Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs. A much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the parties' statements and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. The /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

First of all, I would like to say this issue is a very messy one, and it's brought me a great deal of frustration as I have been continually attacked and even threatened with blocking for trying to do my best to resolve a heated dispute on Wikipedia.

Fyslee engaged in meatpuppetry using an external website

The inexorable evidence is that Fyslee attempted to disrupt Wikipedia by petitioning a place with a known POV to edit Wikipedia in a pointed and directed matter. [2] Policy states that this is considered meatpuppetry.

“ It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias ”

Fyslee self identifies as an "anti-quackery activist"

Fyslee, who is Paul Lee, self identifies as an "anti-quackery activist", which highlights both a potentially disruptive behaviour (wanting to "go down in history as a martyr") and also a very strong potential conflict of interest. [3]

Ilena is a named defendant in a federal case involving Stephen Barrett

Ilena, who is Ilena Rosenthal, is a named party in a Supreme Court case, in which she was a defendant. This highlights an obvious conflict of interest in her editing these articles. [Barrett v. Rosenthal]

Evidence presented by Ilena

Fyslee attempted to destroy valuable evidence and Privacy Issues

A. One of the most serious accusations against me, behavior that was called egregious, was that I had somehow outed and endangered Fyslee and his family's safety by posting his real world name on Wikipedia. In fact, I found evidence that as recently as December, 2006, [4] on Wikipedia, he himself was using his own name right next to his Wiki name. On January 30, 2007, as I began searching for the diffs for this Arbitration, I found the archives had been tampered with. After this was exposed and much ado, he then had the 160 revisions of the Wiki records un-revised. [5]

Here is just one of many links to his websites, as well as several of Barrett's on Wikipedia, posted by him. [6] Recently on his user page, he admits that he has used his own name and links on Wikipedia, but forbids anyone else to do the same. It feels like he is hiding behind a rule he doesn't follow in order to appear to be victimized by me. Despite his accusations, I have never posted one word of personal information about him, the entire brouhaha is regarding his name ... nothing more, which he has profusely used on Wikipedia and the rest of the internet. No addresses, no family discussions etc., nothing but his name. I further believe that his unproven and very possibly false claims that "chiropractors" and "promoters of alternative medicine" have given him death threats is a subtle way of continuing his smear_campaign against the same groups he demonizes throughout the internet. I fully believe that much of what he and his friends call attacks against him, are merely pleas for pity, and an attempt for theatrics. In fact, in this Chirotalk post (2 versions since he is altering the posts) you can clearly see his fantasies of being victimized, Anti-Quackery activist crucified by chiropractors. Scroll down to Reply #14 on Dec 29, 2005, 5:36pm [7]

B. After Fyslee posted a link to Chirotalk during discussions of a lawsuit against Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch on January 30, 2007, I followed his link [8]. I found 668 posts by him with his real world name and fyslee together. I found him called, "..., the wikipedian expert" and on this post Re: Life University Wikipedia entry Reply #12 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am he was soliciting others from the group to come onto Wikipedia and gave precise instructions. When I went back on January 31, 2007, I found that he had removed his own name and administrator status, and replaced it with fys God at 6:06 that morning. On February 1, 2007, it was again revised, this time calling himself Abracadabraarbadacarba and again identifying himself as an administrator, but removing his name which had been there since 2004. Then on, February 15, 2007, he was HerAardvark and today (2/16) he calls himself Cyberstalked from the Jungles. (Update of 2/17/07 ... now he changed the archives yet again, this time to call himself Along the watchtower.)... and again, now to Not The Archives in his attempts to obscure the evidence yet again.

Most importantly, is reviewing his work on Chirotalk (664 posts) and seeing his frequent discussions of Wikipedia and urges to join and help him collaborate with him here Change the 10 to 700 and you will get all his posts. (I have a copy if all 668 are not there any longer.)

C. After finding Chirotalk and watching the above happen, I witnessed another case of disappearing evidence. Here are two versions of the same thread that got altered during the first week of February. The removed comment was "This sounds like a job that (Fyslee's real world name) could help spearhead." Here is the archived version and the altered one -- within 24 hours of each other. (As of 2/16/2007 cache has been deleted and evidence destroyed.)

Fyslee functions on Wikipedia and several other internet venues as Barrett / Quackwatch / NCAHF Publicist

In the simplest terms, a public relations or media publicist is one who attempts to get as much positive information as possible into ... and keep as much negative information possible out of ... the public eye. Although fyslee has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he is Barrett's publicist, and claims to have never misrepresented anything, [9] that is absolutely not factual. When caught in blatant lies, he has been known to feign surprise and make apologies and retractions, winning him praise for his flexibility.This is a technique to win favor when caught disseminating blatant disinformation.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, Fyslee, on Wikipedia, and many other places on the internet (blogs, lists, forums, etc.), clearly functions as one of Barrett's (and his related operations) publicists. During his early Wiki days, he was promoting his and Barrett's Healthfraud List where he remained Barrett's assistant from 2000 through 2006. As here on Wiki, he publicized the same Barrett websites [10]. I believe his denials are perfect examples of doublespeak.

In fact, this quote from him shows undeniably that his behavior is as Barrett's publicist. If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name. Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [11] (I believe that the diff that is meant here is [12] — Paul August ☎ 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

He posts links to his own homepages, blogs and webrings, and openly and repeatedly discusses his years of responsibilities as assistant listmaster for the plaintiffs' Healthfraud List [13]. [14]

As Barrett's Assistant Listmaster for several years (until December, 2006 when he said he resigned but continues posting there) he has solicited members to come to Wikipedia to help him collaborate. This is but one example. [15] Please note the list of his affiliations advertised on this link, which he also advertises on Wikipedia. Here is a list (if it disappears too, I have the evidence in my files) [16] of his hundreds of posts as Assistant Listmaster. Perusing this list you will see, in addition to his Wiki conversations, and in November, 2006, many posts relating to the lawsuit members of the Healthfraud list lost to me. Any who investigate will easily and clearly see that he continues the Quackwatch / NCAHF agenda here on Wikipedia.

Sampling of Disinformation intentionally posted by Fyslee

A. " ...The NCAHF is still registered in California." -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006(UTC)[17] In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This falsity had been discussed (with this link) [18] for over 6 months, yet Fyslee and others working closely with him, managed to keep this verified fact off of the NCAHF page for that period of time, causing much of the edit wars between he and I.

B. Barrett has been libeled repeatedly, and that fact is undeniable. ... Barrett has, because of technicalities, not been able to get a favorable judgment.[19] When I first came back to Wikipedia after the Supreme Court decision in my favor, it was because I had been told that the facts of the case were being misrepresented on Wiki, almost identical to this comment, a blatant PR attempt on fyslee's part to change the public's perception of Barrett's many court losses.

C. None of the suits were ever SLAPP suits..." [20]. This is pure and utter propaganda and a blatant attempt to change history. Barrett's loss to me was but one SLAPP suit loss and there have been others. Comments such as these, can only be construed as an attempt to spin Barrett's case into something they wish it to be. These claims are particularly important to counter, as other defendants' cases are on the horizon, and blatant PR is not what Wikipedia is all about.

D. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. This is another fine example of his classic doublespeak. Once again, Fyslee is claiming to speak for Barrett, although he also claims he doesn't. In fact, this was covered in full in both of my declarations [21] [22] and after careful consideration, the judge ruled in my favor and against Barrett in a 27 page decision. The industry backed front group[23] The Amercan Council Against Science and Health, for which Barrett is an "advisor" and writer, has spread pro-silicone industry propaganda since the mid 1990's and other writers for them also, have frequently taken pot shots at other breast implant awareness activists. I have been highly critical of his writings on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a complex syndrome from which many women in my support group suffer. Barrett, unlicensed himself, writes about going after the licenses of those scientists working to figure out this complex puzzle. Although the chemical industry funds ACSH, Barrett refuses to offer disclaimers about this. This article in Philanthropy describes Barrett's actions against me perfectly Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say .

Fyslee is a vital part of a Barrett Group ... formed to 'round up net quacks' on the internet

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes (this is an archived copy - the website was up from 2000 (when lawsuits were filed) until December, 2006 when I discussed it on Wikipedia).

Fyslee and other members of this group have appropriatedly labeled it satire, another tentacle in this vast legal and public relations campaign, using humor to criticize and denigrate and even dehumanize defendants of their various lawsuits: Dr. Hulda Clark, Dr. Joseph Mercola, myself, Dr. Tedd Koren, to name just a few. There is literally nowhere one can mention any of us on the internet, withot a member of this Posse showing up to put Barrett's viewpoints.

What interests me greatly, is that I am told that it is a WP:COI violation for me to edit anything touching Barrett because he sued me.

Fyslee has had no restrictions whatsoever even though he has been in litigation with Dr. Clark and was a co-defendant with Barrett in a case he edits about frequently on Wikipedia. In fact, the article on Dr. Hulda Clark (one of their defendants and plaintiffs) had five links to the Barrett and the other plaintiffs miscellaneous websites (all promoting each other) and are all basically one-sided attack sites. It is extremely clear why Fyslee has attempted to distance himself from Barrett, but their long and interrelated websites and co-promotion belie his attempts at distancing himself in order to skirt the WP:COI .

Concurrent with waging several legal attacks against dozens of us in late, 2000, Barrett and the others in this group (including Fyslee) augmented their smear_campaigns on various fronts: Usenet, Blogs, Webrings (owned by Fyslee), Healthfraud List, and eventually brought here to Wikipedia. Fyslee reports that he never interacted with me in Usenet. That is accurate. However, that's not his domain. In fact, there are members of this list who specialize in Usenet, donning many disguises such as "Nanaweedkiller" and "Marla Maples" etc. They have directly targeted me on Usenet for years. Others of this list have blogs (Fyslee included) and they all cross promote each other and attempt to control all sides of debates on: chiropractic, alternative medicine, vaccinations, breast implants, second hand tobacco, amalgams, and who is, and who is not, a quack, to name a few.

These listmembers co-promote the business of what they dub "anti-quackery," selling books, soliciting donations, promoting their viewpoint. These links by the hundreds are promoted as WP:RS and added to articles in multiples by Fyslee and other anonymous posters who seem to work in perfect collaboration to whatever he wants to add or delete.

However, on this page I edited about Sally_Kirkland, this link was hastily removed KIISS , Removed link for this reason: (removed link to institute - turns out that the editor who added it maintains the site, therefore it is WP:COI and linkspam) [24]. Ms. Kirkland's site has no solicitation for donations, she sells nothing. This aspect of her life is very important to her. But this editor claimed that because I am now helping her maintain her website, it must be removed. Why are Barrett's sites not considered "promotion" and yet Ms Kirkland's are?

The same thing happened in the Clayton College article. I have been told I have COI problems with this page but there are no restrictions of what Barrett's people can add, he still in litigation with Dr. Clark mentioned in the article, as has Fyslee been. I have no relation with the article, except that I know many people who have either gone there and loved their education, or who have been treated by graduates.

I had added a link to a well known author and graduate [25] You can see that Fyslee immediately removed it and replaced it with a Quackwatch link and a blatant attack at the school advising "avoiding both the school and its alumni." What encyclopedia would allow this?

I then edited in this link,[[26]] showing that indeed Jonny Bowden fit the Wiki definition of notable and of course, Fyslee immediately removed it, citing "promotion."

Why can Fyslee promote Quackwatch and NCAHF and Barrett with link after link after link, each one selling and promoting their products, soliciting donations, but this link is now so removed, I can't even find it, it's buried beneath their POV [27]

These are tiny examples that are repeated throughout Wikipedia. Barrett, who calls himself "the media" is just that ... a promoter of his wares which they call "anti-quackery" has his viewpoint pushed by Fyslee and several anonymous editors.

Fyslee and Barrett and the other plaintiffs (all who lost their lawsuits to me) voluntarily remained on this list from 2000 until December 2006, when it was removed from the internet. This is an archived copy (I have copies if this also gets removed).Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes. People on this list with Fyslee have used many names to attack me and other defendants on Usenet for years, including attempting to infiltrate my support group for women harmed by breast implants, hiring private investigators to hunt me down in San Diego and Costa Rica, spreading webpages claiming I was "arrested for selling crack cocaine to minors in Costa Rica" and falsely claiming I was "bankrupt" etc. etc. etc. They are members too, of the Healthfraud List with Fyslee, and have attempted to change the facts of Barrett's failed litigations throughout various medium such as he does on Wikipedia.[28] Many of the abundance of claims of attacks by Fyslee were mentions of this, which he calls a satire. I agree with this excellent definition of satire, from Wikipedia: Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner.

Attacks by Fyslee Against Me

I will be including just a tiny sampling of the attacks Fyslee has made against me here on Wikipedia. Far from pursuing him, as he is claiming, any glance at my earliest edits will show him reverting me, often within seconds. I'd also like to comment that when one administrator unilaterally banned me for a week, it felt to me like I was being held down while she, Fyslee and others took turns beating me up. Attempting to appear as a victim is a public relations strategy Fyslee uses frequently.

A. This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena has driven to suicide. [[29]

B. Here he uses, what I consider, aspartame fake "sadness" to baselessly and viciously attack the work I have done and my thousands of relationships with women harmed by breast implants, their families and loved ones.[30][31] I am also frequently interviewed and quoted in the press, highly critical of the breast implant industry, and I was recently quoted in Wired Magazine [32], MyDNA, "The Scientist" Corporate Collaborations etc. voicing my opinions. My support group increases daily, and we work harmoniously and lovingly with many other support leaders and groups.

C. I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. (I have to find diff) In fact, I head a large, international support group and receive enormous support and love and accolades for my group. Fyslee's attack is just repeating propaganda put out by my losing plaintiffs and their other publicists. Terry Polevoy, the plaintiff who also posted here on Wikipedia, has publicized that I am "the laughing stock of the internet." This is repeated on Usenet on the attack website that Fyslee posted on Wikipedia, and others on this list, distributed on other internet medium. These women, coincidentally enough, are also working with a silicone manufacturer who spent years on Usenet attacking me, which ended in legal battles [33] as well as the plaintiffs. If anyone has any doubts that enormous industries like the silicone and breast implant and chemical industries do not attacks activists such as me, I highly recommend, Deforming Consent: The Public Relations Industry's Secret War on ActivistsI further highly recommend this piece on why activists who run tiny non-profits like ours, are targets of SLAPP suits such as Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say In the 27 page opinion against all three plaintiffs in the Superior Court of California, the judge clearly sided with our declarations. (cites to come)

D. Fyslee repeatedly claimed I had "libeled" him ... another unsubstanitated, deprecatory accusation. Even as he refused Mediation, he posted this blatant repetition of propaganda that bears absolutely no resemblance to the decisions made about this case in the Superior, Appeals and even the Supreme Court of California. Fyslee wrote: The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. [34] I have discussed the many reasons I won here [35]. Connected to this, is my frustration that editors on Barrett V Rosenthal decided that the final words of Justice Moreno (page 39) in the Supreme Court decision were not relevant to the article. "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." [36].

Response to Joshua below

I have no experience with editor, Joshua and am astounded by his comment regarding Barrett's NCAHF loss to King Bio. When I followed the link provided, I see that the page has been archived and I am no longer able to even correct the serious disinformation being posted there, and his inaccurate claim that she made a massive distortion of a court decision involving him.[37]

a. In fact, I misrepresented nothing. Here are both rulings against NCAHF. NCAFH loses to King Bio in Superior Court. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here [38] specifically uses the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility" directly describing both Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson.

b. I have many varied interests and experiences that I bring to my editing on Wikipedia and am not a single purpose editor as he claims.

c. I have not been blocked 6 times.

GigiButterfly is a Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account that posts propaganda for Barrett

I find that although my one WP:COI of being the winning defendant against Stephen Barret etc. is being used against me, the WP:COI of several anonymous posters is not even given a glance. Who is behind these aliases? This editor had one purpose: eliminate criticism and add links to Barrett's commercial sites, as illustrated below. Does this not qualify as being a Barrett advocate? Does this not quality as posting (anonymous, Pro-Barrett) propaganda on various articles of his?

[Entire GigiButterfly history ... All edits add Barrett links and eliminate valid criticism or both]

[Removed valid criticism against Barrett]

[Added several links to Barrett operation (chirobase)]

[Added more links to Barrett's suspended NCAHF.org]

[Removed still valid POV tag claiming "no purpose for this article has my blessing now" ... and then fluttered away].

Is this not suspicious to anyone but me? If Barrett himself was posting, he could not have done a better job erasing criticism and adding his commercial links. Thank you for considering my diffs.

Evidence presented by Fyslee

Comments

These comments are about matters related to what's happening during this RfArb, not about what led up to it. IOW they are about matters that IMHO should not be occurring now, should be rectified, or are off topic.

1. Missing evidence from Peter M Dodge

I'm still waiting for evidence in the form of diffs to be provided by Peter Dodge, who (as Ilena's mentor and defender) started this RfArb.[39] He has just listed some charges in a very misleading order and fashion, (commented here), and has not provided any evidence at all at this time. Without it it's hard for me to proceed. I expect my involvement to be tried by evidence, not by allegation. I request that he either provide the diffs quickly, or his charges be (temporarily) removed, as search engines pick up these (as yet) unproven allegations. He can always reintroduce his entry when he has the evidence, which I would expect quickly, since it would be rather unusual for the one who raised the charges to not "meet up in court." I will then be able to show what evidence he is ignoring or leaving out, and the misleading nature of the order and nature of the charges. Undocumented charges are simply violations of NPA, even here. If they are accompanied by documentation, then it's a very different matter, since that is a legitimate part of the proceedings here. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Ilena is wasting our time

She is wasting her own and our time by all the talk above about any deletion of evidence. What has been deleted is something I do not hide from this group -- my identity and affiliations. As long as this RfArb is in progress, I will leave the edit history of my user page intact, and anyone can see what I have written, my newbie mistakes, and everything else. It is my user page, and nothing inappropriate was posted there.

I do not deny that I have earlier revealed it, so she has no case by continuing to point out the fact I have earlier revealed it. I admit that. Case closed. I have the right to change my mind, and I am asking her to respect that decision.

She is also getting way off-topic by discussing her Usenet and other battles with many people, of which I have not been a party. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. She has such issues with others, but not Barrett or myself. I am actually sympathetic to her cause, but not her methods. I request that she stay on topic. I am not obligated to respond to such charges and conspiracy theories. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3. A request for evidence

Ilena often makes allegations above which include words such as or similar to "he claims" without providing the precise diffs. I would like to see my own words in their full context, so I request that she provide the diffs when alluding to something I am supposed to have written. I suspect that she is either misquoting me, failing to remember correctly, or has misinterpreted something I may have written. Such mistakes are easy to make, but precision is doubly important here. We need precise quotes and precise charges here. This is not Usenet where anything goes. I do not believe that this matter should be decided on "guilt by allegation." I cannot defend myself if she does not quote me correctly and provide the diffs. If I have written something in an unclear manner, I will be happy to provide an explanation. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Guilt by association?

Ilena is making many allegations about the actions of others, many of whom I do not know. While I question her interpretation of even some of these matters, I should certainly not be judged by the actions of others, even of those I do "know" in the cyber sense. Such matters are not a part of this RfArb. I request that she stay on topic. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

5. "Obscur[ing] the evidence yet again" ??

Somehow the irony of this situation seems to not be getting through to Ilena. She keeps wasting her time and ours at Chirotalk with mattters that do not concern us in this RfArb. She is so deeply involved in finding some conspiracy or wrongdoing there, that she fails to note that my repeated changes of my display name there (but no other participation) are an idle attempt to communicate directly to her, since she is obviously looking. She is now so obsessed that she claims that:

• "(... now he changed the archives yet again, this time to call himself Along the watchtower.)" [40] With this edit summary: "adding another alias as Fyslee keeps changing the archives")

Fact: I never changed the archives before, "again", or "yet again." I have no idea how they are maintained, but it's probably something bots do. To communicate that to her, I changed my display name there again (which has nothing to do with direct changes by myself of the archives), but she fails to understand the very message I wrote to her in that name -- the change was "Not [in] The Archives":

• "and again, now to Not The Archives in his attempts to obscure the evidence yet again." [41] With this edit summary: "Fyslee continues to change names and obscure the evidence."

So now it's "obscure the evidence" "yet again." "Evidence" of what? I have nothing to hide (except my real name from search engines, thanks to Ilena). I never changed the archives at all. Period. I never "obscure[d]" any "evidence." Period. End of story. If she really wants to waste time checking my display name there and reporting it here, then I can oblige her, but I'd rather she just ignore something that has nothing to do with this RfArb, or forms a legitimate basis for any charges of "obscuring the evidence." All I did was change the display name, and nothing else. I request she stay on topic, and the topic is matters that have occurred here at Wikipedia, not at Chirotalk, nor at Usenet. -- Fyslee's (First law) 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Barrett is not on trial here

Barrett could be the subject of another RfArb, but that is not the subject here, and it is improper for Ilena to be allowed to misuse this RfArb by continuing her improper attacks (COI and BLP anyone?!) here at Wikipedia. These are the very types of behavior that got her sued in the first place, and that are creating so much disruption here. The role of Barrett and Quackwatch as RS may well be a legitimate subject for future discussions, but it is far too large an issue to even begin to touch on it here. If and when it happens, Barrett should also be a part of the discussion, as he is an editor here, and Jimbo Wales should also be a part. It's that big an issue, with far reaching consequences.

Barrett's (extremely limited) association with the ACSH (actually a pretty good organization), is now being included in Ilena's "guilt by association" attacks. SourceWatch is now being cited by her, but it is not a RS, since it is a wiki. Anyone can edit it, and it is far less well-controlled for quality than Wikipedia, which is not a RS by its own standards.

This RfArb is not about Barrett, content issues, or even the BvR article itself (contrary to the misleading title here), but about specific problems with user attitude and behavior here at Wikipedia. Attempts to sidetrack this RfArb from those issues should not be allowed. I request that Ilena stay on topic, and I implore admins to do something to stop her misuse of this RfArb and Wikipedia to further her distasteful mission. This is not Usenet, and this misuse of Wikipedia in that manner should be very firmly nipped in the bud. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My privacy concerns should be respected

My current attempts to regain my privacy are perfectly legitimate: I just wish to avoid harassment by Ilena and others. Before her arrival here I didn't feel as great a need for privacy.

A few events and warnings leading up to my actively seeking more privacy (also note edit summaries):

• Vandalism and personal attack on my own user page, accompanied with the obligatory vanity spam link to her special website designed to attack Wikipedia editors (one of many such attack sites). [42]

• Vicious attack placed at the top of my talk page (accompanied by yet another vanity spamlink to her attack site). [43]

• She repeated it later the same day. [44]

These types of attacks are usually accompanied by false politeness to this day in nearly all per posts. I'd rather she were just honest.

• I notify her not to use my name (done in her vicious and misleading attacks in violation of AGF and NPA), and I delete it. [45]

• Repeats of above. [46][47]

I finally sought the help of admin Guy to delete the beginning edit history of my User page, where my true name was listed. (He has my email request and may provide it privately to admins here upon request.):

• Deletion log. [48]

• Guy defends my privacy. [49]

As requested by myself, [50] [51] Guy kindly restored the history of my user page.

• Ilena informed of the restoration. [52]

• She unnecessarily counts the use of my name (I never denied having used it). [53]

• Jance (a lawyer) chides Ilena for not respecting my privacy requests. [54]

• I request her to leave me alone. [55]

• Repeated request. [56]

I have never denied my true identity or affiliations and will reaffirm them here as necessary. (I expect specific questions from admins, and I will answer them.) Nothing that has been changed or deleted will change that. I will reaffirm any deleted content as necessary. The deleted post at Chirotalk was not my doing. On the contrary, it is in my own interest to preserve it, as Ilena has previously(diff) used it to make false charges about me. (It was not Botnick, but the poster of the now deleted message who called me an "expert", simply because I was apparently known as a Wikipedia editor, and the others figured I knew something about editing here, which I take as a compliment, not a crime.)

There are six admins at Chirotalk and no one has confessed to deleting it, in fact no one is responding at all! I requested that they help me regain my privacy by removing my name anywhere they found it, and to substitute it with "Fyslee". I did not request that anyone delete posts. I only edited posts to eliminate my real name. Fortunately the content of that post has been copied by Ilena and is available for examination, and it contains nothing of an incriminating nature, since I am not responsible for other's comments, only for my own actions. My very limited activities at Chirotalk or elsewhere are none of her business, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena has made personal attacks

The most serious is the "publicist" accusation, which is an example of failure to AGF, (an admin comment), and it should be treated as a personal attack she (and others) have repeatedly made because of my "affiliations" with Barrett (any "affiliations" I have with him are honorable and something of which I am proud.)

Using my interests and affiliations to discredit me is clearly labeled a "personal attack" here at Wikipedia:

• "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."NPA

I have repeatedly been the target of such accusations here at Wikipedia, even before Ilena came here, and I have repeatedly answered them, so here's a previous explanation:

• Fyslee and Barrett, Sept. 16, 2006

I have since stopped as assistant listmaster, since I didn't participate very often, and had a backlog of over 3,000 unread list mails, so I wasn't following along enough to do my "job" decently. I rarely did anything anyway.

I eagerly await clear evidence of wrongdoing. I am not a member of the NCAHF, on any board, paid by anyone or any pharmaceutical company, or acting at anyone's bidding or obeying instructions (explained to Ilena here). Barrett and I don't even see eye-to-eye all the time! What I do is my hobby because it interests me as a private person, as well as a healthcare professional interested in consumer protection issues. That is not a crime, while some of those who oppose mine and Barrett's efforts actually are criminals, scammers, and deceivers. The rest who support various forms of quackery are just true believers or innocents who do little or no harm. It is not a crime to provide them with consumer protection information.

Ilena has serious COI, BLP, and NPOV issues here

COI issues

She has been involved in litigation with Stephen Barrett, as described in Barrett v. Rosenthal. This places her in a conflict of interest regarding anything to do with him or Quackwatch on Wikipedia, whether in one of those articles specifically or elsewhere. That is the situation as summed up by admin SlimVirgin, with the following consequences for Ilena:

• "....I think your input would be welcome on the talk pages, so long as you don't post anything contentious, but I don't think you should continue to make edits to the encycylopedia that involve Barrett or his organization." [57] (My emphasis, since I have little hope of that being possible. - Fyslee)

Ilena was unreceptive, [58] so SlimVirgin had to repeat:

• "...you should not be editing articles related to Barrett, or making edits that involve removing his material." [59]

• "I think Ilena should stay away from articles directly related to Barrett, and should refrain from adding or deleting material about him from any other article." [60]

I find her advice to be wise, in harmony with Wikipedia policies, and if followed would lead to a more peaceful atmosphere here, without 3RR edit warring, personal attacks, blocks, RfM, RfArb, etc.. Her presence here has created a nightmare situation for many editors and admins. This is not Usenet, where anything goes.

BLP issues (as related to her COI issues)

Especially in light of BLP principles (which favor prevention of possibly libelous edits, rather than favoring protection to make such edits), Ilena's demonstrated propensities to attack Barrett, Quackwatch, quackbusters, and anti-quackery efforts in general, make her a liability to the Wikipedia experience as a whole, and in an interesting twist places her in direct COI with BLP itself. She has not demonstrated an ability or willingness to refrain from allowing her COI to cause her to be in constant danger of violating BLP as regards the parties and POV of those parties.

• Warned by SlimVirgin for BLP violations. [61]

• She didn't accept the advice, and seemed not to understand the point at all, [62] and why? Because of the next point:

NPOV issues (related to both of the above)

To top it off, she still fails to understand NPOV:

• "Now I'm quite confused. Fyslee claims that "POV suppression is not allowed here." I had understood that Wikipedia was not about POV but verifiable facts. The term "quackery" is totally subjective, pejorative, and who is and who is not a "quack" is just one's opinion. I don't believe these non objective quackery discussions belong on Wikipedia at all since it's so subjective. So someone please, is Fyslee being correct in his claim? Thank you. Ilena" 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [63]

Conclusion

All of these factors reveal that she is a POV warrior who fails to understand, or is willing to respect, NPOV. Such editors are a constant threat to Wikipedia's collaborative spirit and mission, which are governed by the following

Fundamental principles

1. The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Collaborative editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, but such a relationship is rare on controversial subjects.
2. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

-- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena falsely claims that BvR is motivated by opposition to her breast implant activism

This is a response to this charge above:

• "D. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. This is another fine example of his classic doublespeak. Once again, Fyslee is claiming to speak for Barrett, although he also claims he doesn't." [64]

(Let's just start by ignoring her obvious admission of lack of understanding of my statements and proceed. An AGF would remove that confusion, but she refuses to AGF.) I speak from what I am currently aware, not "for Barrett". I have made similar statements more than once on my own account, and Ilena has failed to present any evidence that proves the libel suits had anything to do with anything other than attempts to stop specific libelous statements unrelated to breast implant issues. To the best of my knowledge Barrett has not attacked her for her breast implant issues (or even discussed them). If she can present such evidence, then I will stand corrected. I'm open to learning more. I have searched and failed to find him dealing with this issue.

Here are the statements I have made here (that I can find):

"Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism....... -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)" [65] (Emphasis original. The original diffs listed in the next paragraph there no longer function, so that copy will have to do. Their deletion (by an archiving bot?) has also removed them from my own contributions listing (!), which I find to be an unfortunate glitch in the way permanent deletions and automated archiving function.)

We had an exchange on this very point on her user page:

• "To the best of my understanding, BvR all started solely because she started attacking Barrett (without him having attacked her first) by republishing Bolen's "opinion pieces" (his words) newsletter, and also adding her own comments. Nothing ever involved breast implants, so it wasn't a "spat" between them. (Barrett doesn't comment on those issues at all.) It was Barrett's (and Polevoy's) libel suit in an attempt to get her to stop posting what they still consider libelous statements made by Bolen. He is now awaiting trial, since the SLAPP suit was overturned. None of the suits were ever [really] SLAPP suits (as the reversal indicates), and everything is now back on focus as a malicious prosecution and libel suit against the originator(s). [Documentation added:[66][67][68]] I'm not a lawyer, so if my understanding is incorrect, I welcome hard evidence to the contrary. -- Fyslee 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)" [69] (Emphasis (and links) added to show where I clearly express my lack of absolute certainty, willingness to be corrected, and to clarify my meaning about the SLAPP suits.)

• "I originally included and widened (by wikilinking) the description of her as a women's health advocate, but since that is not, and never has been, at issue here, then it's not relevant to the article, and can only function as a distraction and platform for soapboxing (of a good issue!). None of this was ever about her activism, about breast implant issues, or about industry attempts to suppress her activities. That's a straw man, and should not be allowed to divert the discussion or article." [70]

• Her reponse here, where she repeats her conspiracy theory of being a persecuted breast implant activist. Maybe she is, but the BvR case didn't involve those issues, to the best of my knowledge, and therefore the BvR article should not include such information, as she insists it should: "The fact is it was quackwatch vs breast implant awareness advocate." [71]

She falsely accuses me of attacking her breast implant activism:

• "Fyslee has continually attacked my work with breast implant women here on Wikipedia,..." [72]

That makes no sense, since I am sympathetic to the cause of women injured by breast implants! I would like to see proof of that false charge. Lacking such proof, I expect an apology.

Ilena changed my contribution

Here and here she alters my "post header into something inflammatory while she accuses [me] of inappropriate action." (That is a later summary of the whole incident by admin Durova.)

I finally succeeded in getting a restoration of my post header to stick. [73] (Note my edit summary.)

The whole section, with the clear documentation of Ilena's "error" (I'll avoid using the true description here) was later deleted [74] by Peter Dodge. While well-intentioned, these types (there were several more) of deletions have made documenting things much harder, since the deleted evidence can only be found in the edit histories.

Her action led to a well-reasoned final warning (also deleted by Peter Dodge [75]), that ended in yet another block. [76]

Bad faith accusation of intentionally inflaming Ilena

Levine2112 is making a duplicate posting! What's going on? I have already answered this here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's meatpuppetry accusation from the James Randi list

On the face of it this one [77] looks really bad for me! For once there is something to a charge. My only defense is that I did not know it was against the rules back then, only that other editors would use it against me, and now they are! I have since learned about meatpuppetry, and that it's improper to use it to stack the votes, but I wasn't doing that.

My invitation way back then was a general invitation to a few skeptics (and not to the whole Randi list), as there were (and still are) far more pseudoskeptics and true believers editing at the time, and Levine2112 was one of the chiropractors who constantly violated NPOV (and still does, but he's getting better) by deleting opposing POV, even when well-sourced. He has often gone on deletion rampages to delete any and all references to Quackwatch or Barrett as sources, no matter the context. (His edit history tells the story quite clearly.) Lately he has been doing it again, but occasionally using legitimate arguments, and I have let them slide. He claims above that he is "not in favor of a unscientific POV." Well, there are other POV about that statement among skeptics. His edit history tells a different story. Well, whatever the case may be, and whatever his POV, it is welcome here, just as long as he doesn't deny others their right to have a POV, and as long as he stops suppressing opposing POV (and their editors) when it's well sourced. We all have differences of opinion, but there is hope, and I can see a positive learning curve. I hope that he will begin to AGF about me and will join Dematt and myself in collaborative efforts in the future. Dematt is also a chiropractor, which makes for interesting work, since I'm a chiroskeptic. We work great together. (I might even get him a QBOTI decoder ring and take him to the Vatican to meet JFK some day!) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's COI accusation involving webrings

This one's even more far out. [78] I don't know what "benefit" I get by being linked to and from lots of other websites. That's what the internet is about. There are legitimate ways to do it and illegitimate ways. I earn nothing from it at all. It is a hobby. There is no form of illegitimate "benefit" from it or from using links to good Quackwatch articles as sources here. (I am far from the only one who thinks that here.) Far from all of Barrett's sites are in the rings, and I recently bounced the most popular site from the Skeptic Ring - Steve Milloy's site - because I was uncomfortable with his COI issues. So if traffic was my primary motivation, that was a very bad move. No, webrings are a perfectly legitimate phenomenon. Mine are totally free and I earn nothing but criticism for them. You're going to have to look further out in the wilderness for dirt than this. This is scraping the bottom desperation. I find it quite hypocritical to hear this from someone who claims to be a skeptic. Skeptics stick together, so his actions are speaking louder than his words. He should be complaining about all the alternative medicine websites and their huge webrings illegitimately used to sell worthless and dangerous products and scam people. Now 'that's really bad news! That's a real COI, and the huge linkfarm of very dubious sites at Health freedom movement needs to be cleaned up. It's a disgrace and huge violation of many policies here.

As far as it being any "evidence of Fyslee having a personal relationship with Barrett" is concerned, I have never met or spoken to a single webmaster for any site in the rings. I had a hard time getting Barrett to even submit one site. Finally he caved in and now has several sites in, but far from all.

Increasing noncommercial site hits by legitimate means is not a COI violation that is described in the policy here. Everyone, including Wikipedia, wants more hits. If it were to earn more money, it would be a policy violation, but Levine2112 objects not at all about alt med sites doing it for an illegitimate profit at innocent sufferers' expense, but he objects to quackbuster sites doing it. He doesn't like their skeptical POV, which he has said and lived out here many times in various ways. We need more NPOV editors, not more POV warriors who won't collaborate.

The Colby Nolan edit summary mentioned WP:COI because it specifically forbids what Levine2112 and SlimVirgin were doing:

• "...suppressing negative information..."[79]

All significant POV are to be presented in articles. That's the essence of the NPOV policy, and it was being violated. Better arguments need to be used. SlimVirgin, an admin at that who should understand NPOV and RS, still ended up deleting it with a bad argument. A perfectly good article, the most indepth one on the subject anywhere, got trashed on a false basis. It should be restored, but I'm not edit warring, so I'll let others here do it. (Is it meatpuppetry to say that!?!) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's "linkspam and vanity links" accusation [80]

Note. This issue is spread out over more than one spot here, so my comments elsewhere should be considered relevant here:

• Conflict of interest (2); Diff 1; Diff 2

First of all, Levine2112 is misusing the word "spamming" here. There is absolutely no evidence of such behavior. I have never indiscriminately added links in some willy nilly fashion. They have always been carefully chosen and topic related, so his objections are more likely a reflection of the fact that he doesn't like the POV represented there.

As regards "vanity" links, in my newbie days I didn't understand these matters well and did add a few vanity links, again on topic, and never spammed. I have since learned and have not objected to them being removed, and have even removed a couple myself. Levine2112's list even provides ample proof of my learning curve, in that I have not vanity linked for a very long time, and it was only a few instances.

He also often claims I have "added" links when I have just been restoring existing links (I'm not the only one who uses Quackwatch, since it is the largest database of skeptical material of its kind), often after Levine2112 himself has deleted them in a POV suppressive manner during one of his delete-everything-related-to-Quackwatch-and-Barrett rampages. He's not the only one who does it, sometimes removing the only documentation for important information. That is very unwikipedian, anti-NPOV, and uncollaborative editing.

Here's a quick analysis of his pattern, showing it can't be trusted at face value, and often helps to show my positive learning curve: -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• adds vanity links to his own blog Yes, a newbie error more than a year ago.
• adds link to Quackwatch Another good source.
• adds link to Chirobase The Chirobase link was perfectly good. Note: Here I even replace a link to my own blog because I found a link to replace it, a link to a chiropractic site! I had just previously (two edits before) learned that blogs weren't acceptable, and I immediately applied that knowledge to another link of mine. This is a good example of my learning curve. Thanks Levine. Other examples of this exist, so you're welcome to also provide them....;-)
• adds link to Quackwatch Another good source.
• adds link to NACM Of course. That links to their website. Levine2112 doesn't want the only reform chiropractic group mentioned, even in the references section. An example of POV suppression.
• adds vanity link to his own Web ring Yes, technically a vanity link. The subject is skepticism, and a link to the only and largest skeptic ring seemed logical to me at the time. I wouldn't do it now.
• adds link to Quackwatch A good link providing another POV.
• adds link to NCAHF Significant development using the sources I knew, even including the antagonistic and now forbidden link to Bolen's site. Now I wouldn't use his site or any vanity links.
• adds vanity link to his own blog Yes, a vanity link to a specific article. I wouldn't do it now. That link has been deleted by the editor who still tries to control the page and sell the false idea intimately tied to a huge commercial enterprise. I didn't dispute its deletion. (That article has even been nominated for deletion.)
• adds link to NACM Another example of a link to the organization's website. Levine2112 doesn't want anyone to know that chiropractic is questioned by chiropractors. An example of POV suppression of opposing POV from within the profession itself.
• adds link to Quackwatch I included citation source for a fact, which Levine2112 hotly contested in the following edits in a very odd manner. That fact is now firmly included as what it is: Chiropractic was founded on the idea that 100% of diseases were caused by joint dislocations, primarily of the spine (which is a totally false idea). Few chiropractors subscribe to the idea now, but it's a historical fact he attempted to keep out of the article.
• adds link to Quackwatch Of course. The two organizations are closely related. A common practice here.
• adds link to Quackwatch Only restored it after I had mistakenly deleted it.
• adds link to Chirobase and NCAHF Perfectly appropriate development of the section, with sources. It's the critical section, which Levine2112 doesn't like included. I contest that the article should not sell the profession. All significant POV should be included without being sold. I'm an inclusionist of any well-sourced POV and he's a suppressor of even well-sourced negative POV, especially regarding his own profession.
• adds link to Chirobase Provided documentation. Perfectly proper.
• adds link to Chirobase We were both involved in that issue, and my edit summary to him: "When you have a better one, then use it." He then found one to a private chiropractic clinic, IOW a commercial site!
• adds multiple links to Chirobase Important development of all links, including many links to pro-chiro sites. The two to chirobase were to two different types of links, one an article, and the other to a free book text of great importance to chiropractic history, and the only source. Only two links were improper (according to my present understanding: my own chirolinks, and the one to Chirotalk, because it is a discussion forum.
• adds link to Chirobase Restored vandalism of link by an anonymous user who exploited two IPs to make unexplained deletions..
• adds link to Quackwatch On topic link.
• adds link to CredentialWatch On topic link.
• adds link to Quackwatch On topic link.
• adds link to Quackwatch An anti-external link (of any kind!) editor nuked it, in collaboration with Levine2112.
• adds link to Quackwatch Restored unjustified removal of reference. Bad practice to remove references.
• adds link to Quackwatch Not added, but restored Levine2112's questionable deletion of the most indepth article on the subject available.
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch and InfomercialWatch Not added, but restored Levine2112's removal of important links in criticism section. Maybe there were too many. They covered different aspects of Trudeaus dubious and illegal methods..
• adds link to Quackwatch Reinstated POV suppressive deletion of excellent reference by Levine2112.
• adds link to Quackwatch Another on topic skeptical and excellent article deleted by Levine2112 using improper and disputed arguments. Again removal of balancing opposing POV. Wikipedia is not here to sell magnet therapy and my editing has only upheld wiki policies.

Continued misuse of spamming accusations with more links added by Levine2112:

• adds link to Quackwatch The transcript of Senate witness testimony. I can see that the article has recently been whitewashed. The problem of removal of anything critical from politician's articles is a well-known phenomenon here.
• adds link to Quackwatch The affidavit of the Indiana Deputy Attorney General. This was a revert of repeated improper mass deletions (and inclusion of a commercial link) that amounted to whitewashing and removal of sources by IR. I invite everyone to see what was going on at the time and see both before and after this incident. In spite of repeated attempts to whitewash the article and removed good information from V & RS, the article still presents all sides of the story in NPOV fashion. I left the article when she persisted.
• adds link to Quackwatch Previous diff from same Hulda Clark series of edits.
• adds link to Homeowatch An excellent extensive history originally published in the Food and Drug Law Journal 55:161-183, 2001. Perfectly appropriate strengthening of the article using good sources of information.
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch A consensus new article, with content moved from the old one. Links are informational, with no commercial interests, in contrast to the subject of the article, which is a big business.
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch A restoration of Dr. Uthman's (it was misspelled) deleted information as an expert on the subject of gastroenterology.

I would suggest that the entire editing environment and consensus aspects be examined in all cases, except that this whole thread is misplaced in this ArbCom. The status of Quackwatch is not on trial here, and therefore such charges cannot logically be raised until after such a decision is made, which needs to be done in a much more appropriate manner than can be done here at this time. It's too serious a decision. We aren't here to discuss article content/editing but the specific behavior and attitudes of the involved parties that have disrupted Wikipedia since this whole affair began, IOW since Ilena arrived. Anything before that time is highly suspect as possibly inadmissible evidence, since it does not concern our relationship.

For my comments elsewhere:

• Conflict of interest (2); Diff 1; Diff 2

Ilena has been blocked indefinitely

I have been urged by several to do this, so here goes.....Ilena has been blocked indefinitely by SlimVirgin, who explained with these two very astute comments, which say it all:

I'll answer here rather than spreading things out. I don't know the background or who all the other editors are. All I can see is that Ilena edits very aggressively about issues she's involved in in real life; she tries to out other editors; she constantly assumes bad faith; she violates BLP, one of our most important and most strictly enforced policies, and to make things worse, violates it in relation to people she's been involved in real-life litigation with; she edits poorly in general; she seems not to understand the content policies; and she's rude to other editors. As if to add icing to the cake, she today created an attack page in an effort to out another editor even as the ArbCom was voting to ban her. That's it, I'm afraid, regardless of any other issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [81]

Forget COI for a moment. She tried to out another editor. That's harassment, and it's blockworthy. Given she was already warned, it's indefblockworthy. You seem to be arguing that, because there may have been bad behavior elsewhere, her bad behavior is okay, but it isn't. People are very tired of her, including several good editors whose work I respect and whose opinions I trust. You asked me to e-mail you, by the way, and I have. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [82]

Her block was supported there by two other admins:

• ≈ jossi ≈ [83] and

• KillerChihuahua, who had this to say:

"Just popping in to fully support this indefblock. "Outing" is indefblockable, regardless of whatever else was going on - and face it, there was a lot else going on. Ilena has shown no interest in learning about Wikipeida at all - her whole attitude has been "I am here on a mission and anyone who tries to get me to be polite or follow policy is the ENEMY and I will insult and be nasty to them!!!" IMO there has always been almost zero chance she would become a positive contributor, and now she has simplified things for us by yet again ignoring a rule she was warned about - basically pissing in our faces. I'm all done with trying to help her. She doesn't want to be helped. She wants to crusade. One puppy's opinion." [84] (Used by permission: "puppy supports, feel free to link to this dif whereever appropriate"

Ilena protested quite vehemently and SlimVirgin was then forced to protect Ilena's talk page:

• "(for BLP reasons, I'm protecting the page and continuing this by e-mail instead)" [85]

• "(Protected User talk:Ilena: BLP violations being posted [edit=sysop:move=sysop])" [86]

More information can be found here: (modified)

• Category:Ilena's early IP addresses

-- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'clast's charges regarding use of unreliable sources [87]

These were content issues and thus not relevant to an RFARB, which is about behavioral issues, not content issues.

Lest anyone be confused by this, User:I'clast and User:TheNautilus are the same person who has and does dominate that article. Why he uses two different user names is beyond me. [88][89][90]

These IPs User:66.58.129.101 User:66.58.130.56 (and others) are also his when he's not signed in, and also figure prominently in the edit history of the Orthomolecular medicine article.

Why I'clast brings an article from my blog to this discussion is beyond me. The link he uses from my blog is an article not written by myself, nor did I use it at Wikipedia (TTBOMK). It is from Jonathan M. Gitlin's science column. The wikilink in that article is original, as can be seen by the archived copy. [91] It's actually nice to see that others link to Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia is not a RS. That author apparently thought people might be interested in looking up Pauling at Wikipedia. The viewpoints expressed in that article are the author's, including his reference to his mother.

Interestingly the article quotes new research that (once again) contradicts Pauling's and I'clast/TheNautilus' beliefs. It is this type of mainstream POV that Barrett also shares, and which I'clast/TheNautilus continually attempts to keep out of the article, and that is POV suppression, a practice that violates NPOV. Even if it is a false POV (according to I'clast), it is a common mainstream POV and should be included.

I have had relatively little interest or involvment in that article. It is a long and bitter feud between I'clast and other editors, so I have only participated occasionally. The discussions have even gone so far as to violate the concept of "undue weight", with a recent suggestion to reduce the repetition of "mainstream" in the article. [92] The mainstream view is the one that should have the most weight, both content-wise and visually. This suggestion is just another attempt to suppress mainstream POV.

We are here reading an attack on me by an editor who wishes to eliminate opposing POV and editors who support it. The charges above are content disputes involving an editor who wishes to suppress the mainstream scientific POV, even when it is documented using verifiable sources.

This is also the editor who has made very serious COI charges during this RFARB against User:Shot info, implying that he was Barrett's son. Not only have they been disruptive and an exercise of bad faith, they have also had a negative role on these proceedings. I suggest that this editor and his charges not be given the time of day, and that he be forced to immediately provide all of his evidence of a COI to the ArbCom committee. If his charges are false, I expect that his bad faith attacks on Shot info, and the disruptive effect it has had on these proceedings, will call forth appropriate sanctions.

The same goes for the misleading charges made by User:Levine2112, the dubiousness of which have been amply demonstrated by several others here. Malicious bad faith charges made(up) against me should have consequences for these editors, just as does perjury in any court of law. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence by JoshuaZ

Fyslee's involvement

Fyslee called for outside editors to edit Wikipedia. Ilena's evidence for this- [93] is incontrovertible. In general, such behavior is not a good thing especially when it occurs in a partisan forum. However, Fyslee did say in the request "Keep in mind that POV (point of view) editing is forbidden, and one must cooperate with other editors, also antagonists. Articles must present all POV, including unfavorable ones. Think carefully before saving edits, since every edit is recorded publically for posterity, so mistakes will haunt you" Given that, it seems that at least in that limited matter Fyslee's behavior was not so bad, since Fyslee seemed to be trying in a good faith way to make sure the editors who joined in understood that they should be neutral.

Ilena

Ilena has been editing a wide variety of alternative medicine related articles, and has been editing them all with a strong POV. This has included most recently her getting blocked for 3RR on Clayton College of Natural Health[94] (this was in fact an NRR for large N, see [95], her sixth fifthFyslee has pointed out one block was to change duration block over all, and her second for 3RR on a Barret related matter). Some of this may just be her general problems with Barrett spreading to other articles. In this case, her POV about Barrett was so strong that she made a massive distortion of a court decision involving him. [96]. This editor has acknowledged her conflict with Barrett [97] and despite that has continued to attack him and edit articles removing material about Barrett and adding attacks to Barrett in a variety of articles. The conflict of interest is clear and her refusal to back down despite it is also clear. Ilena is a single purpose account with a strong POV and should be treated as such.

JoshuaZ 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Arthur Rubin

My apologies for not presenting evidence against Fyslee. I have some, but I expected Peter to introduce any real evidence, and Levine and Ilena to introduce anything that at all resembles evidence.

Ilena makes off-Wiki personal attacks against specific Wikipedia editors

As it's off-Wiki, and most of them have been removed, diffs are problematic. However,

• (December 10) [98] is her addition of a pointer to what was obviously an off-Wiki attack against me.
• (December 11) [99] is my note that off-Wiki attacks may be used against the assumption of her good faith in disputes, and
• (December 19) [100] is my request that she remove off-Wiki errors of fact. (I didn't technically claim "libel", but merely defamatory errors of fact.)

There are still attacks against "Paul Lee", who she claims to be a Wikipedia editor, at http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Wikipedia.htm Although repeating the defamatory material from her web site here would not be libelous, it might very well be a violation of our "right to privacy" provisions, so I won't do it here.

Ilena spammed her web site in her signature, in violation of WP:SIGNATURE

Sections are generally in chronological order. I didn't feel the need to list a number of "normal" signature links, as most of the links that day were in violation.

1. General warning about linkspam [101]
2. Additions before a formal signature was created include [102] [103] [104].
3. Normal signature links include: [105]
4. Warnings (by me) [106]
5. Re-editing signature areas to insert the link include January 15 links[107][108]

It should be noted she has generally stopped adding inappropriate links to her web site, but still ocassionally adds questionable links to it.

Ilena was uncivil and committed personal attacks

References noted on her talk page by Ronz include :[109] [110] [111] [112] [113]

Fyslee was not adding vanity links

Quackwatch, etc., links may be linkspam. I don't think so, but at least one Arbitrator has explicitly said so, so it must be true — or at least Wikipedia policy. But they are clearly not vanity links. Even if Ilena is correct as to Fyslee's assoication with Barrett, the association is much too weak for them to be considered vanity edits. Levine2112 is clearly mistaken in his interpretation of the evidence he presents.

Well, were any of them in 2006? This may fall into WP:BITE; if all his vanity edits were in his first two months, we're supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may learn that the edits are improper. Quackwatch may be "self-published" by Barrett, but many of them are well-referenced.

A quick scan of the links Levine lists shows most were over 13 months ago. If that's the case, we should probably assume that he would stop if a proper reference to Wikipedia guidelines showing they were improper. (And Quackwatch links are clearly not unreliable per se; the individual articles need to be looked at.)

Re Levine2112's latest comment on Fyslee

In regard the claim that Fyslee blanketly deleted a newbie contributor's post

• Fyslee removed material by an opponent, claiming WP:BLP, and then asked about it on the appropriate BLP noticeboard. The deletion was affirmed by at least one other editor not listed as a party to this dispute, asserting both WP:BLP and WP:NLT.

(There's really no place to indicate that an editor's commentary on evidence presented is completely without foundation. I'm putting it in "Evidence" rather than in "Workshop" or "Talk:...Evidence", because it seems to fit better.

WP:BLP allows an editor who is the person named in a violation to remove it. It's hard to see why an editor who is peripherally related to the article or subject should be prohibited from removing WP:BLP violations.

Evidence presented by MastCell

Extension of a real-life dispute

Two people (Stephen Barrett and Ilena Rosenthal) have a real-life conflict going back years, and are essentially professional antagonists. One sues the other for libel, and the case goes all the way to the California State Supreme Court, resulting in what may well be a landmark decision. Then one party in the lawsuit (Ilena) shows up here to edit almost exclusively articles relating to her antagonist (Stephen Barrett) and said lawsuit. This is the definition of a conflict of interest. If Ilena's participation was directed toward identifying and fixing WP:BLP issues, that would be one thing, but she's been disruptive, prone to personal attacks, and an edit warrior. She's continued her battle against Barrett here even while this ArbCom case is ongoing ([114]). Regardless of right or wrong, the importation of a real-life dispute onto the talk and article pages of Wikipedia by one of the litigants violates both WP:COI and ...not a battleground. In spite of mentorship from an experienced user, Ilena has not modified her approach to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines - witness the recent block for 3RR.

WP:BLP

Any solution adopted by ArbCom would need a mechanism for Ilena to raise WP:BLP issues, whether directly on talk pages or via email or posts to the BLP noticeboard. By the same token, Ilena's constant repetition of attacks on Barrett and accusations of a smear campaign (e.g. [115]) are definitely skirting a BLP violation [116] and, in any case, have no place on Wikipedia (per ...not a battleground).

Reformability

Fyslee's behavior hasn't been sterling and has crossed the line at times - I'll leave it to Peter Dodge and Ilena to fill in the blanks - but he's had a history of reasonable participation as a good Wikicitizen before all this. It's harder to be optimistic about Ilena becoming a constructive editor - even with this case ongoing, she's been engaged in an edit war at Hulda Clark and Clayton College of Natural Health, and her evidence above is mostly a repetition of the personal attacks and claims of victimization that landed things here in the first place. She's not a newbie and has had the benefit of assistance from experienced editors. Given that neither the carrot nor the stick has been effective in encouraging her to edit within Wikipedia's policies, a community ban would be a reasonable option at this point.

MastCell 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ronz

Ilena has contributed to Wikipedia through a number of ip addresses

Included for the record, since there is some confusion about when Ilena began editing initially and the circumstances of her return to editing in December '06.

• 196.40.14.198 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006 to Talk:Stephen Barrett (SB)
• 196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006 to Talk:SB
• 196.40.12.235 (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2006. Three to SB, one to NCAHF
• 196.40.14.167 (talk · contribs) on 7 July 2006. Three to SB 15:45, a few minutes before she started editing as Ilena.
• 200.122.153.238 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006. Eight edits to Barrett v. Rosenthal (BvR) starting at 02:10. (This is an ip used by others at other times)
• 196.40.13.172 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006 to BvR at 15:02. Ilena logged in a few minutes later to edit Talk:BvR, BvR, User talk:Ilena, NCAHF, SB, and Talk:NCAHF on that day.

Ilena has attacked multiple Wikipedia editors on her own website, and has used links to those attacks as part of her editing here

As Arthur mentions, it is difficult to document this because this is off-wiki and Ilena is blocking the archiving of her website. The most recent google cache contains a December 25 version [117] which says:

After I wrote about Rubin and Lee on my blog, up popped Ronz, who erases every trace of evidence that shows that Barrett's NCAHF has no apparent legal corporate status ... if he was unbiased, there would be no reason for him to erase these facts. He is their perfect distraction shill ... claiming that NCAHF's distraction, or "POV" (point of view.)

The attacks on Arthur are already partially removed in this cache. Attacks against Fyslee are still in the January 18 version, still online as of February 18 [118].

She's linked directly to the attack on Arthur [119] and me [120]. And linked to a different section of the site as a part of an uncivil response to KillerChihuahua [121]. She continued to link to it [122] after she was aware of and contributed to the AN Dec 26 and was warned on her talk page [123].

Response to evidence of Fyslee using unreliable sources

I see no evidence posted here of Fyslee using unreliable sources. When such evidence is shown, I'd like the chance to investigate how Fyslee supported use of such sources, what consensus was reached, and how Fyslee was involved in the consensus process.

Evidence presented by Addobbi

Ilene blows Chirotalk issue out of proportion

As a member of chirotalk, I couldn't help but notice what was going on here in regards to this dispute between Fyselee and Ilene. It would appear to me that this has gone beyond being a reasonable dialogue and has become personal. It was I who wrote the post "This sounds like a job that Fyslee could spearhead". Therefore it was also I who deleted that evidence, and not Fyselee. It was also I who referred to him as a Wikipedia expert. I was saying this out of respect, since I admired the good work he was doing here, and was impressed by his desire to be a fair and objective contributer to wikipedia. I later regretted pointing out his wikipedia activities in my chirotalk posts, given that they were being used against him, and modified them out of respect in a manner that I felt was appropriate. From my perspective, given that I wrote some of the posts in the chirotalk threads that are being quoted as evidence of Fyslee's actions, I can assert that several of the changes that she was giving as evidence were actually changes that I had made, and were not initiated by Fyslee nor were they requested by him. Furthermore, I could be counted as one of those unknown to Fyslee, and am in no way a part of any anti-quackery conspiracy.

Fyslee has not made a single post on Chirotalk since last August. And yet great efforts have been made here to dig up as much dirt as possible regarding his activities on there. This has even included mentions of recent changes to his chirotalk ID name. I can only assume he has done this deliberately to point out how foolish the overstatement of the decidely thin chirotalk evidence is.

The Chirotalk forum only has about a 10 regular posters at any given time. Over time, several contributers have in fact left. The idea of Chirotalk members coming to wikipedia to make contributions to chiropractic themed entries was discussed in specific threads as has already been mentioned. I admit that some of my own comments therein do at times appear incriminating. Incriminating in the sense that they may lead the reader to believe that there was an intention on our part to arrive at wikipedia with the intention to make contributions that could become disruptive. Yet after learning more about the wikipedia community, it became clear to me that I was not objective enough to consider making additions to topics related to either chiropractic or alternative medicine for that matter. Of course I can only speak for myself personally, yet I doubt that many chirotalk members have joined Wikipedia specifically as a result of Fyselee's so called "call to arms".

My lack of knowledge of Wikipedia rules, when I first approached the idea of editing Wikipedia could have led me to be disruptive, or to disobey the rules. I believe that Fyslee may have likewise made some wrong assumptions regarding what was acceptable when he was a Wikipedia newbie. I think this should be kept in mind when viewing some of the posts he has made outside of wikipedia dating back several months ago on sites such as chirotalk.

I can assure you that any contributions I make here aside from this post will be made on non-chiropractic topics.

Addobbi 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AvB

Discussion of evidence provided by Levine2112

(Subsection refactored (diff) with thanks to Levine2112 for alerting me to the 29 "missing links" and possible or definite incivilities.)

I have studied Levine2112's linkspam evidence in depth. Please find my overall findings below. The findings rest on the fully clickable contextualization I've prepared (appended at the bottom of this discussion).

User:Levine2112 has introduced as evidence a list of 61 diffs on this Evidence page. I will not be discussing newbie mistakes here, or analyzing whether or not they were policy violations, therefore I am ignoring the oldest 29 diffs. On close inspection, the remaining 32 diffs range from debatable at best (6 diffs, 19%) to outright incorrect (8 diffs, 25%). Proving or disproving the value of such evidence takes, in simple cases, approximately 5 times as long as it takes to read each diff in context and provide additional diffs for the arbitrators. If such diffs are not provided, arbitrators may ignore the context as it will take each arbitrator too long to read through the context. In more complex cases, one needs to study the entire edit history of an article if one wants to understand what really happened. It is easy to make accusations like Levine2112's, yet takes forever to prove them wrong (or right). Fyslee made an attempt to prove them wrong but even though he must have spent countless hours on it, all he could do was characterize a number of diffs based on context.

Levine's "evidence" against Fyslee debunked

How should we interpret the fact that Fyslee has added a number of Quackwatch links beyond his newbie days? In my analysis, Levine gave 32 diffs over the last five months, totaling 33 links to Quackwatch etc. Assuming that each of those diffs would show a new addition of a link to Quackwatch (but they don't), one should realize that Fyslee made 3,923 edits during those five months. Assuming Levine2112's evidence is 100% reliable (but it isn't, see below), some 4% of the 800 Quackwatch links in the encyclopedia were added by Fyslee over these five months, or 0.8% of his edit count. (In reality, the most one can say when reading in context is that 0.8% of his edits involved 4% of the links to Quackwatch.) This does not establish a pattern. In fact the figures for e.g. Levine2112 removing links to QW against consensus are markedly higher. However, as you can see below, the vast majority of these links were 1RR reversions of edits that went against consensus. Figures (see codes in list of diffs below):

• Code 0 (mistakes by Levine, no links added, reverted or deleted): 8 links
• Code 2 (I’m not sure, or consensus had yet to form in new article, or dead link): 3 links
• Code 3 (revert to/defend existing consensus link): 16 links
• Code 4 (added for good reason/consensus; others can look for a better source or cannot be sourced elsewhere): 3 links
• Code 5 (added for good reason/consensus; cannot be sourced elsewhere): 3 links

As you can see, of those 33 links in five months, 8 were errors by Levine2112. 16 links were simple, mostly 1RR reversions carried by consensus. 2 of the three “not sure” links gained consensus when other editors had come along; the third remains unknown since the page does not exist. The few “failed to remove” links were actually a single link to Fyslee’s blog that was restored several times in the context of large reversions. That leaves us with 6 additions by Fyslee that need to be accounted for. In my opinion, they were all added for good reason. 3 could only be sourced at Quackwatch, 3 others were good links but could perhaps be replaced with non-QW links in time. 8 mistakes, 2 links in new articles that gained consensus later on, one dead link and the 16 clean reverts mean that 27 out of 33 links definitively did not involve any policy violations by Fyslee.

Levine has stated for a fact that Fyslee practises COI-related editing by placing and defending links to QW-related sites and his own blog in order to generate click-throughs to these sites, thus gaining better search machine rankings for these sites by abusing Wikipedia. I think the case can be made that Levine2112 has more at stake here than Fyslee. In terms of value factors, I perceive a handful of click-throughs on Fyslee's side, and safeguarding profession and commercial success on Levine2112's. In terms of peer acclaim and personal and societal achievement, I see similar factors on both sides of the debate. Another difference is that Levine2112 has worked hard at presenting evidence against Fyslee's editing for this arbitration, while Fyslee has not attempted to put Levine2112's behavior on the arbitrators' radar. (By the way, as every expert will confirm, these links cannot have influenced the rankings of these sites by any visible margin until January 22, and even less since then; such links are currently set to NO FOLLOW so that Google will not even parse them.)

Fyslee added 6 of the 800 links to Quackwatch during the last five months: 0.75%. And 0.15% of Fyslee's edit count consisted of new additions of QW-related links. In comparison, if Levine2112 (edit count 2,007 over that same period) has added more than 3 links to partisan pro-chiro sites, and if what Fyslee did was wrong and a reason to ban, Levine (and many other editors) can also expect a ban.

Has Levine2112 aggressively tried to remove, against consensus and without citing a relevant policy, Quackwatch related links from the encyclopedia?

It soon becomes clear that Quackwatch is not the common denominator in the diffs mined by Levine2112. On close inspection it appears that most of those edits would not have been necessary if they had not been preceded by attempts to delete such links by other editors. One specific editor stands out here. An editor who saw his attempts thwarted very often due to a consensus in favor of including those links.

As you may have guessed, the editor in question is Levine2112. Reading the diffs in context, a "missing link" becomes apparent. It is not Fyslee's non-existing crusade to add Quackwatch links to the encyclopedia. Levine started tracking Fyslee soon after his arrival on Wikipedia (Levine2112 got here first, added a commercial link (diff) and immediately started edit warring (diff) (diff) (diff)). The common denominator connecting Levine2112 and Fyslee in the list of diffs mined by Levine2112 comes across as COI-influenced editing, possibly also WP:POINT by Levine2112. Of all the 800 links to Quackwatch-related sites in Wikipedia outside of the area where he has a personal interest that he could have disputed in pursuit of the betterment of the encyclopedia, he has selected links in articles edited by Fyslee and unrelated to chiropractic. I submit to the arbitrators that this might constitute harassment and/or wiki-stalking behavior, which has gone to extremes so that an ulterior motive seems to be present: to eventually rid Wikipedia of one of its staunchest defenders of the majority POV, i.e. the scientific POV.

Levine2112's list of diffs, on close scrutiny, demonstrates his own behavior in initiating interaction with Fyslee by deleting targeted Quackwatch links on 11 occasions (yes, 11 of the 16 “additions” that turned out to be reverts were actually reverting deletions by Levine2112).

Conclusion (2)

Finding of fact (3), originally thought to apply to Fyslee, on closer inspection applies, mutatis mutandis, to Levine2112 instead. The same goes for the remedy or remedies related to these findings.

It is revealing to see Levine2112 present the relevant edit history as "evidence" against Fyslee. This approach has proven rather effective so far. Even when he continued doing this well into this arbitration, adding entirely correct reverts to his list, portraying Fyslee as "adding" the links he defended against Levine (11 occasions) and Ilena (2 occasions in Levine's list).

I have now shown evidence by Levine2112 to be unreliable. His use of language, diffs and "contextomy" has created a narrative that does not hold up in the light of the relevant edit history. I believe this has tarnished his credibility in these proceedings.

I would like to ask the arbitrators to review their votes where they have already made them, and consider to add new findings of fact and remedies in the light of the above. In my opinion this new information frees Fyslee from Levine2112's accusations on this Evidence page.

(Please note I could not possibly have finished this report before 5 March 2007).

In addition to reviewing Fyslee's case, arbitrators may want to propose a new finding of fact along the following lines: Levine2112 has consistently and aggressively tried to remove, against consensus and without citing a relevant policy, Quackwatch related links from the encyclopedia. When doing so, he has targeted articles monitored by Fyslee.

We should not post facto criminalize the consensual use of reliable Quackwatch pages any more than we should post facto justify the removal of such material and links against consensus.

Contextualized diffs of Levine2112's evidence against Fyslee

I have sorted Levine’s list by date and time and added the relevant context and my personal comments. The full list of 61 diffs is here. Below I’m presenting the links posted on 10 October 2006 or later. The remaining 29 edits are older than 20 April 2006.

Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=80596546
	adds link to NCAHF
Edit date	2006-10-10
Edit time	12:28:35
Article	Allopathic medicine
Comment by AvB	Copyedit. Moves existing link.
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coretta_Scott_King&diff=prev&oldid=80883381
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-10-11
Edit time	21:48:25
Article	Coretta Scott King
Comment by AvB	Copyedit, adds QW ref; adds two refs to source existing material, one to ajc and one to QW regarding “highly controversial figure, Kurt Donsbach; article contains dozens of external links but only a few refs
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coretta_Scott_King&diff=80884488&oldid=80737874
Disputed link	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/donsbach.html
Link quality	4=add/consensus/others can look for a better source or cannot be sourced elsewhere
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coretta_Scott_King&diff=prev&oldid=81208393
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-10-13
Edit time	14:50:14
Article	Coretta Scott King
Comment by AvB	Levine follows Fyslee to an article neither has edited before (per full article history). Fyslee restores links deleted by Levine2112 against consensus, one to the NYT and one to QW
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coretta_Scott_King&diff=prev&oldid=81099001
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=83471772
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-10-24
Edit time	19:34:21
Article	Pseudoscience
Comment by AvB	When Fyslee starts editing this article 2006-01-21 07:55:00, “Quackwatch - A guide to pseudoscience of a medical nature” is already in the external links
Disputed link	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Link quality	4=add/consensus/others can look for a better source or cannot be sourced elsewhere
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vertebral_subluxation&diff=prev&oldid=83990542
	adds link to Chirobase
Edit date	2006-10-27
Edit time	05:27:59
Article	Vertebral subluxation
Comment by AvB	Fyslee reverts deletion of two links by 66.168.200.82
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vertebral_subluxation&diff=77579632&oldid=76496754
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioresonance_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=84990389
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-11-01
Edit time	07:28:58
Article	Bioresonance therapy
Comment by AvB	Fyslee reverts partial blanking and insertion of link to http://www.quantum-life.com by 70.184.42.150
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioresonance_therapy&diff=84987411&oldid=83286559
Disputed link	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/electro.html
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteopathy&diff=prev&oldid=85819238
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-11-05
Edit time	10:08:11
Article	Osteopathy
Comment by AvB	No QW-related link added (Fyslee moves link)
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_manipulation&diff=prev&oldid=85892372
	adds link to NACM
Edit date	2006-11-05
Edit time	20:15:21
Article	Joint manipulation
Comment by AvB	New article created by Fyslee 2006-11-05
Disputed link	http://www.chiromed.org/
Link quality	2 TBD
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_manipulation&diff=prev&oldid=86086267
	adds link to NACM
Edit date	2006-11-06
Edit time	18:58:45
Article	Joint manipulation
Comment by AvB	Levine2112 follows Fyslee to this article and deletes the link mentioned above. Fyslee reverts Levine2112’s edit. Consensus to keep the link forms when other editors have started editing the article.
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_manipulation&diff=prev&oldid=86085099
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulda_Regehr_Clark&diff=prev&oldid=86989927
add link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-11-10
Edit time	20:17:59
Article	Hulda Regehr Clark
Comment by AvB	Fyslee adds content and sources it using this link; legal document not available online elsewhere; numbered document
Disputed link	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/huffman.html
Link quality	5=add/consensus/cannot be sourced elsewhere
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Geier&diff=prev&oldid=87143758
	adds link to Casewatch
Edit date	2006-11-11
Edit time	15:25:16
Article	Mark Geier
Comment by AvB	Moves existing link
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=88818138
	fails to remove link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
Edit date	2006-11-19
Edit time	16:39:47
Article	Mucoid plaque
Comment by AvB	71.244.4.109 adds new links; Fyslee reverts; keeps original links
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=88872764
	fails to remove link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
Edit date	2006-11-19
Edit time	22:08:41
Article	Mucoid plaque
Comment by AvB	Returns existing link to original location by reverting an edit by Ettu
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=88882126
	fails to remove vanity link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
Edit date	2006-11-19
Edit time	22:58:34
Article	Mucoid plaque
Comment by AvB	Returns existing link to original location by reverting an edit by Ettu
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coral_calcium&diff=prev&oldid=89877305
	adds multiple links to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-11-24
Edit time	20:41:27
Article	Coral calcium
Comment by AvB	Restores vandalism by 71.231.79.102
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coral_calcium&diff=89759542&oldid=88259692
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=90015429
	fails to remove vanity link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
Edit date	2006-11-25
Edit time	14:06:04
Article	Mucoid plaque
Comment by AvB	Returns existing link to original location by reverting an extensive non-consensus edit by Ettu
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=90042892
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-11-25
Edit time	17:41:02
Article	Mucoid plaque
Comment by AvB	Returns existing link to original location by reverting an extensive non-consensus edit by Ettu “Make small edits and discuss them first; Restored previous consensus version”
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mucoid_plaque&diff=prev&oldid=90308226
	adds multiple links to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-11-26
Edit time	23:45:25
Article	Mucoid plaque
Comment by AvB	Reverts edit by Ettu
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hair_analysis_%28alternative_medicine%29&diff=prev&oldid=92940651
	adds multiple links to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-12-08
Edit time	16:46:42
Article	Hair analysis (alternative medicine)
Comment by AvB	New article by Fyslee, links to JAMA article by Barrett and two links to QW. First link in Barrett’s field of expertise; second link well-sourced but can be replaced with better source.
Disputed links	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/hair.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/mercurytests.html
Link quality	4=add/consensus/others can look for a better source or cannot be sourced elsewhere
	2=not sure
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=93043711
	adds link to Homeowatch
Edit date	2006-12-09
Edit time	01:10:48
Article	Homeopathy
Comment by AvB	Homeowatch home page link already in external links; here Fyslee
	adds a specific page to source his addition of “A memorandum written in 1985” material
Disputed link	http://www.homeowatch.org/reg/meeting
Link quality	2; page no longer exists
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulda_Regehr_Clark&diff=prev&oldid=96395214
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-12-25
Edit time	10:11:29
Article	Hulda Regehr Clark
Comment by AvB	Fyslee reverts whitewashing by Ilena
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulda_Regehr_Clark&diff=96348960&oldid=96243818
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulda_Regehr_Clark&diff=prev&oldid=96423588
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-12-25
Edit time	17:23:31
Article	Hulda Regehr Clark
Comment by AvB	Fyslee once again reverts whitewashing by Ilena
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulda_Regehr_Clark&diff=prev&oldid=96420336
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Burton&diff=prev&oldid=97220322
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2006-12-29
Edit time	23:27:33
Article	Dan Burton
Comment by AvB	Fyslee adds “Rebuttal to the Statement of Burton, Submitted by Timothy N. Gorski, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.”; very informative, well-sourced, relevant, not available elsewhere, notable, 2-month consensus until removed in a major rewrite 2007-02-26 02:17:52
Disputed link	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Hearing/gorski2.html
Link quality	5=add/consensus/cannot be sourced elsewhere
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnet_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=103241356
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-01-25
Edit time	23:15:22
Article	Magnet therapy
Comment by AvB	Levine removes “unreliable attack site”, Fyslee reverts to consensus version
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnet_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=103237865
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=103242100
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-01-25
Edit time	23:18:58
Article	Orthomolecular medicine
Comment by AvB	Levine removes “unreliable attack site”, Fyslee reverts to consensus version
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=103238650
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Trudeau&diff=prev&oldid=103242516
	adds multiple links to Quackwatch and InfomercialWatch
Edit date	2007-01-25
Edit time	23:20:57
Article	Kevin Trudeau
Comment by AvB	Levine removes “unreliable attack site”, Fyslee reverts to consensus version
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Trudeau&diff=prev&oldid=103238905
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colby_Nolan&diff=prev&oldid=103242809
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-01-25
Edit time	23:22:18
Article	Colby Nolan
Comment by AvB	Levine “rmv ref from unreliable attack site”; Fyslee reverts to consensus version
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colby_Nolan&diff=prev&oldid=103239168
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=104042740
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-01-29
Edit time	09:32:48
Article	Orthomolecular medicine
Comment by AvB	TheNautilus removes old style ref; leaves old style refs to same QW link ; Fyslee reverts this, link itself was not removed or added
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=103384512
Link quality	0=no link added
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_jelly&diff=prev&oldid=104542179
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-01-31
Edit time	09:55:36
Article	Royal jelly
Comment by AvB	Levine2112 removes QW link from Pollen article, Fyslee adds the link to Royal jelly article; Levine accepts, then replaces link with http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/roy_0229.shtml
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pollen&diff=104510169&oldid=103304839
Disputed link	http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/bee.html
Link quality	5=add/consensus/cannot be sourced elsewhere
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_accreditation&diff=prev&oldid=104543339
	adds link to CredentialWatch
Edit date	2007-01-31
Edit time	10:06:48
Article	School accreditation
Comment by AvB	Levine2112 removes Credentialwatch link “spammy; no research = one guy's opinion”; Fyslee reverts to consensus version; Levine removes for the second time, Fyslee reverts for the second time;
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_accreditation&diff=104643408&oldid=104543339
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiomersal_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=104690264
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-01-31
Edit time	23:23:31
Article	Thiomersal controversy
Comment by AvB	Levine2112 removes link “not peer-reviewed and spammy”; Fyslee reverts to consensus version
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiomersal_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=104634552
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link
Evidence provided by Levine2112	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiomersal_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=104701927
	adds link to Quackwatch
Edit date	2007-02-01
Edit time	00:10:07
Article	Thiomersal controversy
Comment by AvB	Levine2112 removes the same link once again “objectional amount of advertising and misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research”; Fyslee reverts again
Better diff or preceding deletion	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiomersal_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=104700364
Link quality	3=leave in/defend existing consensus link

Ilena's updated "Wikipedia" page

See http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Wikipedia.htm -- If pressed for time, scroll down to the second half of the page. (To be on the safe side I've archived that page on my computer.) It's a true hate page against Wikipedia, Fyslee and other editors. It makes my skin crawl. So this is how Ilena responds when she thinks Wikipedia is banning Fyslee from alt-med articles. Counterproductive I should imagine. 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect meatpuppetry accusation

Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

Wizardry Dragon has, here on this arbitration page, used selective quoting, portraying Fyslee as a meatpuppeteer who had posted a call for new WP editors on a skeptics' forum. Looking at the post itself, User:JoshuaZ has already explained that it did not violate our rules. After looking at the entire thread on that forum (it's here) I will go further and commend Fyslee for posting what he did. Summary of the thread: Someone (not Fyslee) had flagged up a WP article. A discussion ensued about the possibility to start another article (about the forum in question). Someone did, but was confronted with "pro-chiro" opposition. In post #10 in this thread Fyslee chimed in with some quick start information for those interested or already busy editing Wikipedia. A good thing in my opinion. I would have done the same. In fact, Fyslee's post ended the thread, and I presume any subsequent discussion took place on Wikipedia talk pages, as it should. Some five months later, two follow-up posts very sensibly discussed the removal of the Wikipedia link to the forum. AvB ÷ talk 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

Ilena has also, here and here on the Workshop page of this arbitration case, engaged in selective quoting portraying Fyslee as a meatpuppeteer. I have responded on that page, showing that the four "examples" do not constitute misbehavior of any kind, especially when read in context (i.e. the relevant discussion or "thread"). Copying my response here:

Such examples would not support the point you are trying to make even if they were valid. Your belief that Fyslee is "selling anti-quackery" on Wikipedia remains a conflict-of-interest claim without any evidence. As to the examples themselves: This was in May 2005, long before Fyslee started editing Wikipedia. Hardly a call to "help him collaborate". This had nothing to do with Fyslee. Here I present evidence against what you are portraying as "call to arms" on Chirotalk re Life University Wikipedia entry. That leaves us with "but one example" - healthfraud Wikipedia - and that was when Fyslee was still a newbie editor here, slightly over a year ago. AvB ÷ talk 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The last example should also be read in context: it is in response to this post. Once again, Fyslee's response proves totally acceptable and cannot be called meatpuppetry by any stretch of the imagination.

Since Ilena suggested that there are many more examples, and Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge) provided the Chirotalk "example" as his sole evidence of meatpuppetry, I decided to check all of Fyslee's posts to the Chirotalk platform. I limited my check to posts made after January 1, 2006. During that period, Fyslee posted 98 contributions. Five of those posts in four different threads (=discussions) mentioned Wikipedia.

The first one (here) reported and denounced Wikipedia vandalism from an IP number and asked the perpetrator to stop for several reasons, one of them was giving Chirotalk a bad name. A perfectly valid post dated Jan 14, 2006. The second post, in the same thread, contained references to two Wikipedia edits made by Fyslee, one retained, the other one deleted. A neutral post showing Fyslee's respect for the collaborative editing process; dated Jan 15, 2006.

The third post (here) mentioned a slight technical hitch at Wikipedia in response to a similar hitch elsewhere on the Internet. Simple, helpful post, dated Feb 6, 2006.

The fourth one (here) quoted some information from Wikipedia. Quite unsurprising use of the encyclopedia, dated Apr 14, 2006.

The fifth one has already been discussed by User:JoshuaZ and myself, see above under Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge). It was posted on June 5, 2006.

In short, I checked over a year's worth of posts to the Chirotalk forum and did not find a shred of evidence of calling up people to start editing per Fyslee's instructions. Finally, what's so bad about advertizing Wikipedia? As long as there's no vote-stacking etc involved, there is no problem. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. Many of us have started their Wikipedia "career" this way. AvB ÷ talk 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Levine2112

Fyslee enflamed Ilena from the get-go

I was avoiding voicing myself here as I really haven't edited much (if at all) on Barrett v. Rosenthal. But I read this, I wanted Fyslee to at least be clear here. From Ilena's first day here (coincidentally User:Sbinfo's first day here), Fyslee has been on her case. We are told here to not bite the newbie, but Fyslee's first confrontation with Ilena shows that he was ignoring this basic policy. 19:45, 7 July 2006 This harsh, high-level warning template (template #1 is preferred starting point for a newbie) followed only after a small amount of intitial editing on Ilena's part at Stephen Barrett. So right away, Fyslee was being extremely confrontational. Now my experience with Ilena, though limited to just Wikipedia, has shown me that when she is pushed, she pushes back. And following her intial edit, you can be assured that Fyslee stayed on her case and wouldn't give her a moments peace. Note that I am not defending all of Ilena's edits. I agree that placing a vanity link to her own site or adding unreferences speculative info to an article is a bad idea. My issue here is that Fyslee is attempting to say that he was willing to work collaboratively with Ilena, when clearly that wasn't his intention at the start. He set up a defensive relationship with her and continued to push her buttons, knowing that eventually she would react poorly. I would speculate (and I bet I am right) that Fyslee knew exactly who Ilena was right when she showed up at Wikipedia. As a member of the RagTag Possee of Snake Oil Vigilantes, Fyslee clearly has a preexisting bias against Ilena. Please peruse this immature attack site that dates back to 2000. It is filled with satirical song lyrics lambasting Ilena and trying to enflame her. (Barrett is also a member of the RagTag Posse.) Clearly, Fyslee's intent here right when Ilena arrived was to enflame her more. This is a real-life dispute that has continued onto Wikipedia and neither party has acted in good faith. And now that Fyslee is pretending to put on his good-boy hat and say that he wants only to work collaboratively with her... well that's just a ploy not to get what's coming to him. I warn the arbitrators reviewing the evidence not to fall for this. I guess I am asking Fyslee to take a step back and realize that he has been antagonizing Ilena from the start and that he is very much to blame that it has come to this RfArb.

In a recent edit, Fyslee wonders how many people Ilena has driven to suicide.

Here Fyslee admits to me that he is part of the RagTag Posse to "tease" people (Fyslee's words are "trolls and jerks") such as Ilena. What he calls teasing is actually attempts to poke fun at and enflame their opposition.

Here are some examples of Fyslee enflaming/teasing Ilena. [124] [125] [126] [127] Here, Fyslee describes being "attacked" by Ilena, but when reading through her posts, they are no different in nature from what Fyslee had been posting about Ilena.

Meat-puppetry by Fyslee

Here is another example of Fyslee recruiting to skeptics to combat who he calls "loons". In this case, the loon was me. Please see this entry in the forums of Randi.org.Skeptics needed for Wikipedia. It is a repost of a mass email which he sent out covertly only to have it - whoops! - posted publicly on this skeptic's forum. There are a couple of troubling statements which Fyslee makes which I would like to point out:

There are plenty of loons out there doing the editing right now, and far too few skeptics to keep them at bay.

Okay, as I said, I guess I am a loon according to Fyslee.

Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Wikipedia keeps a very public history of *every* little edit, and you can't get them removed. We don't need any accusations of a conspiracy!

Clearly he was orchestrating a behind-the-scenes effort and (dare I say) conspiring against users like me. He goes on to say that I am an editor who "needs to be watched" as I favor an unscientific POV. (To clarify, I am not in favor of a unscientific POV. I am a scientific skeptic by the true definition of the term. My beliefs are wholly dependent on the presentation of scientific evidence.)

Another example of Fyslee's meatpuppetry can be found at "Chirotalk" - a dubious discussion forum where they attribute a career in chiropractic to a cause of suicide. Here Fyslee (though he recently changed his user name to protect his identity) tries to round up more likeminded editors to spew their special brand of hatred on Wikipedia.

COI for Fyslee

Aside from being the listmaster of one of Barrett's email forums, volunteering to aid Barrett with his libel suits, and corresponding with Barrett about Wikipedia, I would also like to point out two links found on the home page of Barrett's websites. Go to QuackWatch and scroll down just to about the bottom of the page where it says "Ring Membership". There are two rings which Quackwatch is a part of - the Anti-Quackery Ring and the Skeptic Ring. Click on either of those links and see that the ring is managed by Fyslee. The ring links sites like Quackwatch to Fyslee's blog, Chirotalk, and beyond. Oh, and you can find links to this ring on just about every home page of every site in Barrett's empire. What does this mean? Fyslee benefits directly when links to Quackwatch are place on Wikipedia. Yet, he has placed and defends dozens of Quackwatch links throughout Wikipedia. As recently as today he was defending one. He went so far as accusing me of a COI for removing it. What COI do I have I ask him? How do I benefit from removing a link to a site that - as described by admin SlimVirgin in her subsequent removal of Fyslee's work - is "not a reliable source". So what do I have to gain? Nothing. What does Fyslee have to gain? Much more exposure for his webring. More external links to all of his site, higher Google ranking, more users clicking through to his site. Thus a COI. Remember, this isn't necessarily a financially motivated move. In Fyslee's case, he wants to make sure that his opinion is the opinion most ofter heard. Increasing web exposure by exchanging links with a Google powerhouse such as Quackwatch is a great way to do that. Fyslee knows this well (as revealed in his advice for boosting ChiroTalk in Google's ranks). There's your motivation and there is your COI.

Additionally, that Quackwatch and all of Barrett's site feature links to Fyslee's ring so prominently on each of their home pages, does add to the evidence of Fyslee having a personal relationship with Barrett.

Fyslee admitted his COI with Bolen (even admits personal correspondence with Bolen) early on yet continues to violate this today. On many other occasions, Fyslee has removed links to Bolen's website -[128] [129] - perhaps with reasonable grounds in WP:EL, but given Fyslee's admitted COI, he shouldn't have been the one making such deletions.

Fylsee has a COI with Hulda Regehr Clark. He has been named in a cross-complaint of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Clark filed in 2000. Yet, Fyslee has made many edits to her article (including adding a link to Quackwatch and general POV edits).

Fyslee's POV Push against Chiropractic

Fyslee has had a major motive since he has arrived at Wikipedia -- to make sure that chiropractic is shown in a negative light. Edits suchs as these - where he compares chiropractic to witchcraft - are among his most egregious. Along with this POV push comes Fyslee push to denigrate vertebral subluxation with inflamatory posts. Here is an example of that and here is another and another and another and another. Please note his abusive edit summaries in these examples. In one of the strangest example, Fyslee tried to add made-up anti-chiropractic oxymorons to the Oxymoron article. Please review the string of diffs begining here.

Fyslee brings his outside conflict onto Wikipedia

In the wake of Fyslee's false accusation that User:Healthzealot was Ilena's sockpuppet, admin User:Slimvirgin posted this message to Fyslee:

... It would be a good idea if you were to stop posting about individuals you're in conflict with in real life, and also to stop editing articles about issues you have direct involvement in. This whole pro- and anti-Quackwatch thing has gone too far. As a project, we can't support or oppose any of these groups or individuals. We're only here to write about things that reliable sources have written about, and there shouldn't be any campaigning or real-life fights spilling over into the encyclopedia ...

I would like to note that today Fyslee disregarded this admonishment from SlimVirgin when he blanketly deleted a newbie contributor's post with whom Fyslee has an outside conflict with. Fyslee then went on a tirade on this newbie user's talk page. He then posted multiple warnings [130] on the BLP noticeboard about not only this newbie editor but for Ilena as well. Finally, his interpretation [131] of what he calls a legal threat lodged by this newbie user, is most clearly a misrepresentation. The newbie user is not threatening anyone but rather warning us that the outcome of Barrett v. Rosenthal may not necessarily protect Wikipedia users. That's all. No threat. Just a sound piece of advice for anyone editing at Wikipedia. And note that the newbie is clear that this is just his opinion.

Please note that I am endorsing what this newbie editor added to the talk page, nor am I contesting Fyslee's interpretation of WP:BLP. Given Fyslee's COI with the article in question (and apparently with this newbie user), given this ongoing RfA and given SlimVirgin's warning, it was improper for Fyslee to be the one to delete this newbie's comments.

Linkspam and Vanity Links added by Fyslee

Fyslee has a history of spamming links to Stephen Barrett's websites (Quackwatch, NCAHF, Chirobase, etc.) as well as adding vanity links to Fyslee's own blog or web ring. Again, this may not be of financial interest to him. What is of more value to Fyslee is making people believe that his opinion is fact. That means spreading his and Barrett's gospel as much as possible. To do a search for everytime Fyslee has added a link to one of his or Barrett's sites would be an arduous process indeed. Here is but a sample to give you an idea. If more is needed, please let me know and I will gather more examples.

• adds vanity links to his own blog
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NACM
• adds vanity link to his own Web ring
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds vanity link to his own blog
• adds link to NACM
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Chirobase and NCAHF
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds multiple links to Chirobase
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to CredentialWatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch and InfomercialWatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Homeowatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• fails to remove vanity link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• fails to remove vanity link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• fails to remove link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• fails to remove link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• adds link to Casewatch
• add link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NACM
• adds link to NACM
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds link to Quackwatch, Chirobase and RatBags
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch, NCAHF and a vanity link
• adds vanity link
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch and NCAHF

With regard to Fyslee's vanity link to his non-RS blog which he left on article Mucoid plaque for a long time (nearly a full year) all the while deleting other external links on this article and other article, it would seem that Fyslee was protecting his vanity link to serve his own interest. Here is an example. Clearly he is aware of WP:EL as he had deleted Ilena's link because her site is a blog and/or because it was a vanity link. Therefore, he knowingly had been violating WP:EL for close to a year. The editor who finally did find and delete this link discusses it here.

Response to AvB

I am a bit troubled that User:AvB is turning this evidence page into an attack on me. While I wholly respect AvB's right to adamantly defend User:Fyslee, I am taken aback by AvB'shostility toward me. The diffs above which I have listed are presented as evidence without passion or prejudice. While they don't include every instance of Fyslee adding a link to Quackwatch or a related site or a vanity link to Fyslee's blog, I believe them to be a representative sample of Fyslee's behavior. For instance, I don't think I included any of the plethora of external links which Fyslee has added to articles Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett or National Council Against Health Fraud. I didn't see much of a reason to highlight these as the links are more relevant to the articles themselves. I also skipped over several months of Fyslee's edits as I didn't have the time or energy to perform such an exhaustive search. Please note that what I do have listed above totals approximately 70-80 links added (about 60 diffs thus far and many with multiple additions per edit). However, regardless of the reason which AvB hypothesizes in defense of Fyslee, given Fyslee's close working relationship with Stephen Barrett and interest in boosting Barrett sites' web exposure, Fyslee clearly violated WP:COI everytime he placed a link to one of Barrett's sites. The same obviously goes for Fyslee placing vanity links to his own site. I am not on a "witchhunt" as AvB suggests; nor do I appreciate AvB's incivil aspersions. (Please note that since I first posted this response, AvB has attempted to make his entry less hostile. I still contend that it is incivil as it stands and improper for this ArbCom. I am not a party to this arbitration and I believe that AvB is hoping to discredit my evidence by showing impropriety on my part. Regardless, please don't let this distract you from the evidence at hand.) I am simply providing evidence which establishes 1) Fyslee indeed has a close relationship with Stephen Barrett 2) Fyslee has actively sought to increase the amount of Quackwatch-related external links on Wikipedia 3) Fyslee has indeed placed and defended his own vanity links for nearly a year 4) Fyslee had a prior prejudice against User:Ilena 5) Fyslee acted in bad faith and incivility with Ilena on Wikipedia 6) Fyslee had a prior prejudice against Tim Bolen 7) Fyslee acted in bad faith with newbie user Tim Bolen 8) Fyslee has carried his crusade against chiropractic and other alternative medicines onto Wikipedia and - though sometimes he can put his POV in check - he often times cannot and edits inappropriately, using Wikipedia as his soapbox, and ridicules other editors with opposing viewpoints 9) Fyslee has tried to covertly recruit likeminded editors to Wikipedia by disparaging non-likeminded editors.

After an early slip-up here (which User:Ronz was gracious enough to point out), I have made it a point not to bring up other editors into my evidence other than the involved parties; namely Fyslee, Ilena and tangentially User:SbInfo (who we assume to be Stephen Barrett). I suggest AvB follows this same advice and keeps his evidence on topic and civil.

Finally, to set the record straight, I would like to attest that I have no special interests or conflicts here. I am not a professional advocate for alternative medicine. I am not a "gun for hire" paid to defend alternative medicine. In fact no one has prompted me to defend or oppose any subject on Wikipedia other than myself. Then again, I don't characterize what I do here as a defence of topics, but rather as a defence of Wikipedia policy - which I truly believe works to author an encyclopedia with an endless amount of co-authors. I attest that I had no knowledge of or relationship with Fyslee, Ilena Rosenthal, Stephen Barrett, or Tim Bolen prior to my time at Wikipedia. I have had no direct correspondence with any of these people outside of Wikipedia (aside from the occasional email from Fyslee and Ilena). I am just a Wikipedian, plain and simple. I am learning the policies as I go and I don't ever claim to be perfect. With that, I step back and let my evidence stand on its own ground and put my trust in the ArbCom members and support their eventual decisions.

Personal attacks by Fyslee

Fyslee has personally attacked editors. One such example occured when multiple editors noted his attempts to smear the subject of the former Quackpotwatch article. Fyslee countered with various accusations and insults.

Fyslee calls people who oppose his edits "promoters of quackery".

Fyslee calls me "a rather primitive type" and insults my intelligence.

Closing note

Since posting the above statements, Fyslee was quick to respond with personal attacks against me rather than just deal with the issues at hand. Unfortunately, I have become used to this from him as Fyslee has been calling me juvenile names ("primitive type", "stupid", etc.) for a long time now. I think this shows the kind of behavior which drove Ilena and him to these procedings.

Further, Fyslee's insults continue on my talk page where he fails to assume good faith and compares my intelligence to that of various birds.

Evidence presented by I'clast

Ilena has borne more chronic, systemic and perhaps systematic bias than is generally recognized, since she started, even to this day which may make part of her responses more understandable.

Fyslee's attitude toward Ilena & others

I am shocked at Fyslee's intimidating comments today, no matter how dressed and buried...you would be totally banned from editing many alternative medicine subjects here.., to another, less experienced editor[132] that has primarily contributed on Talk pages with interesting, hard-to-find mainstream references on nutrition-altmed (old IP) & medical RS and is relatively shy & limited in his criticism even at Talk, much less so few direct article edits. Threatening him with the prospect of a COI ban just because of his general employment for such an infrequent, scholarship & reference oriented, hesitating editor???

Fyslee's attitude about things counter to QW "wisedom" is long, pronounced (e.g. his sCAM campaign on & off WP, also ) and, frequently, not reconciled with current science[133]. Even in this RfArb "It is quite vital to note that [QW] is only questioned and attacked by alternative medicine sources, fringe and pseudoscientists, quacks, scammers, frauds, and criminals who find their practices exposed as improper or illegal....Just that fact alone should give it a specially protected status here at Wikipedia..."[134] Sweeping disparagements to disparate groups of people (and scientists) and special pleading for QW in a very small interval. The accuracy of Quackwatch material has been questioned by some figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds for decades, only to be denounced, and some of the prominent Quackwatch inaccuracies are almost trivial to verify if you know what to look for (most less specialized readers don't)[135].

I also felt Fyslee's unannounced action against me last month was uncalled for andharrassing in nature, perhaps even strategically prejudicial to me, a technically oriented person. Such an approach and attitude may affect other editors, too.

Here is Fyslee's opinion about the most science based of the alternative medicine related categories after being pointedly removed twice from the List of pseudoscientific theories with prejudice (locked) by independent rational science editors. Fyslee's response to independent skeptic editors: It belongs there. It's Pauling's folly.(--Fyslee, 7 August 2006) and later, Being fringe doctors, they fall for weird ideas. (Fyslee, 7 August 2006)

Ilena's COI accusations & the hostile environment

She may have named the wrong individuals or specific problems. Ilena has been overwhelmed with highly negative, and, IMHO, often unkind & even unfair, attention since she arrived at WP[136]. She may have seen certain other editors, that embody her various concerns, as too similar to possibly familiar voices elsewhere w/o doing sufficiently detailed anaylsis, without having anti-trolling skills, or without better details.

The QW areas she has edited, such as NCAHF archives 2 & 3, or sometimes appears to avoid, have bigger problems with trolling and conflict of interest than is generally recognized. For instance, one of Ilena's critics [137]editor corrected here at WP QW-land appears to be consistent with an unrecognized editor of a personal/partisan website, at least 6 years long in dispute offsite with Ilena. Given this editor's sophisticated, more WP-saavy dialogue, Ilena can be subtly undermined,[138] and provoked[139] when combined with other pro-QW editors efforts in conflict. His deletions of Ilena's material like this, this may be harder to AGF when this factor is considered. Especially since that editor appears have an interest as one of Ilena's arch adversaries on USENET. An editor who as an example, enticed[140] another editor(s) with easily recognized trollish capabilities into QW-land, the enticed editor who then insulted even a strong conventional medical editor[141] for insufficient zeal. Also simply recruiting[142] more. Yet hardly an unkind or skeptical word, "rtfm", familiar to Linux users, questions this editor[143] during several months that affects altmed editors' environment like Ilena. Although his direct presence at BvR is limited, this recent activity was boiling over on IR, when I asked someone to look more clearly into the mirror and their aggressive comments finally ceased.

Also I strongly believe an RfArb proscribed troll from my earlier IP days showed up recently, "breaking parole". I broke cover in response to this very familiar entity's characteristics - including sucking in a newbie editor who thought someone else was being trollish. I butted in early, essentially identifying myself (who would already know or suspect me) terminating the behavior pattern and evidence generation phase, to try and shield a newbie editor from getting baited, humiliated and hammered if not blocked and alienated. (my evidence is limited but reasonable if I need to discuss this with an administrator). A number of "skeptic" trolls have transited through this small cluster of articles. Ilena has been more forthright[144] about her interests and potential COI than some I have dealt with in QW-related space and the field has been even more biased than stated openly, until now. --I'clast 15:14, 21 February 2007, updated I'clast 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee's (re)use of unreliable sources in 2 more articles

Fyslee repeatedly (re-)inserted 4 unreliable links in several related articles, particularly Linus Pauling and Orthomolecular medicine despite months and pages of prior, specific discussion, why the links failed badly on cross checking claims and fact checking. Fyslee participated at these articles from August 2006, first contributions: [145], [146], [147]

In addition to Levine's broad sampling of links above shows, Fyslee brings Quackwatch's point of view, his beliefs, readers, and agenda to Wikipedia, quite literally. Here Fyslee funnels his Quackfile readers to his WP views:

1. His offsite quackfiles Vitamin C and common cold with its first, most prominent link, Linus Pauling linked at Wikipedia, article posted Aug 2005. This QF article has what seems to be a recurring statement in Fyslee's thoughts "if there really is any truth to the claims made by Pauling (and my mother)" on alternative medicine generally and especially at the Linus Pauling and Orthomolecular medicine articles.

2. Fyslee's Linus Pauling edits with 3 unreliable sources from 12 August-3 September 2006, none reported by Levine above:

(a) 3 September 2006QW opinion supported by unreliable sources previously discussed at length in articles where Fyslee participated.

(b) again, 12 August 2006

(c) An edit to Linus Pauling adding three links to {Linus Pauling,12 Aug 2006} previously shown to have substantial misrepresentations (failing source based fact checking of the article)

On BCCA being unreliable: 20-21 June 06

On QW and SJ Barrett's writings on vitamin C and colds being unreliable: 12 Aug 06, 28 Aug 06

On Cassileth's stmt failing fact checking: counterexamples to unfounded assertions29 Jun 06, discussed again, 3-6 Sept 06

3. Fyslee's adverse re-insertion of unreliable links previously discussed at length, in Orthomolecular medicine

(a) QW source, 29 Jan 07

(b) QW source in Orthomolecular Medicine 29 Jan 07

(c) Levine's QW source example, also above, 25 Jan 07

(d) including BCCA source,14 Sept 2006

despite repeated discussions, among many:

Revision as 14 Sept 06, ::: BCCA 20-21 June 06,

QW as a RS 12 Aug 06,

Alleged Reliabilty of QW 28 Aug 06--I'clast 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova

Normally I keep my personal POV off Wikipedia on most subjects. Since some assertions have floated around this dispute and arbitration about whether bias or individual views may have tainted some people's stand, I'll state my own views for the record.

I am sympathetic toward both Fyslee's and Ilena's viewpoints and somewhat more strongly sympathetic toward Ilena's. I regard Quackwatch.com as a useful site, probably in part because my father was a scientist (not a medical doctor). With respect to breast implants it is my understanding that the patient community has raised some legitimate issues. I also happen to be a woman with a family history of breast cancer so it is possible that I may need a mastectomy someday and would consider reconstructive surgery. Obviously it is in my own self-interest to encourage open Wikipedia participation by experts of all sorts on that subject.

As my participation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel demonstrates (where I was the lone supporter of an editor whose personal viewpoint was diametrically opposed to my own), such matters have no bearing whatsoever on my statements to the Committee or on my interpretations of policy. I would have recused myself if I had perceived even the possibility of such a thing affecting my judgement in this dispute. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by David D.

I don't have time to find all the relevant diffs but I will present my general impression as I have ssen this issue play out over the months. I have edited the Barratt page and being involved in discussion in that page for over a year. Many of the contributors here, such as Jance, Fyslee, I'clast, Mastcell, Arhtur Rabin and Levine, who collectively represent the full spectrum of opinion on this issue, have been my co-editors. I believe we made a lot of progress towards a consensus and built a relatively collegial working environment considering the issues involved.

This delicate balance was destroyed with the appearance of Ilena. She started editing aggressively and assuming bad faith. This soon cracked the working environment and drove editors back to the repective poles. She was unreceptive to other opinions and was in general a difficult editor. Much of this has been seen before with new editors, but in Ilena's case the learning curve was much slower and her real life involvement made it very difficult for her to be objective. On several occassions (three) i suggested that she not edit pages on topics that are directly related to her real life. I cited the Agapetos angel as an example of precedent. Clearly she never took these warning seriously since she continued to edit these pages. I will grant that Ilena did respond to my plea to at least keep it to the talk pages in a constructive manner. This at least averted the edit wars on the articles themselves. This is some evidence that she can learn and be responsive to the community.

Early on i was thinking this should go to an RfC since it was going down a difficult path where accusations were spread over multiple talk pages and it was very easy for the two sides to miss each others main points. An RfC would have focused the discussion and I believe may have helped the situation a lot. I'm not sure how Peter Dodge got involved but by this time he was acting as Ilena's mentor. He was very resistant to going down the RfC path despite me trying to persuade him that it might be very constructive in a situation where editors were talking past each other. Peter convinced us to allow him more time mediate and mentor. I believe this was a big mistake and that the RfC could have been incorporated into a mentoring strategy. By doing nothing we had an enabling effect on Ilena and an alienating effect on Fyslee, whom until this whole affair, had not been a problem editor (opinionated for sure, but not a problem). Basically we were pouring gasoline onto the fire. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Steth

It has been my contention for a long time that Fyslee has been unpleasant, abusive and disruptive by forcing his POV regarding alternative medicine and particularly, his peculiar fascination with chiropractic. He is the one who has blurred the line between his real-world life of extremist chiropractic hatred, as evidenced by his website/blog that wholly denigrates and dehumanizes chiropractic doctors and his Wikipedia life by adding dozens and dozens (if not hundreds by now) of links not only to his own bigoted internet projects but to those of the most radical of all anti-alternative medicine and anti-chiropractic extremists, namely ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett.

While Fylsee has clumsily distanced himself from SB only recently, the ploy is obvious and transparent. But it is way too late to cleanse Wikipedia from being impregnated with the radioactive seeds of these numerous links while he WAS SB's assistant listmaster/webmaster or whatever he denies. While he claims little connection, they have been "tight" for many years and were named as co-defendants in a legal matter. That says more than passing aquaintances, but rather, cozy pals. The well has been poisoned by Fyslee himself. Please refer to Levine's frighteningly lengthy list of troublesome COI links. Others have summed up this disturbing scenario very nicely elsewhere on these pages.

While Fyslee's behaviour is courteous and syrupy now, I am skeptical if a leopard can change it's spots. It cannot be measured how much damage has already been done by his link spamming for free advertisements to Stephen Barrett Enterprise's numerous self-serving (and unreliable) sites that freely solicit donations to the unwary internet traveller. How much has WP boosted his Google ranking? Fyslee is concerned that chiropractors (endless fascination?) should not be allowed to edit chiropractic articles because of financial COI. It would be interesting to know how much cash Stephen Barrett has collected for his personal non-profit. All courtesy of the 'free encyclopedia', our very own, Wikipedia.

It is in this light that it should be viewed when metting out Fyslee's punishment. My view is that for creating this miasmic and hostile environment for Ilena and the rest who are not a part of his crusade to fight sCAM (which he likely invented), he should be banned indefinitely from editing not just anything having to do with chiropractic and alternative medicine, but also any and all articles in which he has ever placed a self-serving COI link. This whole debacle that has sucked many innocent bystanders in didn't jus materialize by accident -- it had a lot of help from, IMO, Fyslee. Steth 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Jim Butler

Comment regarding Levine2112's accusing Fyslee of COI because of Fyslee's allegedly "close relationship" to Barrett: the evidence given supports no more of a personal relationship between those two than any two Wikipedians who get to know each other online may have. What Levine has shown is that they have posted on the same forums and participate in the same webring, much as editors on WP collaborate in various ways. That doesn't rise to the level of a close relationship as definied by WP:COI, which gives the mentor-mentee relationship of Marx and Engels as an example. Thanks to my beloved Wikipedian Comrades for considering this.  :-) Also, good points from AvB regarding Levine2112's other evidence on Fyslee. AvB analysis's is spot-on. To put it as neutrally and kindly as I can, the diffs do not match the contentions Levine2112 makes. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)