Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112

Levine2112

 * Moved from WP:ANI.  Dav  nel  03   18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is refactored from above (which is a separate issue):


 * While we are at it, the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom may be topical right now:


 * ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry , harassment  , edit warring     , and assumptions of bad faith    . We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled. Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss  19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are all outlandish characterizations of my actions: fairly close to a tendentious personal attack. I think Levine is fast learning how to become a disruptive editor. He already fulfills the definitional criteria outlined. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree on the whole with Levine's assessment of ScienceApologist. SA has also accused me of tendentious editting (and I him). Interestingly, and I think relevantly, Levine and I are on opposite sides of the article-subject-matter fence; Levine seeks to protect a postive representation of alternative medicine, and I seek to protect a postive representation of science (these preferences are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, we agree about editorial philosophy, at least on working towards consensus. By pitting himself against "both sides" (by refusing any compromise whatsoever, on principle), SA has made himself difficult. (Again, as per above in the other ANI made by SA, re Peter Morrell, I consider myself a disputant, not an objective outsider, now.) Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I retract "SA has also accused me of tendentious editting". I overgeneralized, on account of my sense of his aggregrate comments, but in consideration of what might be considered the terms of his parole, I concede that he did not use those words (directly about me specifically). Pete St.John (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are those criteria and the appropriate links:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:
 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors
 * Levine is notorious pro-alt med POV-pusher. I won't even bother adding links because his entire contribution history lives up to this.
 * evidently not his entire history. In the few days (since Dec 11?) I've been involved with the debate at Quackwatch, I've found him responsive and responsible. So perhaps recent specific examples would be in order anyway; and as I've mentioned before, if they are omnipresent it should be easy to find specific examples. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see examples in the comments by Durova in below. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * '''Cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
 * Currently we are engaged in a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch where Levine along with another contingent of editors are consistently misrepresenting a source claiming that it is criticizing Quackwatch for not using peer-review when in fact it is offering a recommendation that Quackwatch implement more an "academic counterpoint" to augment their resource of which the author gives a positive review. While there are others involved, Levine tends to act as the main instigator and ring-leader with many of the other alt-med POV-pushers simply parroting his responses back. I became extremely suspicious of this earlier as it looked to me like a case of meatpuppetry on a scale I have not witnessed before at Wikipedia.
 * Specificaly false. SA seems to interpret "a review says that QW would be improved by instituting peer-review" as an attack on QW. Be that as it may, he misquoted the context of the citation to reverse the meaning; I refuted that by quoting the exact wording (see link below, or the talk:quackwatch). My theory is that he is blind to this, from fixating on the idea of "an attack on QW" instead of the simple "recommendation made by a reviewer". Anyway that thread is extracted, with some rebuttal from SA, at my page where I pasted together some of the pieces. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite what happened and also doesn't really address the fact that Levine2112 has been misrepresenting QW and Barrett for some time (see below. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
 * This edit is particularly telling. Levine is upset that he is not getting his way, and now wants to reject community compromise as a punitive action.
 * What? Have you read that diff yourself, SA? Maybe you pointed to the wrong item by mistake? And btw, that's another place where you didn't answer a specific question (read up to the grey above the green). You make sweeping generalities, specific questions are asked, and you ignore them. Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What Levine2112 is doing here is saying that because he is not getting his way in the editing he wants to go back to a version that he liked better (one that basically criticized QW for not being peer-reviewed in the lead: a point that was agreed was not relevant or reliably sourced). This kind of posturing ensures that either we go with Levine2112's attempts to disparage QW or we revert to a version where the disparaging commentary was even more problematic. This after having a rather large discussion where many people agreed to move forward. If that's not rejecting community input, I don't know what is. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, such editors may:
 * Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Civility,No personal attacks, Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
 * If that's not what the above is, I don't know what it's supposed to be.

I submit, therefore, that Levine is a disruptive editor and ask that he be banned from the pages devoted to alternative medicine. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not exactly the only editor at that page who meets the criteria of a disruptive editor. A broader restriction on a number of the usual suspects involved in the nonsense at Quackwatch, Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et. al. might not be a bad thing to consider.  There are editors on both sides of the dispute that are doing more harm than good to the project as a whole.--Isotope23 talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As in the Peter Morrell item above, also introduced by SA, please consider me a disputant as well. SA has been persistently using wiki-legalism and veiled rhetoric while spamming the consensus building process with digressions, minutiae, reverts, additions, accustations, etc. (at Quackwatch) Hope for concilliation seems, to me, dashed by this pair of ANI. Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, I brought that up. Don't tell me there's still problems at Quackwatch. Want me to go in and yell at people? Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are always problems at Quackwatch...--Isotope23 talk 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist has asked me to come here to defend myself against his accusations: . I don't think that is necessary when clearly this is just another example of ScienceApologist's uncivil behavior, harassment, and assumption of bad faith in others. I urge Admins to consider the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Levine's accusations
Levine made a nice little list of problems he had with me. Unfortunately, these "problems" more-or-less do not correspond to the labels he has associated with them:

Sockpuppetry allegations
Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry , 

I really do believe that MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn may be sockpuppets of each other. I asked them politely on their talkpages if they were and expressed my concerns on the relevant talkpage of the article that they were reverting in tandem. It was documented that TheDoctorIsIn was keeping track of his reverts and as soon as he reached the threshhold MaxPont came in and reverted back to TheDoctorIsIn's version. More than this, both MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn have referred to I DONT LIKE IT as criticisms of people with whom they disagree. Now this similarity could be due to the fact that they both edit in similar places and both picked up on this (actually incorrect because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a reference to a deletion debate protocol) argument by reading the same comments at some point, but I don't think I was out-of-bounds to supsect untoward behavior. I made my suspicions known as civilly as possible. I am very much aware that they may turn out to be incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a quick comparison of their contributions and conclude that they overlap closely enough that "a suspicion of possible sockpuppetry is not unreasonable." It would take a little more digging to say anything more specific one way or the other, or to provide basis for a checkuser request. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. I have an edit history going back to Aug2006 with 100s of edits. Why would TheDoctorsin nurture another persona for all that time in order to make three sockpuppet edits? Since July I have visitied a few WP pages on and off. Sometimes I made short comments in ongoing discussions. But I am appalled by the disruptive and uncivil editing environment created by editors such as ScienceApologist and a few other editors and don't really enjoy the consant bullying and harassment. Take a look at how ScienceApologist welcomed me entering the discussion with two comments on the Talk pages and one edit. He obviously assumed bad faith immediately. I am not surprised that there is an ArbCom ruling against him. MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If MaxPont and DoctorIsIn are socks of each other, then I would say "MPDII" is a true genius. "MPDII" would have the apparent ability to be in two much different geographical places at once, with very much different personalities to me. Also "MPDII" would have to have feigned not only being a newbie, but then feigned being a po'd newbie as DoctorIsIn getting pulped by a skilled, sock troll known to me (who disappeared again when I surfaced myself) almost a year ago, whereas MaxPont previously had already acquired the experience and skills to avoid such an unpleasant baiting and beating. I see no basis for SA's sock allegations on MP and DII.--I&#39;clast (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment
harassment 

In this diff: "I would appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" How is this possibly harassment? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at my answer above. MaxPont (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)



In this diff, I warned MaxPont about what I perceived to be some very shoddy explanations for his revert and what I considered to be borderline disruptive editing. I do not consider this harassment, but I do consider this to be a warning that the behavior associated with fly-by-night reverts associated with seeming POV-pushing is not tolerated at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit waring
edit warring    

Here we have examples of me removing a problematic passage which I explained on talk. When that was reverted, I tried to compromise and I rewrote the passage to conform to Wikipedia standards. When that was reverted without a rather nasty edit summary by User:TheDoctorIsIn, I reverted back asking him to assume good faith. When later that was reverted by TheDoctorIsIn again without so much as a comment on the talkpage while I had created an entire section to discuss the rationale for including at least an expanded version of the summary of the review, I reverted back. Maybe the last revert was not the best thing to do (there was, in fact, another round of reverts between other users over this passage), but I hardly see this as cut-and-dry as Levine seems to think. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys are way too fast for me. I've begun putting together notes explicating my complaints concerning ScienceApologist at Quackwatch. QW Talk is huge, with many subsections on the same topics (mainly because sections get too large to edit conveniently). In particular, my own main single complaint against ScienceApologist is that he misquoted the context of a citation, to reverse the meaning of the quote iteself. Since he was accusing others of misconstruing the context, I considered this particularly egregious, exacerbated by his not having acknowleged (much less rebutted) the error since. My notes so far are at this section in my user space. It's a gloss of a very very spammy debate at Talk:quackwatch. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded directly at that location. It looks to me like this is a misunderstanding that I hope we can work out elsewhere. I wasn't aware of misquoting (in fact, I wasn't quoting, but rather paraphrasing) and I made what I believe to be a good justification for this characterization of the source. While you may disagree with this characterization, I hope you will understand that I wasn't intending to lie or certainly not "reverse the meaning of the quote". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your intentions were good. But, you must understand that a full explanation of every source is too lengthy to put into an article. Encyclopedic content must be concise and easy to understand. The original material was more suited to the article than your revision. You further compounded the problem by removing his/her contribution. Remember this: It is always better to add to an article than to subtract from it. Jerome709 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree here. Of course, there are kilobytes of text on Talk:Quackwatch, but basically the issue is that this review that is being sourced is a positive review and the recommendations being made by the author are not properly contextualized by the cherry-picked quote. I mentioned this on the talkpage and was ignored to the point of insisting a different consensus existed (which clearly did not -- see below). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith
and assumptions of bad faith  This is simply me asking to add Anthon01 to the list of problematic editors that have been at different articles causing problems. How is this assuming bad faith exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 This is the same as above except for User:TheDoctorIsIn. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your attacks against me were unfounded. . . warnings, insults and false accusations. . . how much more bad faith can one assume in another?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 This is me asking PeterStJohn where he heard about the Quackwatch controversy. How is this an assumption of bad faith? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be viewed as positive when new editors enter a heated and deadlocked controversy. By the way, ScienceApologist only asks insinuating questions when editors that don't push the pro-Quackwacth agenda enters the discusion. Why is that? MaxPont (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was just curious how PeteStJohn found out about the controversy since he mentioned that he found out about it elsewhere. I wasn't intending to be insinuating and PeteStJohn even told me it was a "fair question". ScienceApologist (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

 This is me commenting on my suspicions of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, in particular I'm explaining why I have the suspicions. How is this an assumption of bad faith? I had evidence for why I had my suspicions. I was not assuming bad faith because I had evidence to the contrary. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Because you present no evidence here. . . just an assumption of bad faith. . . and you have yet to present me with anything the shape of evidence. . . all I got was a warning and antagonistic message from you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus conclusion
We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled.

I don't think that we were close to a "consensus" at all. In fact, most of the people who aren't active alt-med POV-pushers hadn't commented at the time that Levine declared consensus to exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think ScienceApologist's characterization of the consensus claim is accurate here. Certainly, less than a day is not enough time to claim consensus if disputants haven't weighed in yet. Ante  lan  talk  21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How can one speak of civility but then go on to blindly brand editors as "alt-med POV-pushers"? Also please note that Levine said we were close to a consensus which. . . thanks to editors like Levine. . . we were. He did not "declare" it as ScienceApologist is characterizing. . . to my knowledge Levine was the one the most helpful and instrumental editors in trying to acheive consenus. . . and where ScienceApologist was the most detrimental. I don't know but I have had a bad taste in my mouth for ScienceApologist ever since this guy editting my userpage and labeled me "a true believer in chiropractic". I don't like him. . . I think he is trouble. . . and I now I find out that he is calling me a sockpuppet. . . This is simply not true. . . Where does this guy get off?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not speaking of civility. I'm speaking of consensus. You're addressing a different issue. Ante  lan  talk  02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically any editors not worshipping QW have been made to feel pretty unwelcome over the past 1-2 years, a very artificial consensus.--I&#39;clast (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeda is unpleasant
''Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)''

I wish that Wikipedia could be an enjoyable place: but I don't like to see people with obvious agendas push their fringe beliefs into articles in order to advance a POV. That is contrary to what I believe to be one of the major aims of Wikipedia. I believe we are here to write an encyclopedia. Is it possible that sometimes people who have other agendas may find that aim unpleasant? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the specific example familiar to me, citing a (evidently qualified) reviewer stating (in an evidently reputable professional journal) that he believed (at that time, 8 years ago) that QW would be improved by insitituting peer-review for it's own publication, does not constitute pushing a fringe belief. In fact, I consider the utility of peer-review to be conventional science; QW also advocates peer-review. It may not be applicable to QW's web site itself, but it's a legitimate critique which by no means implies that QW is itself unscientific or fraudulent. Witness that QW openly answers questions about it. I'm sure some of us have fringe beliefs; for example, the belief that Science is Holy and Above Criticism would be a fringe (but not unheard of) belief. For all I know, Levine did terrible editting on many pages. But in the 3 days (or so) since the RFC (on the 11th), he has been cooperative about seeking a compromise, and you, ScienceApologist, have not been (as per here, in progress). So in terms of my responding to an RFC, this ANI is premature and, IMO, disruptive to the consensus building process. Pete St.John (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am getting a little uncomfortable with some of the characterizations that you are making which seem to be bordering closer and closer on personal attacks of myself. You are certainly entitled to your opinions on the matter, but I don't think that your advocacy is exactly helping in this situation, especially considering that this incident report isn't about you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I posted this "An Idea" yesterday.  Antelan posted this "Crohnie you've got a great point."  Then deleted the section.  I think IMHO that this section is not notable nor necessary in the article.  I seem though to be getting a lot of comments about my idea. I am one of the regular editors who left this article do to arguements like this.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And one day later ScienceApologist who was a party to your suggestion and agreement decided to reinsert the part of the deleted text that favored his position. When I asked him about the agreement he couldn't remember it, until I pointed it out to him. Anthon01 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I believe that this topic is best left to the Talk:Quackwatch page where we discuss, at length, why I felt that the new placement of the advisor list was appropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pete, the major problem here is one of context. Levine and his friends have been trying since forever to insert "QW is not peer reviewed" in order to undermine its credibility.  This is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle.  A comment that it might be improved by peer-review is a comment that applies to just about every activist website that exists; I am on the editorial board of a website that has a process of informal peer review and even there we feel that more rigour would be helpful.  It's not really a valid criticism of QW as QW, it's a criticism of most if not all activist websites.  The fact remains that QW is widely cited and considered at least reasonably reliable by as lot of people.  Levine and his friends don't like that, because very often it's their pet topics that QW debunks.  We can't really fix the fact that they like fringe subjects and QW doesn't, nor should we allow the views of True Believers to distort what we say about those who debunk fringe and pseudo science.  It is also likely that these editors are deliberately trying to wind ScienceApologist up in the hope of getting him into trouble.  They are very inclined to spit in his soup. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this remark from Guy to be extremely hostile and untrue. It violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I don't think it is befitting behavior of an admin. For the record, I am NOT trying to undermine Quackwatch's credibility, but rather get the article right by including information which is completely verified by reliable sources. It seems rock-solid for inclusion, but, as in the past, the more solid the ground for inclusions stands upon becomes, the more the arguments against inclusion shift into the form of personal attack and assumptions of bad faith. Essentially, it plays out like this: 1) I want to include some material. 2) Someone tells me I can't because it isn't sourced. 3) I find a source. 4) Someone tells me that the source isn't reliable. 5) I find a reliable source. 6) Someone tells me that I am misrepresenting what the source says. 7) I offer to quote the source word-for-word. 8) Someone tells me that I have a pro-Quackery agenda and that I am being disruptive. 9) I deny it and say that isn't a valid reason to exclude the reliably sourced information. 10) And here we are. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Levine, you are exhausting any good faith assumption. As someone who has been occasionally involved in these articles, Guy's above comment seems completely accurate. Frankly, I think you are close to exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please follow my 1-10 assessment, tell me if it is an unfair depiction of what is going on currently at Quackwatch and then let's see whose patience should be exhausted. Again, I feel like the "other side" on this issue have realized that inclusion is imminent due to the quality of sources I have provided and now that they can no longer argue policy for the content, they have regrettable chosen to attack me personally. Yet, my patience is unwavering. Now you have joined in here JoshuaZ and JzG and I give you this challenge. Spend some time and go through my past months of edits and comments. Show me where I have tried to undermine QW's credibility, where I have acted uncivilly or without good faith. Really take you time and look at it. Honestly. Show me how it is justified for two admins to come here and misrepresent me as a True Believer of the fringe. I take great offense to these personal attacks and if you think they are justified then you are going to have show me the justification or else I am considering a gross abuse of admin privilege and a demonstration of egregious incivility. -- Levine2112 <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this comment is an excellent example of exactly how tendentious Levine2112 is. He is disrupting Wikipedia as much as other editors I have seen banned from Wikipedia for similar cloak-and-dagger fringe science advocacy. (See User:Iantresman -- the parallels between the two users' style of "unwavering" patience are unmistakable.) There already are a large number of people who "sit-out" discussions that Levine2112 involves himself in for the reasons we outline here. How much more does this user have to do before he completely exhausts community patience? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly agree with Guy's assessment above. The WP:SOUP observation seems spot-on to me and I also second the comments by JoshuaZ and ScienceApologist.
 * Levine2112's step #5 often fails WP:CONSENSUS and he leaves out important arguments based on e.g. WP:WEIGHT. Points regarding POV-pushing and disruptive editing have also been made, but not as an end-run around persuasive policy-based arguments as suggested by Levine2112.
 * Like Crohnie, I left the QW article due to Levine's behavior. Avb 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * QW is, of course, a magnet for controversy.   Levine's point is that the article grossly favors QW - without significant provision on independent, credible descriptions or criticisms (e.g. tenured academic and scientific researchers in relevant fields at mainstream or name brand universities) that QW has significant weaknesses in technical accuracy, reliability, fairness.  The article has gone from a stable article with criticism in Sept-Oct 2006 from diverse editors to a virtual QW monoculture with pretty much only promotional statements again. (In most of 2006, earlier, the article had not-subtle-links for subscriptions and donation QW webpages until diverse editors agreed on a stabilized for about 4-5 months with criticism setting the stage for the past year's controversy).  The current summary sentence on Hufford's  review of QW(and SB) is totally inaccurate, where the academic, Hufford, has a V RS paper and he directly quotes Kauffman when stating that QW site is an outstanding example of systematic bias, but that aspect of Hufford's paper is totally suppressed now.  The problem is the promotional monoculture here around QW that admits that *no* legitimate criticisms even exist. The article is quite promotional POV in the face of academic papers that do present multiple examples of highly flawed QW articles where the " "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman) and severe...systematic biases (Hufford) can be verified independently, sometimes even from highly rated research med school sites. I think this article is getting close to exhausting WP's credibility.--I&#39;clast (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'm just wondering, can't we tell him/her to go to Un if he/she's just going to make Wikipedia unpleasant? &mdash;Bo L  @  23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 motivations
Levine2112 claims Stephen Barrett is a crook! Personally I find Bolen's site much more reliable than anything a crook such as Barrett has ever put out there.

False allegations by Levine2112. - make no mistake about it - he is also a paid attack-dog.

More false allegations. Talk about a scam.

Libel and personal attack by Levine2112. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=prev&oldid=65169756 Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets.]

What are the motivations of Levine2112 who is a chiropractor. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&diff=next&oldid=64787727 I too have noted an excessive use of links to Barrett's sites all around Wikipedia. I would like to see this minimized too.]

Levine2112 has admitted his motivations for his editong behaviour on various Quackwatch related articles. Is a ban the next step? Mr.Guru talk  23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, thanks for pointing to my writings from over a year and half ago. In addition to these being ancient, you will also note that much of the time when you are claiming that I am making allegations (false or not - that's all POV), I am merely quoting or paraphrasing a critical source. For instance, in the King Bio case, it was the judge (not me) who thought it was deceptive that Barrett was paying himself from his nonprofit organization's fund to act as his own expert witness. I am not alleging this. I am just stating what a judge stated and saying that I agree that it is fishy. I find it interesting that you assert that I am chiropractor. I am not. I have said this many times. I do not work in or for the health profession in any way, shape or form. I am not a supporter all alternative medicine or of allopathic medicine. I am merely a scientific skeptic in the most true sense of the words. I demand rational scientific proof to meet my satisfaction. I am also a Wikipedian. And as a Wikipedian, I demand that we get the article right. Often times this means arguing to include material which a few demand to leave out but otherwise is completely in line with Wikipedia policy. Other times this means arguing to exclude material which a few demand to include but specifically are problematic with a number of policies or guidelines. I think I am fair, but tough. I am quick to admit when I am wrong and despite being the object of much ridicule and baiting, I think that I remain calm and civil and try my best to assume good faith in others. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Levine2112 assumes bad faith in others. For example, after a warning he accused QuackGuru of being a troll. Review his talk page history for more details. It speaks volumes. He has recently added gross BLP violations to the Stephen Barrett article which led to protection. The same type of POV editing blockworthy disruption is happening at the Quackwatch article. I recommend an indef-block in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Mr.Guru  talk  03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at the evidence and note that when he/she says I am adding BLP violations, I am actually adding the opinions of critics and a judge and providing citations to reliable sources. When will these personal attacks and false accusations end? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably shortly after you stop your crusade against those individuals with whose opinion you so passionately disagree. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem in my view is that poor Levine, is being mobbed by the Quackwatch faithful, including some vociferous QW advertisers, site linkers and some editors who may have pushed/used their various industry connections in apparent COI, who have to various degrees attacked, diluted or erased any and all meaningful criticism, no matter how V RS or scientifically founded. Almost WP editors attempting to note the QW problems have been repeatedly harrassed or ad hominem attacked, almost all departed. Some of the pro-QW editors' administratively unchecked behavior against Levine and others, continues to amaze me, in a clear analog to Workplace bullying or Mobbing.


 * With Quackwatch, the old dilemma, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? remains a pregnant question, e.g. Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch; any credible V RS information/paper (e.g. Hufford) mentioning or possibly even implying this is blythely ignored studiously suppressed at QW WP.


 * Here's my simple suggestion: Allow even a *little* intellectual integrity to leak into the QW article on the V RS problems with Quackwatch's bias and errors, starting with the  academically based Hufford (UPenn/Penn State Med School bioethics prof),  reference directly quoting Kauffman (medicinal chemist, prof emeritus  USP). a proposed example  Maybe everyone could go home and have nice holiday dinners this year.--I&#39;clast (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that that would resolve this issue on the QW article. Anthon01 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis
Let me offer my analysis of the situation:


 * 1) Levine2112 has been editing alt-med articles for some time and seems to take particular pride in keeping certain characterizations in those articles in line with his own opinions.
 * 2) WP:NPOV clearly delineates how we must treat alt-med articles: giving the proper weight to the scientific community's opinions on most of these matters. There are a number of editors whose goal is to achieve this level of neutrality. Levine2112 often clashes with these editors over their attempts to contextualize and characterize the alt-med-related topics appropriately.
 * 3) Quackwatch has been so contentious an article that over the last few months it has usually been under protection. Levine is often in the edit history of this page and he or those in his party have made frequent reverts with somewhat questionable edit summaries.
 * 4) Levine2112 wears his civility as a badge and as a shield. His comments seem to indicate that he thinks that superficial civility is all that is needed.
 * 5) I listed my concerns with Levine2112 above as his actions seem to me to correspond precisely with disruptive editing as defined by Wikipedia.
 * 6) Instead of responding to these concerns, Levine2112 decides to level an attack against me which I felt compelled to analyze point-by-point above. He seems to think that my involvement in totally unrelated arbcomm cases invalidates my presentation of the problem here at AN/I. He seems to be trying to confuse the situation and scare off administrators who don't want to act hastily.
 * 7) Now Levine2112 has decided to attack two different administrators who expressed concerns with his activities.

What seems to be developing here is a pattern where Levine2112 has issues raised about him and his response it to attack the messenger. He has a very high opinion of himself and seems to think that his activity at, say, Talk:Quackwatch is beyond reproach when in fact we've documented cases where he has basically declared consensus where it didn't exist, Wikilawyered his way into reinterpreting and synthesizing sources to get his opinions inserted in the article. If we were a company and I was presenting this matter before the board, I would recommend terminating Levine2112's employment as an editor at the encyclopedia. I just don't think he has made any useful contributions to our encyclopedia.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can sanctions be taken for an editor devising such a completely false depiction of another editor? Surely, this is the level of bad faith and incivility which ScienceApologist's ArbCom decision warned him/her about. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This response again seems to indicate that Levine2112 intends to continue in this pattern. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * SA frequently "skeptically" denounces, dismisses and harrasses editors on altmed edits that he doesn't agree with pretty readily, whether they might have more subject specific chemical & biological background or not. I consider SA's ANI here gratuitous, wasteful and provocative again, he's been plenty rude and threatening, to me too. I urge everyone to re-consider the merits of my suggestion above and allow the Quackwatch article to finally begin to re-stabilize with some slight element of NPOV, instead of endless stonewalling and POV denials on academically credible criticism of QW.--I&#39;clast (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is the tactic of choice right now from alt-med POV-pushers. Instead of dealing with the actual complaints, change the subject or attack the messenger. Really, this kind of environment is caustic and I don't see that these kind of aggressive single-purpose-accounts help the project. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, ScienceApologist, please consider that labeling others as "alt-med POV-pushers" and "aggressive single-purpose-accounts" is uncivil and unhelpful to this process. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Judicious application of WP:SPADE is what is needed here. If we cannot properly characterize the kind of advocacy that is going on here, there is no chance that we will be able to figure out whether disruptive editing is indeed occurring. (See below for evidence I think proves this point -- thanks Durova). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have no ideological axe to grind here. Here's a breakdown of Levine2112's contributions: Among this editor's contributions outside the topic of alternative medicine, his/her most edited article is Tom Swifty. For comparison, this is the historic version of the article from immediately before this editor's first contribution to it. Having reviewed the person's last 1500 edits manually I found occasional vandalism reversion and welcome templates to new users. Other editors may draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate. Durova Charge! 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most edited mainspace article: 365 edits to Stephen Barrett.
 * Of the editor's top 15 most edited articles, number that relate directly to chiropractic or pseudoscience: 14.
 * Most edited talk pge: 1198 edits to Talk:Stephen Barrett.
 * Of the editor's top 15 most edited talk pages, number that relate directly to chiropractic or pseudoscience: 14.
 * Most edited Wikipedia space page: 82 edits to Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence.
 * Most edited Wikipedia space talk page: 63 edits to Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Proposed decision.
 * Durova's analysis above looks to me to paint a clear picture of an SPA and other issues make clear that this is a POV pushing SPA. SPAs that are pushing negative views about a specific BLP should be taken particularly seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. I would say that I tend to edit articles which I am interested in. However, given that I have close to 1000 vandalism reversions, have made over close to 1000 new or anonymous users feel welcome, and have corrected several hundred spelling mistakes, I would say that I am far from an SPA. I see no evidence presented that I am a "POV pusher" other than several non-neutral editors' opinions. I thank Durova for looking over the last 1500 edits in my edit history manually. I did the same and found that over 100 of these edits (dating back to less that two months ago) were reversions of vandalism, over 100 were warning templates on vandal's or potential vandal's talk pages, 12 were reports to "Administrator intervention against vandalism‎" which resulted in the blockage of several repeat vandals, about 350 were welcoming new or anonymous users (much of the time I am encouraging anonymous users to create an account), and about 30 were good faith reversions on a wide variety of articles. So that accounts for well over a third of my last 1500 edits. JoshuaZ, do you still think it is fair to characterize me as a "POV pushing SPA"? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given how many truly awful editors have gotten endless second chances and mentorship, to be discussing any harsh punishments on Levine - who has actual potential - at this point, seems ridiculous. He may have some problems, but he's hardly irredeemable. How about a period of mentorship first? Indeed, I have enough faith in him that I would be willing to take him on as a mentor, if he likes - though as we do have very different views, he may prefer someone else. Adam Cuerden talk 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's its a general waste of time at this point, but if you're willing to try to mentor him then I have no objection to it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to ask: Adam, do you think it is fair of JoshuaZ to characterize me as a "POV pushing SPA" based on my past 1500 edits given that over 1/3 of these edits have nothing to do with the single-purpose POV he is accusing me of pushing but rather good Wikipedia duties such as vandalism reversion and new user welcoming? Your response here will help me formulate your generous offer of mentorship. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  03:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that analysis was a good basis for the judgement. You do strong views, of course, and may at times get slightly tendentious in upholding them, but are also usually open to reason, which is not a quality associated with POV-pushing SPAs in my experience. Forgive me, I just woke up on very little sleep, and may not be saying this well, but in 7 hours I head off on holiday, so thought it best to answer now. Adam Cuerden talk 08:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your analysis: "He has a very high opinion of himself and seems to think that his activity at, say, Talk:Quackwatch is beyond reproach when in fact we've documented cases where he has basically declared consensus where it didn't exist," - As an uninvolved user who has tried to resolve the dispute there, I would just like to say, he is not the only person at Talk:Quackwatch to whom that particular characterization applies. There's POV-pushing from both sides. —Random832 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When there are those who are worse, do you ban the bad?
This is an interesting question that is brought up by Adam Cuerden. Clearly there are worse editors at Wikipedia than Levine2112, and more than a few are editing at alt-med articles who have gotten a pass in the past. However, I think there are three things to consider here:


 * 1) Just because the actions of others are worse doesn't mean that we should put up with bannable actions for "lesser offenses". A disruptive editor should be shown the door regardless of how others behave.
 * 2) Levine2112 has been around long enough to know how to not mess up the basics. He knows how to make it look superficially like he is not an edit warrior, not uncivil, not a POV-pusher. His comments above continue in this tendentious trend. When disruptive editors begin to learn how to game the system this much, they make editing environments very difficult as I witnessed firsthand at Talk:Quackwatch. In many ways, these editors are actually worse than the ones who make obvious gaffes and policy violations because clear violations are easier to get administration involvement than the more nebulous situations.
 * 3) Mentorship works best when the protege is unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules and conventions. Levine2112 is very familiar with Wikipedia rules and conventions and I see no indication that he is likely to take mentorship seriously: Adam offered the option above and Levine2112 responded with more accusations against those who are trying to describe the problem with his editing behavior.

Just my thoughts...

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Joshua's description was, in my opinion, a bit extreme. I've dealt with a lot of POV-pushing SPAs, and Levine just doesn't fit the mould very well. I may be wrong; we shall see. But if we're going to offer mentorship and endless second chances to hopeless causes, why on earth would we deny it to someone there's actually hope for? That seems grossly unfair.  Adam Cuerden talk 08:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I kind of hate to say this, but your reading of situations can often be a bit eccentric... Adam Cuerden talk 08:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Without having looked at the the particular situation, I think the principles of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS apply in the general case. None of us can look at all users and ban them sorted by absolute degree of disruption. Instead, we act whenever we see anything that crosses the line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I don't think Levine has yet crossed the line, though he may dance close to it at times. A little help, and he could well be a productive, uncontroversial member of the project. Adam Cuerden talk 10:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I too think WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here. But so does WP:SOFIXIT. And while many have tried to help (or force) Levine2112 to become a better editor, Adam is very generously offering something that has not been tried before. Do I believe such a mentorship would turn him into an asset for Wikipedia? Frankly, no; after more than two years and tons of reverted edits he should have internalized the message spelled out in NPOV's WP:WEIGHT section and learned that his aims can't be realized. But I certainly prefer it over an indef block which, I feel, should not be given without prior shorter blocks and/or a thorough RfC/U. On the other hand, if Adam's mentoring would fail, I think that would be the end of the road. Avb 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's difficult. Levine is a pleasant enough chap, for the most part, but bears most of the hallmarks of the crusader or true believer.  This would be easier to handle if his crusade were for the mainstream, as SA's is, but it isn't.  SA often lacks tact and diplomacy (sez me) but fundamentally he is pushing WP:NPOV while those who complain about him are generally pushing the opposite.  The fundamental problem is that very few editors other than those passionately interested in, and for the most part promoting, fringe science, have any interest in these subjects.  The average scientist of any merit simply writes them off as abjectly failing the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)