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

message: Arbitrators participating in this case:
*Blnguyen
*Charles Matthews
*Flcelloguy (now recused, see below)
*FloNight
*Fred Bauder
*Jdforrester
*Jpgordon
*Kirill Lokshin
*Morven
*Paul August
*SimonP 
*UninvitedCompany
There are 12 arbitrators active on this case and 1 is recused (see below), so the majority is 6.
Raul654 is currently inactive. Mackensen was appointed as an arbitrator after this case was opened, so he is considered non-participating unless he states otherwise.
:I am recusing myself from this case because of a recent mistake I made, inadvertantly replying to an email sent to me and adding an address included in there, misunderstanding something after only scanning through the email initially. In any case, I'm going to go ahead and be conservative and recuse; this makes 10 active arbitrators, but the majority remains the same. Clerks or anyone helping out, feel free to correct anything if I've missed something. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute "facts" 3.2 and 
3.3
 

message: 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)
replies: text: If we stick with more neutral and respected organizations (such as Academy of Science) rather than low-brow trash-talkers (suchas Quackwatch), we will all benefit from a more intelligent encyclopedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it's been added to the volume of pages (over fifty I find at a cursory glance) it has concerns me greatly, as one of the people working to fight spam on Wikipedia.  I have recused myself from action because of this arbitration case, but if it is added in similar volumes again, I am certain a Shadowbot operator will put the bot on "Nuke". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Not true. As recently as last Decemeber he was moving around one of his vanity links placed on Mucoid plaque (all the while removing links which he deemed were inappropriate external links). The vanity link was finally found and deleted by another editor. Please see my evidence entry for complete coverage. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moving around ... vanity links" isnot the same as "adding vanity links". — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that the inclusion of his external link, which was never used as a source, served to provide useful information for a very long time, and was replaced only when better information was finally found.  This is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  Fyslee added it as a new editor to the article when it had no sources, and other editors let it remain, apparently while it was useful. --Ronz 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was protecting his vanity link and had been doing so for nearly a year. Fyslee was handling the vanity link across many edits on Mucoid plaque. He had many opportunities to delete the link. He had previously deleted many links to other blogs (his site is a blog) and he had previously deleted other people's vanity links (his link is a vanity link). Clearly he knew and understood the WP:EL policies and clearly he was knowingly violating these policies to serve his own interests. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You had been moving that link around all year, well past your newbie days. You were clearly aware of it and yet you left it there (all the while deleting other links which failed WP:EL. Finally someone else deleted your vanity  link very recently. How do you justify not deleting it yourself? Remember, this isn't about money, so your derrogatory comparison to what you call "sCam" is out of place. Your interest lies in passing off your opinions as facts. This is counter-productive to creating an encyclopia of value. You want the world to all know what you know so they will all believe what you believe. And I am sure you are on this crusade with the noblest of intentions - for what you feel is the betterment of people's health. But that still doesn't justify this knowing violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: There were only a handful of serious editors on that article from the time you added it until the time your vanity link was found and removed. That they overlooked it and that you chose to remain silent about it for nearly a year was to your own benefit. Finally, a new editor to the article discovered the link and removed it with this to say. Of course you didn't dispute it because you knew this editor was right and you knew it was a vanity link. Basically, you knew better but you figured you'd let it slide until someone else discovered it. So yes, keep doing what you are doing and recurse Wikipedia thoroughly now for all of your other vanity links which you may have let slide. You found one and I found a couple others. Are there any more? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute all "facts" 3.* 

message: "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)
replies: text: I think that finding accepts some unsupported accusations at face value and unduly deprecates Fyslee's overall editing history DurovaCharge! 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisan viewpoints: Finding of fact (3.3)

message: 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)
thread_title: Partisan links

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

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

message: I will put my thoughts here, as they directly relate to Fyslee’s request above. It is also time to disclose that I have been mentoring Fyslee by email, at the request of Durova, since the time I first became in involved in this ArbCom case. My main reason for not disclosing this fact earlier is that I felt it would prejudice my involvement in areas not related to Fyslee’s case, which I thought I could help by bringing another neutral viewpoint to. As it happens, my advice to Ilena has been very similar to that which I have given to Fyslee – to concentrate on their own user conduct, not the detailed interpretation of policy (which the ArbCom will be experts in) or the adverse conduct of others (which is IMHO can only be a small mitigating factor in both Fyslee’s and Ilena’s cases).
I will not be commenting on any interpretation of policies, or any users’ conduct other than Fyslee, accept to say that some conduct on both sides appears to be far from perfect – hence I strongly support Thatcher’s suggested remedy of an article/topic probation. 
During my short mentoring of Fylsee, I have seen that although he has his own strong points of view, very importantly he appears to care for the integrity and development of Wikipedia beyond using it just as a platform for his own views. Unfortunately Fylsee has become bogged down in the interpretation of policies during this ArbCom, and has not adequately defended himself here. Most important is the fact that he has only just now commented on how he should be and will be improving his conduct in the future, which is the crux of the case against his further participation in the topics at hand. Furthermore, until recently (unlike Ilena) Fylsee has not had the benefit of a mentor to help improve such conduct.  
Other users have defended Fylsee based on a broad range of positive contributions he has made. The question we need to ask ourselves now, is whether we can continue to harness such future positive contributions, while decreasing the impact of any negative contributions. If Fylsee had only edited in a negative manner then obviously we would want a full topic/site ban, but if we wish to retain the positive contributions that do exist in Fylsee’s editing, then some other remedy needs to be considered. The problem with an indefinite topic ban is that it does not encourage any improvement in user conduct, as well as losing positive contributions.
Therefore alternatives need to be investigated, such as: allowing comments on the topic talk pages; a limited ban (time length); a full ban but a review of Fylsee’s conduct after a certain time to see if it has improved and remove ban if so; a probation period (as recommended by Durova) with a rapidly escalating block regime if Fylsee conduct does not improve. If these are alternatives are coupled to the mentorship that I am willing to offer, they stand IMHO a decent chance of succeeding in bringing Fylsee’s conduct up to scratch. If it does not work, then either ArbCom remedies or the usual Admin powers, can be brought to bear on Fyslee.
(Note that I have not mentioned anything about POV pushing or COI, as basically even the users with the strongest of views or conflict of interests can still contribute positively if their conduct allows for it).
So I hope the ArbCom reconsiders the proposed remedy with respect to a full topic ban on Fyslee, proposing an alternative that will encourage positive conduct and contributions, which with the aid of mentorship, will help improve and not damage Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Lethaniol 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Comment.  The issue of the time length of any contemplated full-topic ban is at the moment not specified.  I suggest specifying some finite period(s) among which to choose, if indeed a ban is undertaken.  thank you - Jim Butler(talk) 09:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COI should not extend to editing items on one's profession.  If it does, what is the bloody point of Wikipedia?  Is it to become a second-hand piece of non-information that has scared away all knowledgeable editors?  Feh.  I've known Fyslee for a while and I've found hm to be an excellent editor and highly knowledgeable contributor.  The proposed remedy is like chopping off one's foot to cure a damned hangnail. •Jim62sch• 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by others

message: One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is parity of sources.  While I don't think quackwatch should be used as a source to dispute things like claims backed up by respected scientific studies, it certainly seems to be a reliable enough source for articles about fringe topics which have barely acceptable sources supporting them and aren't taken seriously to even be refuted by scientific publications.
Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources says "...if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may generally include material gleaned from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Verifiable critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed." (note that I'm not accusing any particular topic of being a fringe theory, just pointing out that Quackwatch is a potentially useful source in such cases)
I'm a bit alarmed by any finding that makes a blanket declaration that a site like Quackwatch is unreliable.  This has the potential to make it easier for POV slanting in articles about fringe topics.  Not to mention that I thought ArbCom only covered behaviour, not content?  Does this mean that ArbCom is willing to give approval or disapproval to sources and sites?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Parity of sources 

message: It has been proposed by a number of other users, that Fylsee's previous poor conduct was due to ever increasing conflict and antagonism with Ilena. Now that Ilena has been banned for a while now, can I suggest a certain test. That is, has Fylsee conduct been much improved or not? If it has not improved then harsh remedies might be needed. If it has improved, then we should use WP:AGF, and keep Fylsee for the sake of the improvement of Wikipedia. Now I understand that Fylsee may be treading carefully during this ArbCom, but this test should still give us some indication whether Fylsee can be a valuable editor in the future or not. In any case "milder" remedies (such a probation) can be used to help prevent Fylsee's conduct from straying into the inappropriate again.
Note this is ArbCom is not about "Justice", but about the improvement of Wikipedia. If Fylsee has turned a corner, and now stands a reasonable chance of acting for the benefit of Wikipedia, then harsh remedies will only seek to damage Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that may work out, I don't think it is very fair to Ilena. We may as well say let's ban Fyslee but not Ilena and therefore Ilena's conduct would be improved. That wouldn't be fair either, would it? I don't beleive Ilena was ever given a chance to constructively edit Wikipedia. From the moment she arrived, she was antagonized. It would be unfair to ban her and not Fyslee. If we are here to improve Wikipedia, then think of the precedent your request would be setting. If there are two people bringing an external war onto Wikipedia, then the remedy is to arbitrarily choose one editor to be banned? That doesn't seem just nor does it seem very Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I think you miss a number of points. This is not about being "fair" or "just", but doing what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Also Ilena was not arbitrarily banned, it was relatively obvious that it was always going to be the case from her continued and persistent poor conduct. I am not suggesting the precedent you suggest, just that we should take into account Fylsee's work and conduct since Ilena has been banned, as it may give a valuable insight into how he will act in the future - to do otherwise would be to waste valuable evidence. Cheers Lethaniol 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that many people (myself included) feel that Ilena was not chosen "arbitrarily" for harsher punishment, but that her conduct was in fact worse than Fyslee's and showed less potential for improvement. From such a perspective, it would be "unfair" to sanction both equally, or nearly equally; in other words, "fairness" depends on one's underlying take on the situation. Obviously, this is a distinction which has been argued to death and is now up to ArbCom. MastCell 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilena was never given a real chance to improve. She was persistently antagonized by Fyslee. Judging Fyslee's behavioral improvement since Ilena had been banned is completely unfair to Ilena. How do we know Ilena wouldn't have improved her behavior too if Fyslee had been the one banned first. Don't forget, Ilena's "continued and persistent poor conduct" was a direct result of Fyslee (a more experienced editor) riding her from the moment she arrived at Wikipedia. They had an outside conflict which they both carried onto Wikipedia and made a huge mess. They are equally culpable and thus should receive equal sanctions. Being just is in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's stop with the obvious nonsense, please.  Ilena was given far too many chances to improve, and she failed them all dramatically.  If Fyslee had never even been an editor here, we'd still have had the same problems with Ilena, she'd just have one less editor to attack and blame. --Ronz 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is fair to make that assumption. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking anyone to make any assumptions.  I am summarizing what I think are very obvious conclusions from the evidence, hence "obvious nonsense" to the statement "Ilena was never given a real chance to improve" and the continued blaming her behavior on Fyslee. --Ronz 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know. I mean right after Ilena was blocked, Fyslee did not AGF and wrongly accused a newbie of being Ilena's sockpuppet. You tell me. Did Fyslee's behavior improve in the wake of Ilena's ban? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the best example anyone can supply, an obviously honest mistake, then yes, he's improved. --Ronz 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake and perhaps an honest one. But it still demonstrates a poor assumption about another editor and one that was based on bad faith and an external battle. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. My "alternative" was meant to lead this discussion toward the conclusion which you have reached. We are dealing with two editors who each have allegedly acted inappropriately. The rest is for the ArbCom to decide. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I don't follow the point of your earlier post.  It responded to this very sensible statement from Lethaniol: If Fylsee has turned a corner, and now stands a reasonable chance of acting for the benefit of Wikipedia, then harsh remedies will only seek to damage Wikipedia.  He makes no mention of Ilena and I fail to see the linkage your post attempts to establish between their remedies. DurovaCharge! 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unfair to give Fyslee the chance that he didn't allow Ilena to have. Ostensibly, Fyslee is responsible for pushing Ilena to the point of getting banned. Sure he may act better now that he got Ilena banned, but what happens when his next rival shows up on Wikipedia. Will he also antagonize that editor and never give them a chance to improve? I agree that we can treat Fyslee and Ilena as separate editors, but with regards to this RfA, they are very much tied and at the very least equally culpable. To ban one and not the other is not justice. What is best for Wikipedia is that there is no incivility, hostility, link spamming, POV-pushing or POV-supression. Getting rid of just Ilena does not solve these issues as they relate to this RfA. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed the finding about "responsibility for one's own actions" precisely because we're still hearing that "Fyslee is responsible for pushing Ilena to the point of getting banned." No. Ilena is responsible for reaching that point. Her welcome was not as harsh as you make it out to be; she had the benefit of an unofficial mentor (Peter) and several experienced editors in her corner. Fyslee's behavior is, appropriately, drawing scrutiny, but to blame him for Ilena's career here is part of the ongoing problem. I used the word "enabling" in the past, and perhaps that was too harsh, but there was a willingness to make excuses for Ilena, blaming the hostile environment and not calling her on her more egregious violations of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. This end result is unfortunate, but not unpredictable. MastCell 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need to be noted that regardless of the ArbCom decision, Ilena was blocked indef trying to publish information that I'clast/Naut(+others???) gave to her.  Information that Ilena attempted to publish and something which a senior admin (Slimvirgin) decided was very inappropriate.  It does also need to be pointed out that now according to I'clast/Naut(+others???)'s latest evidence, this information that Ilena was blocked over was in fact in error (doesn’t really matter if the current information is in error as well, but that hasn’t stopped him from letting others hang for his error).  This does add a detail of poignant irony to the "debate" that is raging, something that does apply to the litmus test because yes indeed, Ilena would have been blocked for doing something that WP policy disagrees with.  Of course that she was encouraged and galled into doing so by one of her staunchest of "defenders" is probably to her regret.  Of course Levine's persistent "Are you the son of Barrett" on my talkpage probably didn't help her line of thinking very much as well.  Anybody would think that between this pair, they were actively undermining her with the "help" they gave her.  But then again, helping Ilena is not their aim, attacking one of their perceived opponents and making a source of scientific information "unreliable", that’s the real aim. Shot info 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shot, I really hope that those pronouns aren't directed at me. As I said on your talk page, I was simpley trying to clarify the accusation. If you would have told me "no I am not", I would have accepted that and moved on. So when you say "this pair" above, I hope you are not pairing me and anyone else. I have quite honestly attested that I have had no knowledge of Fyslee, Stephen Barrett, Tim Bolen, or Ilena Rosenthal before arriving at Wikipedia in late 2005. I never heard of Quackwatch before coming to Wikipedia. I am not out to get Quackwatch booted because I don't like it; it is just that in my experience with it on Wikipedia, I have never found it to be a suitable or reliable source. In fact, I have found it to be deliberately deceptive and subversively misinformative. I am not part of any health freedom fighter movement. I am not a gun for hire paid to defend others or POVs on Wikipedia. I don't participate in offsite blogs or discussion groups or mailing lists that deal with Barrett or Quackwatch or Rosenthal or Bolen. In short, I am just a Wikipedian, plain-and-simple. No hidden agendas or motives. No conflicts of interest. In good faith I attest that all of this to be true. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And now we will never be sure whether Ilena was ever going to last on Wikipedia. Too bad. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "helping Ilena is not their aim, attacking one of their perceived opponents and making a source of scientific information "unreliable", that’s the real aim." [] Shot info 23:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not attacking Quackwatch. Nor is it a perceived opponent of mine. Nor is a source of scientific information. My aim here is to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. I don't appreciate your lack of good faith in me, Shot info. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "I view what many editors are doing on that talk page as spinning. Spinning Fyslee's actions to not look so bad. Spinning Quackwatch to seem like a reliable source. I am just trying to keep it on the level." (see link above)  QED, you regard Fyslee's actions as bad.  You regard Quackwatch as not a reliable source.  AGF has nothing to do with it, you said it and I'm just pointing out your stated POV. Shot info 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Litmus test 

message: So far the only poor conduct that has been laid against Fyslee since Ilena has left - is the poor handling of the sockpuppet issues surrounding User:Healthzealot. Unless more evidence is forthcoming, it looks like there is a lot of hope that Fylsee's conduct has improved (and will continue?), and therefore that he should not be topic banned, as he can still contribute positively. Cheers Lethaniol 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I've copied the above from the previous section. Anyone missing anything, please add below. AvB ÷ talk 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As for #1 and #3, they are already part of my evidence section. Thanks, AvB, for the summary and keeping things organized! -- Levine2112 discuss 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fyslee's behaviour on track (2)

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