occupation and internet interests.  It was up for some time before he removed it and is now asking that this information not be used, which he is entitled to do.  So, IMO, he poisoned his own well.
Also, Ilena raised the issue that fyslee has posted numerous links at Wikipedia for websites privately owned and operated by an ex-psychiatrist with whom Fyslee has had a long-standing relationship. This relationship appears to be on a personal level as well as Fyslee serving as his assistant listmaster and possibly other direct Internet assistance and responsibilities, as stated on his User page.   User page   It was only a few weeks ago that he resigned from his job as Assistant Listmaster to this individual.  Although not the issue at hand, these numerous sites, IMO, seem to be severely biased POV almost attacking respected individuals, hardly NPOV nor encyclopedic.  There could be easily many dozens of these potential COI links, perhaps over 100 that could be viewed as link-spamming.  The exact number would be very revealing, but not likely forthcoming.  As indicated by Ilena, Fyslee has also placed links to his personally owned and operated websites in Wikipedia articles.  IMO, this is not encyclopedic and is exploiting WP and subverting it’s intent and mission.
Either way, Ilena felt it was a Conflict of Interest for him to do this.  I had agreed with Ilena on Fyslee’s talk page about this issue, having found it quite concerning. I had raised this issue myself several times in the past, as have others.  I believe the offending links and number should be made known by Fyslee to the Wikipedian community in the interest of allowing Ilena to assist her in presenting her case here and allowing the admins to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence.  If found in COI, removal might be considered an appropriate action.
 
Ilena was also concerned, and voiced this in several places, that these numerous links also requested donations, which IMO, is extremely self-serving.  I have also raised this issue on several occaisions. After noting this on Fyslee’s talk page, which BTW, he invited other editors to comment, his response to this and the above concerns was to promptly remove my remarks from his talk page, claiming it was an attack by me  See:.  Comments removed  While he is allowed to do this, to me, this action speaks volumes and I don’t feel was justified, not to mention that it is suppressive behaviour and destroys the enjoyment of community participation in Wikipedia.
So while Ilena is not without issues herself, and these two certainly seem to have a long history and dysfunctional relationship, I believe that there are POV, neutrality, COI, behavioural issues on Fyslee’s part as well and this must be considered and addressed. I feel that Ilena’s concerns must be given the proper attention, regardless of her past history. Thank you.   Steth 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Steth|Steth]] 

message: I would hope that ArbCom would look past the (understandably, I suppose, considering, but not very helpful) angry tone of the above and take steps to fix the very real problem. We've been discussing QuackWatch on the Workshop page of the Fringe Science workshop page, and we've pretty well established that it's nothing like an unreliable source. ArbCom typically doesn't rule out sources as unreliable just in general, but it's especially odd they'd do so on one that fits WP:RS so strongly, and it's mentioning as such is being used by civil POV-pushers to try to remove a well known, extremely well-regarded and important source critical of their beliefs in fringe topics. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to User:Geoff Plourde's comment that "Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques." -- of course it doesn't, because they are not considered real medicine by any accepted medical expert or authority. That's like trying to argue that no biologist can weigh in on how absurd the notion of Nessie or Bigfoot existing in the real world because university biology courses and DNA studies do not include dissection practice on cryptids. Medical studies have examined chiropractic, acupuncture and other techniques. The individual behind QuackWatch is aware of these studies. That's why he says what he says, not because he is ignorant and incapable of saying anything educated on the topic, but precisely because he is well versed on the fields from a medical and scientific viewpoint. It's absurd to try to use your own personal opinion to rule anyone who disagrees with you as a bad source and expect Wikipedia to just follow whatever you say. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]])

message: This finding attempted to rule upon a content issue  outside the Committee's remit.  Although a necessary part of arbitration does relate to obvious calls such as the unreliability of citations to non-notable blogs, this was not that type of obvious call.  The evidence upon which the Committee passed this finding was more emotional than factual (one party had been in a protracted lawsuit with the owner of the Quackwatch site) and regardless of what POV is at stake that is not a good basis for arbitration findings.  I have no opinion about the suitability or unsuitability of Quackwatch for encyclopedic citations.  This is a matter for the community to determine. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]]

message: "As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " 
Well, maybe the site is reliable and maybe not.  Looks like it might have some wise council sometimes.  But that does not mean we should not prefer better sources when available, nor does it mean we do not attribute statements.  If it weren't purportedly defending the mainstream, it would be considered a very unreliable source.  Its "reliability" comes totally from its POV, since few here would for example think that the Parapsychological Association is an RS, although it is far more RS per policy. As it is, Quackwatch and similar sources should never be used unattributed, and I'm guessing that is the major point of contention in articles, as it has been in the past. I mean, read WP:RS.  ——Martinphi    Ψ~Φ—— 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Martinphi]]

message: There is some evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine.  Please note that this is not just another way of saying "he has a pro-science bias (chuckle, well, shouldn't we all)".  I mean that he holds alt-med, which like conventional med ought to rise or fall based on evidence, to an overt double standard.
====="I won't even look through that telescope"=====
For example, from a Village Voice article: "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.
Homeopathy, I can understand; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence to date is far from extraordinary.  But chiropractic and acupuncture?  Whether or not vertebral subluxation theory or qi and meridians strike you as bullshit, the practices of spinal manipulation and acupuncture (inserting needles at particular sites) are the subject of mainstream research, and show some promise in the treatment of pain (and nausea, in the case of acupuncture), according to the Cochrane Collaboration, a resource for evidence-based medicine.  Cochrane, unlike Quackwatch, meets WP:MEDRS and takes the stance that more research is appropriate and necessary in these fields.
When Barrett refuses even to acknowledge that things like chiro or acu, which are physical procedures with plausible mechanisms, should even be studied before being dismissed, he's out on a bit of a limb.  Dare I say, he's something of an extremist.
=====Quackwatch is "occasionally informative"=====
From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:
:"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours." 
Exactly.  Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.
=====Ultra-mainstream IOM held to double-standard by... not-too-mainstream Dr. Barrett=====
The Institute of Medicine, one of the American Academies of Science and certainly one of the most prestigious and reliable English-language sources on medicine, conducted a study on alternative medicine ca. 2003-2005.  Barrett criticized the panel for doing what any other panel on any other subject convened by the IOM would do:  including members who had professional affiliations, sometimes including grant money, related to the study's subject area (here, alt-med).  This is disingenuous and a flagrant double  standard, since a panel on radiology would obviously include some radiologists (some of whom were academics and therefor getting grant money), and so forth.
Such a double standard is plainly indicative of bias.
=====Conclusion=====
This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases.  Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS.  In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims.  When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Backin72]]

message: This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases.  Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS.  In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims.  When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I'm not too worried about whether the journalist quoted in the Village Voice is much of an RS, because he's just giving voice to a conclusion that follows from Barrett's own words.  When Barrett denies the need even to gather evidence, or uses flagrant double standards, he's providing all the evidence of his own bias that any fair-minded person needs.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to John Nevard:  Do you think Barrett is a reliable source on his own views?

message: It reflects very well on the quality of Quackwatch that the best critical quote Backin72 could come up with was from a Mr. Peter Barry Chowka in that well-known bastion of evidence-based medicine the Village Voice, and it reflects very poorly on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he helped squander their tax dollars.
One simply has to examine his website. The latest article is on "An International Story
That Helped to Define 2008"- the terrible defeat of Thabo Mbeki, AIDS hero, and his anti-HIV treatment policies, which biased pro-science Western science found to have killed at least 330,000. It namedrops fellow AIDS hero David Rasnick. And it shows up the mainstream scientific establishment, represented by Oprah Winfrey.
So there you are. If you accept the judgement of important public figuress like Chowka, Quackwatch is simply an entertainment site. Nevard (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:John Nevard]]

message: The evidence for the unreliability of Quackwatch is its outright rejection of all forms of alternative medicine, "There is no alternative medicine". This results in a blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures such as acupuncture with have some support, see 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. This article, 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, 
and "Chinese Medicine"' is a good example of how self-published material by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is featured on the site. Fred Talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental principle which is being enforced by deprecating a blatantly partisan source such as Quackwatch is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is no reason to characterize such enforcement as a content decision, as, if verifiable, the information excluded from Quackwatch can be found in a reliable source. Take a look at 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. One of his points of argument is "Falun gong, which China banned several years ago, is a Qigong varient claimed to be "a powerful mechanism for healing, stress relief and health improvements." That brings up the argument that aspects of alternative medicine, particularly acupuncture, have cultish aspects, but does not do so in a scientific way, but as guilt by association. The quote, "which China banned several years ago" is a good example of the type of irrational argument one encounters on the site; China banned Wikipedia. Fred Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material from Quackwatch cited in the founding of fact in dispute, "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a good example of the sort of self-published material to be found on the site. Fred Talk 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal point of view is more anti than pro alternative medicine, but I have no strong feelings which would have required recusal. Fred Talk 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Fred Bauder

message: When this finding was made and the arbitration was closed, editors used this finding to go to many articles to remove all mentions of QuackWatch from articles.  They actually diffed to this finding saying that the arbs stated the QW was an unreliable source.  Now this brings the questions, if the arbitrators didn't want to make a decision on content, then why did they?  I have also seen attacks to Fyslee with this motion attached to prove that what he added was against the policies made by that decision.  I believe that this does need to be rewritten so that it says that arbs do not make content decisions.  Editors that go and remove all references to QW where it is being used appropriately should be warned if a new decision is written that this site is WP:Reliable source which from my readings here and at another arb case is being stated.  I also agree that if another ref is available that should be used but it doesn't mean that QW has to be erased at the same time.  This motion, in a nutshell, is used as battering ram to remove this source in WP:Fringe articles all to often.  It is also used to debunk any editor who has placed the dif into an article.  So in closing, I hope the arbitrators will either rewrite the section for clarity or do a new case to clarify this situation.  Just a side note about this, Fyslee esp. has had to defend himself on many ocassions do to an editor warning him about using partisan sites against arbs ruling, this I also find to be a big problem for this editor to edit articles without the tensions that this motion has caused.  Thank you for listening. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Statement by''' [[User:Crohnie]]

message: Everyone interested in this subject area has biases. Those of Quackwatch are declared, and the general view of the scientific and medical world is that overall they are sound, and based on evidence. To the extent the finding was written by Bauder, it represents his personal viewpoint, which is not sound in the view of most of those in the general subject field (or at least such is my own bias); he is entitled to it, and articles should take appropriate account of such fringe viewpoints, but it illustrates unmistakably why arb com should not be making such pronouncements.  The decision that resulted from his view is harmful to the basic principle of NPOV and objectivity.  No source can be used uncritically; the tradition Wikipedia dichotomy between reliable|unreliable is too crude to be helpful in many situations. The finding was both beyond he remit of arbcom, then and now, and in any case simply wrong.  Not that arbcom should declare Qw legitimate.  Its legitimacy is no concern of the committee. Its use in articles is to be determined,as with all sources, on a case-by-case basis. I suppose it would be correct & within its remit for arb com to confirm, as a general principle of editing behavior, that people should regard sources in a careful manner. DGG (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Statement by''' [[User:DGG]]

message: Some of the wording of the first motion looks a little odd.
The problems with some of the Quackwatch content are well known and I've no intention of defending that site.  However the reasoning given in the proposed new wording seems to send a couple of confusing messages that could end up being badly misinterpreted.  From experience of previous misunderstandings, I think it's reasonable to expect that any infelicitous or insufficiently clear wording could come back to cause problems in future, so it's worth striving to get this right.
The proposed new wording is:
: The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. (emphasis mine).
The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:
* that it is impossible to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies and misconduct by giving a balanced presentation.
* that giving a balanced presentation of the field of frauds, myths, etc implies refraining from criticising such practises.
The problems with these interpretations are as follows.
* Nothing in a balanced presentation can say anything about fraud except that it is wrong.  A presentation that purports to defend the right to defraud, even if "balanced" by the victim's point of view, would be a sham.  "These fellows harm their customers by their actions, and they do not care about it.  On the other hand they make a lot of money which they may spend on philanthropic works."  Obviously that's a mockery of balance.
* A balanced presentation of any field, moreover, would necessarily cover it reasonably comprehensively.  If there are active fraudsters at work, a balanced presentation will say so in sufficient detail to enable the reader to recognise the kind of problems at work and how to avoid them.
If the proposed wording were interpreted in this way, it would tend to cause problems where any website explicitly states "we're here to provide you with the information you need to avoid the health frauds."  I'm sure this applies to several very reputable and well balanced organisations in my own country, including statutory trading standards bodies.  The wording could be read to imply that such bodies are intrinsically biased, which (except for being against fraud and other crimes) they are not.
Please consider taking the time to clarify what you mean.  The meaning is not clear to me. --TS 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway]]

message: * 2 things: 1. Fred Bauder was the original author of this finding, and 2. there were multiple sections that had the same content in the original proposed decision page, see this and its subsections. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Side (i.e. non-clerk view): I think Fred meant this: Stephen Barrett's argument that China banned Falun Gong is irrational argument, as China also banned Wikipedia. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *I did not agree with several aspects of the ruling at the time. The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I contacted Fred, who drafted that decision. Ex-clerk,  — Rlevse • Talk •  00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion