Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement by peripherally-involved Daniel.Bryant

The above-linked current AN discussion by Wizardry Dragon demonstrates my feelings more adequately than I could do by rephrasing them here - context is a beautiful thing. For ease of identification, I provide the following diffs, which outline my participation in the discussion at WP:AN:

I initially opposed an indefinite block of Ilena, for a variety of reasons - see DB1 for my full opposal. I also respectfully request the Arbitration Committee read Sarah Ewart's initial objecton - 11:03, January 19, 2007 - on the issue, that were posted just before mine (and hence are just above it in the discussion). As such, I acknowledged at the time (and still do acknowledge - see DB2) that both users acted in a way which could only be described as deplorable, however to issue a community-based sanction of any sort on one user would be heavyhanded, unfair and not encompassing the situation fully. I suggested a firm, final warning citing precedents set both by this Committee and those established as a guideline on Wikipedia, namely WP:HA. I hinged a lot of hope on the fact that all parties would agree to formal mediation via the Mediation Committee, however unfortunately one user rejected this proposal.

As such, as I elaborated in DB2, I felt we were out of options short of blocking both users indefinitely, which I personally felt would be overkill given the situation. The only two options I thought were logically possible at 14:00 (UTC) January 20 were to file a RFC or else come here. The latter recieved the most favour amongst those involved, with a well-reasoned statement by Durova - 21:49, January 20, 2007 - highlighting the potential problems of an RFC.

As such, as I stated in DB3, I see no other solution to this mess. Reluctance has pushed this dispute here, and I hope the Committee accept this case to be the final determiner in a problem which has been compounded by numerous decisions by a couple ofthe named parties.

I wish to also acknowledge DB4. One of the parties listed has indicated that they believe this request should be rejected on the grounds that it is provocative. I would like to clarify that this user is the one who decided to stop the Mediation by rejecting it, leaving no alternative. I cite the ever-reliable Newyorkbrad - 03:13, January 21, 2007 - on this point also.

I am normally one to criticise about how this Committee takes on too many cases that could be resolved through the Mediation Committee and/or Requests for Comment, however I have no doubt that this case should be accepted on the grounds that all other means of resolution have been exhausted. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by peripherally involved I'clast

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

[edit] Statement by entirely uninvolved Fys

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


[edit] Statement by Steth

I am not a party to this action, but I felt compelled to comment. I have not had any interaction with Ilena, nor made any contributions to the article in question, but I have had some interaction with Fyslee, some of which have been less than productive, for which I take some responsibility as I could have handled it better.

A concern was raised by Jance (maybe others) that Ilena has revealed Real World information about Fyslee. I feel it should be pointed out that it was Fyslee who posted Real World information about himself on his talk page when he set it up. User page He posted his name, occupation and internet interests. It was up for some time before he removed it and is now asking that this information not be used, which he is entitled to do. So, IMO, he poisoned his own well.

Also, Ilena raised the issue that fyslee has posted numerous links at Wikipedia for websites privately owned and operated by an ex-psychiatrist with whom Fyslee has had a long-standing relationship. This relationship appears to be on a personal level as well as Fyslee serving as his assistant listmaster and possibly other direct Internet assistance and responsibilities, as stated on his User page. User page It was only a few weeks ago that he resigned from his job as Assistant Listmaster to this individual. Although not the issue at hand, these numerous sites, IMO, seem to be severely biased POV almost attacking respected individuals, hardly NPOV nor encyclopedic. There could be easily many dozens of these potential COI links, perhaps over 100 that could be viewed as link-spamming. The exact number would be very revealing, but not likely forthcoming. As indicated by Ilena, Fyslee has also placed links to his personally owned and operated websites in Wikipedia articles. IMO, this is not encyclopedic and is exploiting WP and subverting it’s intent and mission.

Either way, Ilena felt it was a Conflict of Interest for him to do this. I had agreed with Ilena on Fyslee’s talk page about this issue, having found it quite concerning. I had raised this issue myself several times in the past, as have others. I believe the offending links and number should be made known by Fyslee to the Wikipedian community in the interest of allowing Ilena to assist her in presenting her case here and allowing the admins to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence. If found in COI, removal might be considered an appropriate action.

Ilena was also concerned, and voiced this in several places, that these numerous links also requested donations, which IMO, is extremely self-serving. I have also raised this issue on several occaisions. After noting this on Fyslee’s talk page, which BTW, he invited other editors to comment, his response to this and the above concerns was to promptly remove my remarks from his talk page, claiming it was an attack by me See:. Comments removed While he is allowed to do this, to me, this action speaks volumes and I don’t feel was justified, not to mention that it is suppressive behaviour and destroys the enjoyment of community participation in Wikipedia.

So while Ilena is not without issues herself, and these two certainly seem to have a long history and dysfunctional relationship, I believe that there are POV, neutrality, COI, behavioural issues on Fyslee’s part as well and this must be considered and addressed. I feel that Ilena’s concerns must be given the proper attention, regardless of her past history. Thank you. Steth 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification (October 2007)

Certain editors are currently going around Wikipedia removing citations to quackwatch per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee. Claiming that, for example, Quackwatch is an "an unreliable and partisan source". For example. Was it the intention of the arbitration committee to declare unequivocally that Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch were unreliable and partisan for articles on alternative medicine? This, to me, looks like Arbcom making a content decision if this is the case. ScienceApologist 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the same. I do not believe this was the intention of the Arbcom ruling. I second SA's request for clarification since other editors seem to have a different opinion. Avb 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in that decision should be interpreted as a ban on the use of a particular source. The Committee does not rule on content, and findings of fact are generally limited in their applicability to the specific matter being considered in any case. Obviously there are a number of problematic aspects to the use of quackwatch as a source; but the final determination of whether it's suitable in a particular context must rest with the editors working on the article in question. Kirill 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So are we to understand that arbcomm did not declare quackwatch or Stephen Barrett an unreliable and partisan source? I just want it to be clear so that I can refer people to this comment when and if this claim is made in the future. ScienceApologist 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the opinion of the Committee, in the context of that particular case, that they were unreliable; but we do not have the authority to prohibit their use. The choice of sources for an article is a matter of editorial judgement. Kirill 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked some of the pages that link to Quackwatch and followed the links to see what was being cited. What I found were well-written essays debunking or explaining the topic with appropriate references of their own. However, in general, it would be better to cite Barrett's writings from books and book chapters he has authored or co-authored, because there is a presumption of editorial oversight that a personal web site does not have, and because many of the chapters may be peer-reviewed and/or edited by independent and respected authorities. (For example, he has a chapter in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, whose editors have very respectable presence in PubMed and Google Scholar.) This means replacing the immediacy and convenience of a web link with the increased reliability of a third-party published reference, but would be the best way to demonstrate Barrett's views on the topics in question. Thatcher131 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems extremely reasonable and it pretty much reflects some of the clean-up work which I have been performing of late (i.e. replacing direct links to Quackwatch (and other Barrett run websites) to less partisan sites such as journals of good repute which host/publish the same content). My only caveat to Thatcher131 above is to be wary of Barrett's books which have been exclusively published by "Prometheus Books". Barrett is the medical editor of this publishing house (or at least he was when his books were published by this company), so we can't necessarily assume independent editorial oversight. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's current rampage (one of several) against Barrett and Quackwatch is now going too far: Deletions of court records. He is even misusing the comments above to justify his deletion of perfectly good sources based on his well-established hatred of Barrett and Quackwatch as sources that expose his personal beliefs. His entire editing history needs to be examined, especially the current part, and examined for an anti-Barrett, anti-Quackwatch, pro-quackery agenda leading to a misuse of BLP and to shoddy wikilawyering as excuses for deleting what he doesn't like. -- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this very RfA was supposed to curb this sort uncivil behavior on Fyslee's part. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes when you have the choice between the spade and the shovel, you have to choose the pick. Shot info 03:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)