User talk:Levine2112/Long response

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before you read my response I would like you to remove from your thoughts any and all suspicion of feelings of adversity or hostility on my part, and resolve to read it as if you had written it yourself, without any put-downs or other methods to try and make you feel or look bad, angry, or whatever. I am writing with the single aim of sharing my thoughts and feelings. I hope that you will find something in it that will motivate you to re-examine your behavior in the light of criticism from other editors. As such I'm once again giving advice even though I'm afraid we're wasting time here. And once again you are invited to comment; I'm ready to change my mind instantly when a point is well taken.

I appreciate your sincerity. See? I think it helps to be honest and to speak from your heart.

So do I. What's more, I nearly always speak from the heart, and intentionally so. As I've already told you (above): "From my heart of hearts? Your wish has been fulfilled a long time ago. Just read what I write and know that there is no agenda or goal other than what I've already written, no spin or ulterior motivation, just the facts as found in my own full-text investigation and my interpretation of those facts, right or wrong, offered without prejudice. I'm always open to constructive criticism. I wish you would believe that."

I also wrote: "I think I've said it all before." Now when you write: "See?" you seem to say I've only just now started to "be honest and speak from the heart". To recoup: I say "I've said it all before" and "I wish you would believe that." The first sentence of your response indicates that you think I was being sincere. The second/third sentence ("See? ... heart") seems to say the opposite, namely that I had, so far, not been honest nor had spoken from the heart.

Do you think you can make a similar attestation to the one I made above about having no COI with any of the involved parties? Specifically stating that you have no knowledge of or correspondence with any of the people or organization?

When I felt challenged on this point by Ilena, I wrote something about my relevant POV(s) and completely irrelevant possible COI here. Before this arbitration I only knew Fyslee, Ilena and some of the other involved or commenting parties from their edits to articles I'm editing but had never interacted with any of them as far as I remember. I knew Quackwatch as it had published incorrect and damaging information on CFS (I can live with what's there now, by the way). I'm not a quackbuster by any definition but I've seen too many crooks taking chronically or terminally ill people's money in return for false hope (and obviously also too many desperate or gullible patients). I like Quackwatch in the sense that it may prevent some of the latter. I do not like Quackwatch where it ridicules; it never works to convince true believers. I do not like Quackwatch where it provides incorrect or outdated information. I like Quackwatch where it provides correct information; where it specifically gives a skeptical POV; and where it gives or reproduces source material not (or no longer) available elsewhere. In short, I think Quackwatch should be judged on a page-by-page basis.

I understand your POV when it comes to the semantics of addition vs. revert. I view a revert that in effect adds (or re-adds, as it were) as an addition. Meaning, whatever was deleted wasn't there when the reversion was made and thus it was added. Apparently so did the admin who blocked Fyslee. Now then, Fyslee had a valid point about why he felt he was only at 3RR and not 4RR, but to my knowledge he was unable to convince the admin. The same applies for deletion vs. reversion. It the net effect of the reversion was to delete something, then it is a delete.

I think you are confusing two issues: 1) 4RR blocks by Jaranda and 2) presenting reverts as additions in your evidence. Regarding the latter:

Your view of what constitutes a revert explains your original wording in your evidence. However, it does not explain your continued use of it after other editors had indicated that (1) this is not the consensus definition and, importantly, (2) an editor defending existing content does not add. Arbitrators, just like the overwhelming majority of experienced editors, and especially in the context of 800 links in the encyclopedia, will understand your 61 additions to mean that you are testifying Fyslee had added at least 61 of those 800 in what according to you was just a sampling of his edits.

I'm looking forward to your conclusions once you've sought input from others. But I will be a lot less interested in your conclusions if you postpone seeking input much longer, since it has direct relevance to your evidence and the case itself. In fact, if you postpone it much longer, I will get the impression that you are entertaining the possibility that I am right and would prefer to find out after the case has closed, since you are an honorable person and would have no other option than updating your evidence, which might have consequences for the outcome.

I do not see this as a matter of semantics. It's the difference between how such things are done in practice and your idea of how they should be done. Something you will not find out unless you've checked it elsewhere with a number of experienced, uninvolved editors. You could ask on the relevant policy's talk page. Note that I'm a bit of a regular on policy pages so you'll encounter me there if you do. But if you feel you're outnumbered there as well, or otherwise remain unconvinced, I suppose you could start an RfC dealing with this specific "reversion or addition" question.

I think the main issue in the case of Fyslee 3RR violation block was the way he handled it. He tried to turn it on me. Exclaimed "Yipee!" literally. Very uncivil. All I did was follow the proper channels and report the instance to AN/3RR, just as any good Wikipedian should have done.

I do not agree with the latter. When I was a newbie, I observed that good Wikipedians generally tended to discuss first offenses on the talk page instead of reporting them on AN/3RR. It often seemed to work so I adopted it. So, apparently, did Fyslee. It has the added advantage of looking better when you've made a mistake. Admin action is usually only required with recidivists and generally disruptive editors. I believe you did (and do) not know this and therefore you do not understand Fyslee's "Yippee" (which I personally read as mirroring the disrespect perceived in your reporting him under the circumstances).

I concur that his exclamation comes across as very uncivil, although I believe it matched the poisoned atmosphere on the talk page at the time. It also has the merit of giving you some indication of how Fyslee perceived your behavior at the time. Jaranda (you should really ask her/him) made a mistake (an understandable one, it really looked like both of you were at 4RR when assuming your report was a valid one). To me his apology clearly refers to misreading your report. I know you do not find this convincing but I'm glad you have now concluded that Fyslee was not at 4RR. It's definitely a start. From here you could try and check out my other insights (especially the one regarding addition/reversion) and perhaps learn a couple of things.

Newsflash: I have reviewed some information from veteran admins and now find that your report was correct since the reference "reverted to" version does not have to be younger than 24 hours (although I have seen quite a few admins and editors interpret the rule like I did). Please note that I still believe that the block was incorrect in view of BLP aspects. Also note that you've now only 4 clear additions left out of the 33 links I checked out.
By the way, you may want to rethink your terminology when you call a revert an addition where intending to prove many additions, as opposed to calling the same thing a revert where intending to prove many reverts. AvB ÷ talk 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember, as I have repeatedly said, I have been at Wikipedia for a while now. I don't consider myself a perfect editor as there is always more to learn. I make a concerted effort to stay within and enforce Wikipedian guidelines to the best of my knowledge.

I am 100% convinced that this is true.

As you know, editors can enforce the use of our rules. It is, therefore, very important that you understand that (unlike on Usenet) comments from Wikipedia editors on someone else's editing behavior should not be read primarily as expressions of their personal viewpoints but be considered as potentially good advice. Even in the middle of hostilities. Repeated, wholesale rejection of advice that probably sounded unlikely to her was what got Ilena banned. (Note that this is not a threat or warning itself, just alerting you to a possible consequence of underestimating instructions and warnings from fellow editors.)

Please don't turn this into an ego thing on me.

I was not referring to anything you had said, but repeating an observation I had made earlier. I think your perception here illustrates what I wanted to say: while aware of some shortcomings as an editor, you do not seem to accept you may have other shortcomings that you do not see yourself. I'm sorry that you think I turned this into an ego thing and apologize for giving you that impression.

I guess that is where I feel most attacked here. I made a point of leaving personal insinuations out of the evidence page. The ArbCom isn't about me or you or anyone else posting evidence other than Fyslee and Ilena. What I saw in your evidence was you commenting on me and my lack of credibility rather than presenting evidence. If you wanted to comment on my evidence, you should have done so on that talk page. If you wanted to comment on me, you should have done so on my talk page. Instead - and mind you that this is how I interpret it and I know full-well that I may be wrong - you were trying to shift focus from Fyslee's wrongdoings onto me in the hopes that showing some impropriety on my part would discount all of my evidence. I too made the mistake of commenting on others not party to this ArbCom in the early stages of it. It was pointed out to me and I quickly reverted it and apologized profusely.

I understand why you felt attacked. I think it traces back to the advice you received, which was not about quite the same situation, as well as a misunderstanding about certain aspects of the arbitration process. In an arbitration we can and sometimes even should state negative information and opinions about other editors if supported by diffs and relevant to the case in question. Even if we would not do so while editing in main article space or user space. If an editor feels that another editor's behavior could be made subject of the arbitration, it is allowed to ask the arbitrators to consider it (as you have seen with Bolen's being added to the case supported by several arbitrators). It's one of the few things I already knew about arbitrations: they can and sometimes do backfire on parties who are not expecting it, including initially uninvolved editors. I have advanced several reasons why I feel this might apply to you. Basically I feel that if Fyslee has disruptive editing patterns, under the same rationale you have them too. I view the fighting between you and Fyslee as a lot more important, damaging and also equivalent than any fighting between Ilena and Fyslee. As I noticed when studying your evidence, many of your and Fyslee's disputes seem initiated by your serial removal of Quackwatch-related links from articles where Fyslee is a regular, without attempting to change or achieve consensus, using WP:DR where necessary. Fyslee on the other hand did not need to use WP:DR since he generally edits conform existing consensus.

I am increasingly viewing what remains of this arbitration as an unwitting attempt to settle a content dispute between you and Fyslee. While I agree that the conflict between Ilena and Fyslee was something for the ArbCom, I now feel the dispute between you and Fyslee should be referred back to WP:DR (as you probably know, the ArbCom does not handle content disputes). If this were to happen, it would probably start with an RfC, although a mediation led by an uninvolved, experienced mediator should also be a possibility. I personally would probably send the two of you off with a 1RR parole, to expire after successful mediation and promises, and with sanctions regarding continued disruption, incivilities and edit warring. Then again, I'm not the ArbCom and I hardly think anyone will read the above view, except (hopefully you have had the patience to hear me out so far) for you.

(Another reason why this was accepted as an arbitration in the first place was the interesting legal history of Barrett v. Rosenthal with implications regarding ISPs/content providers/individual Internet users.)

Please note that although I questioned your evidence as soon as I had clicked on a few diffs, I only started questioning your reliability as a witness when you kept listing (more) additions after other editors had indicated to you that we call them reverts. I will happily retract it once you have accepted this and updated your evidence, preferably by replacing it with the table from my evidence (but I understand it would be very difficult for you to do so).

The evidence page is for presenting evidence as it relates to the parties involved in the ArbCom; not to bash other witnesses and discount their "evidence" (by the way, when you put that word in quotes as in: Levine's "evidence", it belittles my contributions and I view it as a hostile action).

I have made it very explicit that my evidence was intended to show such things as contextomy and incorrect labeling of diffs in other editors' evidence. I did so by adding information to other editors' evidence. After supplementing the information it became apparent that 90% of your evidence did not prove what it said it proved. I find it impossible to call material with a 90% error rate evidence without the quotation marks. I am sorry you feel that visually stating what I and most other editors on the arbitration pages view as a fact is belittling. It was not my intention to belittle your contributions. Any hostility you seem to detect was not intentional. It all hinges on your conviction that your material was correct evidence and my conviction that it was 90% incorrect. I see no indication whatsoever that you object to stating your opinions for a fact in your evidence and would appreciate it if you would extend the same leeway to me.

Again, I appreciate your sentiments and I will explore everything you have mentioned thoroughly. I am always seeking to improve. I hope you will make that attestation too, if you feel comfortable about it. That way, following the honor code, we all know that we are on a level playing field with regards to COI.

I can see you have really made an effort here to make this as non-inflammatory as you can and it is much appreciated. I have tried to do the same. Strange as it may sound, you are welcome to revise this as you see fit. Perhaps I'll learn a couple of things from you then. And it really isn't my intention to irritate, hurt or anger you or anyone else.

Please explore the reversion/addition issue as soon as possible.

In closing: Things would not change all that much here without Fyslee editing alt-med articles. It has always been a matter of consensus, which will not change overnight. Once again I encourage you to start using WP:DR when you feel you are outnumbered. Input from the wider community can be very enlightening regardless of one's personal POV.

AvB ÷ talk 17:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, AvB. When I originally read this last Thursday, I did my best to take your advice at the beginning. I cleared my head of any thoughts of spin or suspicion. I really went in with an open heart. And though I didn't agree with every point you made, I was coming around on your neutrality. Following your advice, I decided to take some time off from Wikipedia. so the remainder of Thursday, Friday and my weekend were Wiki-free. I used this time to regroup and to rethink my position on the current RfA and my editing history at Wikipedia in general. I saw my progress from a newbie editor to a seasoned veteran and I am proud of my personal growth and of the positive contribution which I have helped make here. This morning, I logged in with fresh eyes and an open heart. Can you imagine my surpirse when I read what you have added to the RfA's evidence page? Can you imagine my sense of betrayal? You told me to take a break and cool down... seemingly with the utmost sincerity. And in my absense, you use that time to spin this whole RfA against me. This is very disingenuous of you. I am utterly betrayed and disappointed in you. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow you at all. I've edited out a lot of things you objected to and shifted a couple of things around. I've also done what I had asked you to do, namely check out if I myself could possibly be mistaken about the things I believe regarding this arbitration (that's how I unearthed the 3RR info). Please enlighten me. AvB ÷ talk 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to the series of edits you made beginning here - all of which are directed at turning this RfA against me. I feel attacked. Have I ever attacked you? Have I ever accused you of COI? Have I ever called you a liar? In effect, you have done all of this to me. This is highly uncivil behavior. Here I was thinking that I would erase all of my previous ideas about our relationship and take some time to refelct on how to move forward and then I come back to Wikipedia to find nothing but spin added by you against me. I am disheartened. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read carefully. You're missing what I did. I've edited out a lot of things you objected to. For starters I've removed the suggestion that you should be part of the arbitration and banned from alt-med articles, instead suggesting a mediation. If you mean the COI paragraph, that has been there for a while. I just moved it away from the stuff at the top while considering to drop it altogether. AvB ÷ talk 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
PS If you prefer the old version, just let me know and I'll revert (except for the slight shift in the numbers cause by my new insight in what defines a revert) AvB ÷ talk 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer a correct version; one that doesn't make claims as evidence that aren't true. I have no COI, yet you have that there as evidence. I have not aggressively deleted Quackwatch links, but rather replaced some Quackwatch links with more reliable sources or taken out Quackwatch links where they were being used unreliabley or added as spam or otherwise violate WP:EL or WP:RS. I am usually quite clear in my edit summary about the rationale for removing a link. I am aware of several hundred Quackwatch links, most of which I have not touched either because I couldn't find a more reliable site or it wasn't added in a spam fashion. Since I have no COI, I have no motive for deleting/replacing these links other than making Wikipedia more reliable. Fyslee, on the other hand, has plenty of COI and thus much to gain by adding these links. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

About Fyslee's alleged COI: What exactly does Fyslee have to gain by adding these links? And which links do you mean exactly (anything QW-related or are you thinking of specific links to specific pages)? So far I have seen nothing that indicates Fyslee is making any money out of this; in fact it looks like it's costing him money. In terms of peer group esteem, he just might score some points here. In terms of Wikipedia and science, he is representing the majority view. Finally, for a COI to be harmful, it needs to be expressed in disruptive editing which has so far not been proved.

About your alleged COI: Unless I'm very much mistaken, you are a chiropractor. Don't you have something to lose if Barrett succeeds in convincing people that chiropractic is pseudoscience and quackery, as he contends in some of the links you want to remove from the encyclopedia? I think you are a stakeholder all right in terms of income. In terms of peer group esteem, you just might score some points here. In terms of Wikipedia and science, you're generally representing a minority view. Finally, for a COI to be harmful, it needs to be expressed in disruptive editing which has so far not been proved. AvB ÷ talk 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that Fyslee had a financial interest in adding links to Quackwatch or bashing chiropractic. (Tangentially he does though. Fyslee is a Physical Therapist which is a direct financial competitor of chiropractors. This may explain Fyslee offsite crusade with his blogs to run the chiropractic profession into the ground.) Fyslee did the majority of his adding and defending before the NOFOLLOW code was introduced to all external links on Wikipedia. He knew full well that garnering external links boosts a site's Google rank. Check out his last post on this page which discusses how to promote chiroskepticism by boosting a anti-chiro site's Google Rank. In my evidence section, I state clearly why - if not for financial gain - Fyslee is interested in artificially boosting Quackwatch and his own blog's Google Rank. This isn't just about money. This is about purveying information and passing off his opinion as the truth in the most place. Fyslee is part of organizations which rent out billboards claiming that chiropractic kills people and spent months of our time arguing this point on Wikipedia. Bottomline there is that more people die every year getting a hair cut than going to chiropractor, yet I am sure if you go to the Hair Stylist article on Wikipedia you won't see any mention of the miniscule safety issue involved with leaning your head back over a sink to get shampoo-ed. This is about spreading the gospel according to Barrett and his disciple Fyslee. This is more valuable to Fyslee than money. This is his life's passion. (Have you read his blog?) And if he wants to spend his days criticizing chiropractic, that's fine by me. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Do it someplace else. Wikipedia is a place for people to come a get reliable information about subjects - not sales pitches and not innuendo. Please note the other points I bring up in my evidence section regarding Fyslee COI - his relationship with Stephen Barrett, his web ring, links to his site on Quackwatch home page, his membership in the Rag Tag Posse of Snake Oil Vigilantes - an Ilena Rosenthal bashing website, his membership in the QuackbustersOfTheIlumanati - an Ilena Rosenthal bashing discussion board, his being named a co-defendent of Barrett's in a lawsuit of Hulda Clark's, et cetera, et cetera. His peers spend their days bashing practices which Fyslee has termed "sCam" or "so-called alternative medicine". Certainly, he earns points with these peers everytime he adds spin and innuendo against these practices to Wikipedia. What these guys preach is not the majority scientific viewpoint. They preach hate and fear. For instance, they'll tell you that you'll die if you get your neck adjusted by a chiropractor. The scientific truth is that there has never been a single case of death correlated specifically with a chiropractic adjustment. Researchers estimate that you have less than 1 in a million chance of suffering a stroke follow a neck manipulation and please note that this figure includes manipulations performed by many other disciplines than chiropractic. However, as I said, Fyslee spent months trying to insert innuendo that chiropractic is dangerous and cited statistics which he knew were not accurate. Fyslee has abused Wikipedia for far too long.
On to me. I am not going to fault your logic here. I think I understand where you are coming from and your conclusions make sense based on that. However, it is the the assumption which your logic is based on that is entirely false. I am not a chiropractor. I am not a chiropractic assistant. I have never worked for a chiropractor or ata chiropractic office. I have never made money from any chiropractic organization. I am not a paid chiropractic spokesperson or advocate. To be honest, I am hardly even a chiropractic patient. In fact, I've seen my MD, dentist and dermatologist more recently than I have seen a chiropractor. I don't even have a regular chiropractor. I'll even go further. I am not an alternative medicine practitioner in any sense. I don't even work in the health care industry at all. I am Wikipedian. Plain and simple. You assumed something and we know what happens when you ass-u-me. ;-) Now then, in your evidence you wrote:
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.
Do you see how this isn't evidence? This is just conjecture. I am hoping that now that you see it is false conjecture you will strike it from your evidence. I receive no peer, personal or societal acclaim for my work on Wikipedia other than from my peers on Wikipedia and my own sense of personal acheivement knowing that I have helped make Wikipedia a better resource. I have said this time and time again. I want to make Wikipedia a better resource. That means taking out sales pitches and innuendos, and replacing less than reliable sources with the most trustworthy sources of information. If you think that is a minority view, then I ask you to step back and take another look at the view with new eyes - ones that are free from false assumptions - and see if your view has changed at all.
In the meantime, now that you know so much about me, what about yourself? Do you have any relationship or ties to Barrett, Fyslee, Ilena, or Bolen outside of Wikipedia? Do you work for the healthcare industry in any capacity? Please be honest. I think the more we know about each other, the less chance we have for making false assumptions. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the material regarding COI-related editing from my evidence. You have an extremely strong personal POV but per your disclosure here I must assume that a COI is not to be suspected and I stand corrected in that respect.
I have disclosed everything there is to know about myself above and here, but have no problem answering your overlapping questions: No, I have no relationship or ties to Barrett, Fyslee, Ilena, or Bolen outside of Wikipedia. (I was on Bolen's e-mail list for a while in the time Barrett spread false information about CFS). I do not work for the healthcare industry in any capacity. I am retired from my original profession due to ill health and although I have recovered to some extent I am still more than 50% disabled. AvB ÷ talk 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the removal. Thanks.
I don't believe that my personal POV is any stronger than yours, for instance. In fact, I am a very flexible thinker. That's what makes me a true skeptic. I try not to go into things with an opinion or belief. I wait to see the evidence... as much as I can find, and then I form my opinion.
With regards to Quackwatch, like you, I have seen Barrett spread false information. Perhaps some of his information is valid, but it is too hard to distinguish what is based on scientific research and what is mere conjecture. What is worse, Quackwatch often passes of its opinions as truth, thus misleading the reader. To use Quackwatch as a reliable source on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea as it is often hard to tell what is true and what is false there. (By the way, I think I remember seeing something to the effect that Barrett's daughter suffers from CFS. Do you know anything about that? I wonder if that helped to change Barrett's opinion on CFS.)
With regards to to Fyslee's COI, certainly you can see one there with all of the evidence which I have presented. Him spamming links to Quackwatch is a lot worse than someone with no direct involvement with Quackwatch. Thus me removing links to Quackwatch (and often times replacing them with more valid resources) can not be equated to Fyslee's adding/defending of these links.
Finally, spamming links and adding vanity links is one of the many bits of evidence I have added to the evidence page. I added that section to demonstrate that Fyslee was equally (if not more) guilty of spamming and adding vanity links as Ilena. I don't see how your analysis of my list of Fyslee's diffs invalidates all of the other evidence which I presented - which you seem to suggest in your statement.
In my opinion this new information frees Fyslee from Levine2112's accusations on this Evidence page.
Bear in mind that your heading reads: Discussion of evidence provided by Levine2112. But in acutality you are only dealing with one portion of my collected evidence. Link spam and vanity links are a pretty minor offense when compared to the bullying, bringing in an outside conflict to Wikipedia, COI, meat-puppetry, POV-pushing, personal attacks and taunting evidence which I have presented. It seems to me that the way things are worded, you are discounting all of my evidence rather than just the one section dealing with link spamming and vanity links.
Truly, I do appreciate the efforts you have already made and I appreciate your honesty in presenting your background and illness with me. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I do not agree that QW links have generally been placed against consensus, I do accept that others may be working towards converting or deleting them. I have no problem with that as long as it is done in compliance with the rules. That may include reaching consensus on talk pages and using WP:DR if consensus is not reached or if one believes to be outnumbered. The idea is that consensus reflects the views of the community and I would predict that the community is not ready for such a change.
However, I have enormous problems if such changes are heralded, against the clear signals given by even uninvolved admins like Guy and JoshuaZ, and an originally uninvolved editor like me, by the crucifixion or scapegoating of people who have done nothing else than edit in the way they've seen everyone around them do. I'm talking about the fact that the community has allowed such links (>99% of which have been placed and are being defended by others than Fyslee). Fyslee is not alone. His view on the usefulness of QW-related links is shared by many. As you may recall, I once reinserted a link removed by you from the Royal Rife article so you already have an example of an article where I personally find a Quackwatch link useful and encyclopedic. In fact I believe that it is one of the few things that make the article salvageable and would put it up for AfD if sites like QW cannot be used in such articles.
My views on this arbitration are quite complicated and would take hours of conversation to convey in full. Basically I can see something good to all sides here. But I simply don't see this working out for the good if it isn't done based on the facts as well as community consensus. Fyslee's editing is accepted by community consensus - support on talk pages, support in reverting, no warnings or blocks to speak of. In order to change, the consensus needs to change. Individual editors who do not agree (and I'm indeed one of them) will then go with the flow. Sanctioning a single representative is not very helpful. To force this change on the community and to rely on ex de facto findings of fact might cost WP quite a few admins and editors who have come to rely on the status quo. I'm sure WP will survive, but I do not feel this is an acceptable method. AvB ÷ talk 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate the changes you've made. And if all Fyslee did was add spam links to Quackwatch and even to his own vanity site, I don't think there would be an issue. There are greater offenses on the table here. Also, I have been active in voicing that this RfA shouldn't be used to decide the fate of Quackwatch on Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)