This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will place items in which they have confidence and vote at /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request by User:Ilena to look at broader picture ... Am I the only "advocate" here?

Some burning questions and explanations of my experience here.

Barrett has, as recently as January, 2007, edited here himself, despite several comments to the contrary. It has been said that I brought this "conflict" to Wikipedia. In fact, I attempted to correct verified false information being posted by Barrett himself (immediately followed by Fyslee and other anonymous posters on various pages) regarding the case he lost to me. I carefully sourced my edits with links to the court decisions.

Please consider that are probably several of the anonymous editors, with undisclosed large WP:COI, who delete criticism and post PRO-Barrett commercial links throughout Wikipedia, while keeping their identities hidden.

Please note the first diff below where Barrett was editing and adding link after link to his commerical sites. He then became invisible and Fyslee immediately appeared and made sure that his vanity links remained, as well as adding more. Please consider that indeed, this is a role of a publicist.

Despite accusations, I have never denied that I edited before I created my account, nor denied any edit I have made, nor posted anonymously nor attempted to be anything or anyone but who I am: a woman's health activist and advocate. Because I have been open about my identity, I feel I am now being punished and perhaps banned.

Is Fyslee not an advocate for those he claims are harmed by quackery and chiropractors?

Is Barrett not an advocate for the same, with his vast empire of "anti-quackery" books and lectures and courses and non-profits soliciting donations and people harmed by what he calls quackery?

Please further consider that Barrett's many commerical websites that are linked throughout Wikipedia are inappropriate as WP:RS. They are websites self published by Barrett, which sell books for a company, for which he, himself is the "medical editor." [1].

Every day, I watch Fyslee and others with a pro-Barrett POV removing links to those they criticize claiming that they are "commercial" or "promotional" while adding link after link after link to Barrett's sites, selling their "anti-quackery" viewpoints. How is this neutral or fair and balanced? Is this really the Wiki way?

Barrett was described in a losing court decision as being a "zealous advocate" for NCAHF NCAHF loses to King Bio]. He is given hundreds of links on Wikipedia, and I not allowed even one. In my winning Supreme Court decision article Barrett_v._Rosenthal, his editors have not allowed even a comment of who I am. Is this neutral or fair?

Could the anonymous pro-Barrett editors not be his own family members and team [2] with a decided, but unverifiable WP:COI since they are hiding behind aliases?

Barrett's edits --- then he left and Fyslee continued

Before Barrett had an account

Stephen Barrett posting anonymously as recently as January, 2007

Barrett posting very skewed and biased information about his Appeals Court loss to me

I respectfully request that the fact is carefully considered that Barrett described himself in Time Magazine, "today, I am the media." Is media not about public_relations and propaganda?

I believe that the Wiki definition fits precisely: Media: an industry communicating through different media

There are various anonymous single_purpose_posters on Wiki such as GigiButterfly whose only edits were to erase negative links and post PRO-Barrett POV and links.

A few have posted false and misleading information as to the NCAHF and their suspended status and laws regarding non profit status. The archives clearly show the amount of distraction and attempts at creating reasonable doubt about this topic, that they collectively managed to keep off of Wikipedia for over 6 months. I do apologize for any uncivil behavior on my part during these heated discussions. You could understand, however, the enormous amount of disinformation I corrected and sourced time after time after time to be told I was "attacking" and it was all POV and not relevant nor notable. For a self named "consumer advocate" and one who scrutinizes and criticizes other non profits to the degree NCAHF, Inc. does, it is certainly a relevant notable fact if they are operating with no state license. Fyslee promised repeatedly to prove their legal status, and instead repeated this serious disinformation as recently as December:

...The NCAHF is still registered in California. -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006

In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This has been discussed (with this link) [3] for over 6 months. One anonymous editor made several totally false and unverified statements about state licensure. you ignore the fact that you don't need to be incorporated to claim non-profit status. Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006

He also made this unproven and unprovable claim: Since NCAHF can legally operate and collect donations and advertising without a "legal corporate status" ...Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006.

I have never seen any evidence that these are true statements and believe them to not be true. I have much experience with non profits. I believe he is deliberately posting misleading and unfactual information. I further now believe, that he is a very close blood relative of Stephen Barrett's, with obvious and glaring serious WP:COI issues. Keeping negative information out of articles about Barrett's operations has been one of his prime purposes on Wiki.

If so, banning me and allowing him free editing seems unbalanced and unfair. I was blocked once for changing a subject header. He is welcomed and supported and makes jokes at my expense, however, after editing in intentional disinformation. Under this user name, he seems to be practically single purpose, with a huge amount of Barrett and Quackwatch related edits. Single purpose? His edits appear to be to advocate for Barrett and to attempt to keep off any criticism and negative facts about him off of Wiki.

What if we are correct, and it is indeed Barrett's family member "just passing through" without any scrutiny whatsoever, while commenting frequently about what he claims is my WP:COI? [4] [5] [6]

I too feel that I was never given a chance on Wikipedia.

From the day (July 7, 2006) I began editing facts and correcting falsities against Barrett himself (unbeknownst to me), Fyslee mmediately proved that WP:AGF was not even an option as you can see from my talk page and their prominent immediate warnings and threats. [[7]].

I would love to have the opportunity to add to my growing watch list and edit other articles, as I bring a wide and broad experience of many aspects of life that interest me. Please do not judge and ban me without considering the vast amount of pressure and antagonism put on me by Barrett's editors here from the moment I appeared.

Thank you.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this section should be removed as it appears irrelevant and distracting. --Ronz 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

When I answered Ilena's request for administrative investigation and intervention in January I discovered that all of her claims and evidence should be examined with skeptical scrutiny. One example is her link to her talk page archive in which she fails to mention that significant portions of original dialog are missing due to heavy refactoring. She tends to claim serious wrongdoing, weakly supported by nonspecific evidence, and makes heavy use of contextomy and logical fallacies. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova - there is some majors problems with the statement given above. I do not appear to find a single difference (correct me if I am wrong) in the above, and hence it makes the whole statement of relatively worthless if it is to be used in this ArbCom to assess user conduct. User:Lethaniol 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can not identify what "difference" you are referring to. Please be more specific. Durova has had a history of falsely making accusations [8] and I welcome the opportunity for clarity. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I will be clearer - all of your on-wiki evidence that I have seen so far is pointing to current pages for example User talk:Ilena/Archive 1. This link is virtually useless as it links to a page that could be constantly changing and that the original edit may have been altered - I suspect that Arbitrators will ignore them. Please read the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence where it says:

"Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient."

An example of a page difference (found by using the history tab on the page concerned) would be something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIlena&diff=92473793&oldid=92471584] which would produce the following [9]. Virtually all evidence and links should be of this form to be taken into account. Cheers Lethaniol 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I believe that you may already be aware about what a difference is see [10] - please use them yourself. Cheers Lethaniol 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena has demonstrated beyond doubt that she understands what a page difference is and can generate them when their content supports her assertions. In my observations she systematically fails to produce them when page differences would not support her assertions. Durova^Charge! 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to split fact 3.2 (Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee)

1) Request for the arbitrators to split fact 3.2 into two distinct assertions.

That Quackwatch, as a partizan site, is not appropriate for references and links. (This may need to be further split into that Quackwatch is a partizan site (undisputed fact), and that partizan sites are not appropriate (a strengthing of principle 4.1)
That Fyslee added such links.

Quackwatch being an unreliable source would have to be a separate ruling, possibly a futher combination of fact and principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If the information is verifiable, it can be found in another reliable source. Fred Bauder 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Requested — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Quackwatch has a strong POV - it's hardly hidden; it's right there in the title. Nonetheless, it's useful, in a qualified fashion, in some articles. If someone claims lemon oil cures cancer, it won't be rebutted in the New England Journal of Medicine - it will be rebutted on Quackwatch. There's a push to use this forum to outlaw Quackwatch entirely as a source, and I'd rather see that determination made on a case-by-case basis on the talk page of the relevant articles. MastCell 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: I don't think that this forum should be held as a vote as to whether or not Quackwatch is a partisan site. I think that is a given. Of course it is a partisan site. It reflects only one point-of-view, presents opinions as facts, and promotes ridicule. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to consider the environment of the sites in question

1) The articles where Ilena and Fyslee initially edited and continue to edit are contentious topics, usually pov-tagged, where the editing and discussion environments are hostile to the very policies and guidelines at issue. Both these editors learned about Wikipedia in environments where violations of these guidelines are ignored, denied, even mocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed This was initially going to be part of my statement, but was removed due to length. --Ronz 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I certainly do not want 4.2.8 Responsibility for one's actions to be ignored, this sheds a great deal of light on 1.1 Request by Ilena, 4.2.2.1 Struggle by Ilena and 4.2.4.1 Incivility and personal attacks by Fyslee, especially Peter's involvement in trying to diffuse the situation. The issues specific to this are 4.1.2 Honey and Vinegar, 4.1.4 NPOV, 4.1.6 NPA, 4.1.8 Wikipedia is not a Battleground, 4.1.10 Audi alteram partem, and 4.1.15 BLP. --Ronz 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Proposed final decision

Proposed • Big issue in this case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Perhaps to a certain extent this depends on the specifics? If the site said "Person X sucks and Person X=Editor Y at Wikipedia" then that most certainly falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. But I'm not sure we absolutely want to outlaw sites that are, say, generally critical of George Bush, who is a living person, after all. I think a more specific adjective in place of "inflammatory" would be better, as it stands this is a shade too general. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction comes in the difference between criticising someone, and attacking them. There is a fine line of course, and a fair bit of grey area. I tend to believe it is best to err on the side of caution when it persaints to WP:BLP, and when it pertains to fellow Wikipedians. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if collaboration is one of your goals. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to attack sites

4.1) Attack sites targetting living people (including Wikipedia editors) should not be linked to except in articles where they themselves are the topic of discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More specific variation on the above. Kirill Lokshin 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree • More or less what I was getting at. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

Comment by others:

Can we possibly emphasise the "in articles" bit? Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably not, it's best not to link attack sites anywhere. Linking sites which attack members of the Wikipedia community is problematic whatever namespace they are in. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

5) Personally charged attacks are inflammatory, divisive, and contribute to a negative environment on Wikipedia. They should be avoided. Occasional lapses in civility may be forgiven, but continued infractions may result in a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed • Common sense really. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life feuds or disputes

6) The importation of real-life feuds or disputes into Wikipedia is disruptive and inappropriate. Innumerable other venues exist for resolving or perpetuating real-life disagreements, from the legal system to personal websites or Usenet. Wikipedia is not such a venue; editors invovled in an ongoing real-life conflict should avoid editing Wikipedia articles directly dealing with said conflict.

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~

~~Comment by parties:~~

Proposed • From WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a battleground") and WP:COI. MastCell 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree, though the wording is a bit problematic. I have tried to reword it in a more clearcut way under 6.1 ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sure, but I think that (particularly in this case) the phrase "editors invovled in an ongoing real-life conflict should avoid editing Wikipedia articles directly dealing with said conflict" is relevant. MastCell 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I entirely agree, but it should probably be a separate principle. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Fair enough... I'll strike this through and start a condensed version, to build off of your citation of Wikipedia is not a battleground (definitely also relevant here). MastCell 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment by others:~~

Wikipedia is not a Battleground

6.1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. It is not a place for people to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hate or fear. This is contrary to the goals of the project, and it is divisive, inflammatory, and poisons the well, as it tends to drive away contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed • Rewording of 6 above. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Don't always agree. Sometimes heated discussion occurs on the way to NPOV, especially in controversial subjects. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life disputes

7) Editors involved in an ongoing real-life conflict with another party should not edit Wikipedia articles directly dealing with said dispute. The correction of clear violations of WP:BLP is an exception.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fyslee claims: She came here with her real-life dispute with Barrett and all who share his mainstream POV, and discovered me. In fact, Barrett was misrepresenting facts about NCAHF and the case he lost to me, and I attempted to post the verified facts. IMMEDIATELY & REPEATEDLY Fyslee filled my talk page with threats and warning. [[[11]] At the time, he had not yet claimed to have "resigned" as Barrett's assistant listmaster, a job he held since 2000. He removed my edits, and when Barrett (who I did not know was himself adding his linkspam,) left, Fyslee made sure no link to my POV was left, and added more and more of Barrett's linkspam. Barrett brought the issues of his suit he lost to me here to Wiki, not me, as has been claimed perhaps scores of times, though fallacious. Ilena (chat) 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed • As an extension of WP:COI and WP:NOT (..."not a battleground"). MastCell 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have never had any ongoing disputes with Ilena at Usenet, and have always avoided her when possible. I have never participated there, AFAICR. She came here with her real-life dispute with Barrett and all who share his mainstream POV, and discovered me. She then started attacking me as well. She has a COI problem here and should not edit any articles or touch any links (anywhere) related to Barrett, Quackwatch, etc.. There are plenty of other (antagonistic) editors who already do that. Her tendency to risk making BLP violations makes this a doubly pressing matter. -- Fyslee's (First law) 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel WP:COI may already go too far. It should also be noted that, among Wikipedians, this would only apply to Stephen Barrett himself (I don't think he was named as a party) and User:Ilena, not to any other participants. My dispute with Ilena was mostly on the question of whether I felt she was posting messages on inappropirate Usenet newsgroups, rather than whether the content was appropriate somewhere, and had been over long before I started editing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee has a stated and strong connection to Mr. Barret, and therefore should probably not edit related articles. To me it is that simple. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee clearly does not have a strong connection to Mr. Barrett. He shares some views, subscribes to a mailing list which was later taken over by Barrett, links to some of Barrett's sites (as part of a web ring), and was, for a short period of time, maintainer of a forum on one of Barrett's sites. I see no other connection, other than unsubstantiated allegations by Ilena. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction. The list ("forum") is not "on" any of his sites (only announced there with the sign up info and list rules), and to the best of my knowledge isn't even hosted on the same servers, but on server space provided freely to the list. Some websites have lists and blogs as an integral part of the same site on the same servers, but not at Quackwatch, since they have very different origins. Also, just to preempt any more speculations and charges that might be made, I have never had any type of control or responsibilities, whether by editing, programming, or otherwise, on any of Barrett's sites. Even if I had written an article, the only possible COI I would have would be that I should not place links to my own article into Wikipedia. I would do it on the talk page and let other editors do it if they felt it worthy. Saying all that, it would be an honor for me to have done any and all of those things for so worthy a venture as providing the public with free information to help them make intelligent decisions that aid them to avoid falling prey to scammers and conmen, as well as making decisions on many other worthy matters. But I unfortunately don't have such a worthy COI that could affect my ability to edit here at Wikipedia. Even if I did, it would only be a problem if it caused me to habitually edit war and refuse to collaborate. I have learned to take a pause from such situations and not press the issue. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the topic of this thread goes -- real-life disputes -- it is Ilena and Barrett that have that dispute, which she has brought here and made an issue in her use of Wikipedia as her extended battleground. I do not engage Ilena at Usenet. I avoid her. It is not my fault that she has sought me out here at Wikipedia and started attacking me. I was already here and just did what other editors did, we sought to make sure policy was followed. I have even repeatedly offered to help her include edits contrary to my POV, but she has never sought my help:

"I could even work fine with you (as I have stated previously), and help you add information that does not conform to my POV, if you would only cease attacking and try collaborating. Just ask for my help. I believe in the inclusion of differing POV, as long as they are encyclopedic, are from verifiable, reliable, and good sources, and without any WP:OR. If you doubt my intentions regarding the application of NPOV to opposing POV, just ask User:Dematt, a chiropractor whom I admire very highly." -- Fyslee 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [12]

-- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was avoiding voicing myself here as I really haven't edited much (if at all) on Barrett v. Rosenthal. But I read this, I wanted Fyslee to at least be clear here. From Ilena's first day here (coincidentally User:Sbinfo's first day here), Fyslee has been on her case. We are told here to not bite the newbie, but Fyslee's first confrontation with Ilena shows that he was ignoring this basic policy. 19:45, 7 July 2006 This harsh, high-level warning template (template #1 is preferred starting point for a newbie) followed only after a small amount of intitial editing on Ilena's part at Stephen Barrett. So right away, Fyslee was being extremely confrontational. Now my experience with Ilena, though limited to just Wikipedia, has shown me that when she is pushed, she pushes back. And following her intial edit, you can be assured that Fyslee stayed on her case and wouldn't give her a moments peace. Note that I am not defending all of Ilena's edits. I agree that placing a vanity link to her own site or adding unreferences speculative info to an article is a bad idea. My issue here is that Fyslee is attempting to say that he was willing to work collaboratively with Ilena, when clearly that wasn't his intention at the start. He set up a defensive relationship with her and continued to push her buttons, knowing that eventually she would react poorly. I would speculate (and I bet I am right) that Fyslee knew exactly who Ilena was right when she showed up at Wikipedia. As a memeber of the RagTag Possee of Snake Oil Vigilante's [13], Fyslee clearly has a preexisting bias against Ilena. Please peruse this immature attack site that dates back to 2000. It is filled with satirical song lyrics lambasting Ilena and trying to enflame her. (Barrett is also a member of the RagTag Posse.) Clearly, Fyslee's intent here right when Ilena arrived was to enflame her more. This is a real-life dispute that has continued onto Wikipedia and neither party has acted in good faith. And now that Fyslee is pretending to put on his good-boy hat and say that he wants only to work collaboratively with her... well perhaps that's just a ploy not to get what's coming to him. I warn the arbitrators reviewing the evidence not to fall for this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112 is now assuming bad faith by making these mocking accusations that border on violations of BLP:

"Clearly, Fyslee's intent here right when Ilena arrived was to enflame her more."

"He set up a defensive relationship with her and continued to push her buttons, knowing that eventually she would react poorly."

That is a lie. I don't know how to say it more clearly. Levine2112 is no angel himself and should know better than to second guess my motives, but he's pretty good at pushing buttons himself, so maybe this is a case of transference. I may act brusquely, be untactful, and not always wise, but I didn't do it with that intent. Period. I edit to ensure that policy is followed, and don't usually think about the reaction of the other editor. I have learned to recognize signs of an impending edit war now, and am more inclined to back off after a few tries don't succeed. That's called a positive learning curve, and I'm still learning. But now that everyone here has met Ilena and observed her patterns of behavior, I think it's pretty plain that no matter who had done what had to be done, she would have reacted as she did, because that's her normal pattern of behavior. Don't think that she has acted any worse here than she does at Usenet. She has just been true to form.

My introduction of the quote (written some time ago) about wanting to help her and collaborate with her was sincerely meant, both then and now. It was not a "ploy", as claimed by Levine2112. I take extreme exception to this violation of AGF he is displaying here. Unfortunately this whole affair has likely ruined the possibility of Ilena and I working together. When I made the offer, which wasn't the first time, I still hoped it might work, but she has never backed down or ceased her attacks. No, it has only gotten worse.

As far as the comments here by a small few of the other involved parties who were always having to deal with her, we are in an RFARB situation and are required to tell it like it is as politely as possible, but without weakening our own case by leaving out evidence that might help our case. This is the place where doing that would indeed be an unjustified attack if done elsewhere. Defense--attack, here it sounds the same. That's what I hate about this whole business. It ain't my style.

Levine2112 now comes here out of the blue and makes a clear attack by assuming bad faith, instead of just pointing to some diffs and telling what happened, without his bad faith interpretation. That's pretty telling.

The Rag Tag Posse was Peter Bowditch´s page where he placed a number of names. Some of us thought it was funny, and others, including Barrett and Ilena, were not "members", but added there by him anyway. Peter even wrote why he placed them there: they had been named in the Bolen/Clark countersuit (resulting in a a malicous prosecution suit being filed against them by Barrett, and accepted by the courts). It was a spoof page, in keeping with Peter's rather strong tendencies for sarcasm and crass humor. That's all it was, just like the Quackbusters Of The Illuminati, another joke of his. There was never anything serious about those things, but it was funny (and now sad) to see that Ilena and others, including David Icke, actually believed it and wrote about it as if there really was some kind of conspiracy. If there ever was, it was pretty open, and no one ever told me about it. That's what the conspiracy theory mindset does to people. They can't even see the sarcasm and humor for what it is, but fall for it and take it seriously. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this very plain, Fyslee. Did you know of or have any dealings with Ilena before she began editing here on July 7, 2006? If so, please detail. My point is that you are named as a member of this RagTag Posse website which its major purpose is to antagonize Ilena. You have been listed as a member for quite some time... I believe before July 7, 2006. In which case, you have a history of antagonizing Ilena before she arrived at Wikipedia. It only makes it clearer that your antagonizing of Ilena continued when she arrived at Wikipedia. Given the RagTag membership and your less-than-cordial greeting to her when she arrived at Wikipedia, there is reasonable evidence for us to state that you are and have been antagonizing her from the start. So your WP:AGF warning in unwarranted. That you are now trying to turn this into an attack on me and my character... well that is unjustified and just plain petty. I advise to to stick to the issue at hand. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena was contributing to Wikipedia before July 7, under a number of ip addresses.

Given her edits on July 7, I personally think she should have been warned with a NPOV warning, a Template:NPOV0 or Template:Comment2 given how unrelenting and blatant she was. --Ronz 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you follow her earliest edits, you will see that Fyslee was there to out her and accuse her of sock puppetry. I don't think Ilena was being deliberately deceptive. Perhaps she just logged in from two different computers. Fyslee certainly jumped on her fast. Clearly, he knew who she was and who he was dealing with. And thus Fyslee's antagonizing of Ilena begins. Again, I think it is a two-way street, but I think it is important to know who started this Wiki relationship off on a bad foot. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sounds good, but technically that means none of us should be on any of these articles. It does not necessarily preclude that we can't be civil in the manner in which we communicate. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audi alteram partem‎

8) When in a dispute, it is important that all parties involved listen to and acknowledge opposing views, and respect the right of others to hold them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's certainly possible for parties in a dispute to be clearly wrong, or acting in bad faith; while listening to others' views is always good, I'm not aware of anything that justifies requiring that they be respected in all cases. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know an opposing viewpoint is invalid if you don't even listen it? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? As I said, "listening to others' views is always good"; but, having listened to them, there's nothing that requires you to respect them. Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can respect that another holds a position without agreeing with the position. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the last clause to "and respect the right of others to hold opposing views"? Paul August ☎ 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. I went ahead and made that change. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better in meaning, but introduces a slight grammatical problem: "listen to... the right of others". I've tried my hand at correcting it, but it may be needlessly verbose now. Kirill Lokshin 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your fix looks good to me. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed • A significant reason why this situation elevated was a failure of several involved sides to acknowledge the veracity of the other's position. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle (Fyslee 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Fyslee's first law: "Collaboration trumps all other policies." ..elaborated here. -- Fyslee 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Absolutely necessary. No matter who the other person is. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

1) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, care must be taken not to give undue weight to minority points of view. Editors who are, in real life, proponents of a minority point of view, may be restricted from directly editing articles related to their off-wikipedia agenda. This is an extension of the the neutral point of view policy and the strong consensus on conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. MastCell 21:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are we considering minority POV here. It doesn't seem to fit in this instance. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Common sense frequently overlooked by editors who themselves have a strong POV. This is a consistent factor in many editing disputes. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may have opinions

1) Content must be neutral, editors are not required to be impartial. While editing with a conflict of interest is deprecated, it is expected that editors will have their own opinions on articles they edit, and these opinions may be expressed in Talk and elsewhere provided that the end result in article space complies with the neutral point of view, and provided that their advocacy of their views is not aggressive or disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Editors may have opinions (otherwise you'll need to ban me). Guy (Help!) 17:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle. Perhaps there's a way of tightening this? I'd like this to encourage editors to disclose personal POV candidly when they suspect it may affect their decisions at an article or its talk page. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of collaborative editing

1) Collaboration enables NPOV to work.

Without collaboration between editors of opposing POV, nothing functions as intended, and Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. The edits of uncollaborative editors are doomed to failure until they learn this, and they often get blocked before this can happen.
The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Collaborative editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, but such a relationship is rare on controversial subjects.
Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

Conclusion: Uncollaborative editors should have their wings clipped.

(For more about this principle, just try this template on your talk page: {{FirstLaw Collaborate}})

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are a few official policies: NPOV, verification, What Wikipedia is not, see Wikipedia:Five pillars. "Collaboration" trumps none of these, however vital is is to fulfilling them. Fred Bauder 14:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, I was quoted in The Scientist discussing this very topic. The Scientist: Corporate Collaborations which was about conflicts of interest in industry. I'd like to further add, public_relations is about selling whatever concept, be it the Iran War, or global warming or anti-global warming or "anti-quackery" -- invisibly ... everyone claiming to be "volunteers" and "hobbyists." I believe what Fyslee is attempting to continue to solicit others to come here to push their "anti-quackery" WP:POV, and he has regularly made "call to arms" on Chirotalk Life University Wikipedia entry Reply #9 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am. Also, as Barrett's Assistant Listmaster for several years (until December, 2006 when he said he resigned but continues posting there) he has solicited members to come to Wikipedia to help him collaborate. This is but one example. healthfraud Wikipedia . A short time ago, someone else also put out a call on their list to edit there. [14] (I see that two of the entries on this topic were removed from the archives, I have them if anyone is interested in seeing them.) Thank you very much. Ilena (chat) 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note about Ilena's reference above to being "quoted" in "The Scientist". It appears to be a letter to the editor that was printed, or something like that. I guess that means I've been "quoted" by the British Medical Journal more than once. I had no idea getting one's letter to the editor or other online comment visible in cyberspace was such an honor. Self-promotion at Wikipedia.....hmmm. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While going through the Healthfraud archives last evening, I found yet another prime example of Fyslee soliciting their Healthfraud List, to come to Wikipedia to support their POV wikipedia: quackery. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such examples would not support the point you are trying to make even if they were valid. Your belief that Fyslee is "selling anti-quackery" on Wikipedia remains a conflict-of-interest claim without any evidence.

As to the examples themselves: This was in May 2005, long before Fyslee started editing Wikipedia. Hardly a call to "help him collaborate". This had nothing to do with Fyslee. Here I present evidence against what you are portraying as "call to arms" on Chirotalk re Life University Wikipedia entry. That leaves us with "but one example" - healthfraud Wikipedia - and that was when Fyslee was still a newbie editor here, slightly over a year ago. AvB ÷ talk 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote on that last link mentioned above was part of a thread I did not even start!

I suggest that everyone actually read what I wrote there. There is nothing objectionable at all. On the contrary.

This is an example of Ilena's desperate attempts to poison the well by listing every place my name and Wikipedia happen to be together outside of Wikipedia, which, BTW, is NOT the subject of this RFARB! The subject is our behavior right here, after the arrival of Ilena.

Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are usually considered a problem in RFCs and such like, where there is an attempt to stack the votes, and certainly not as an accusation that would forbid any discussion about Wikipedia anywhere else. If everytime a wikipedian writes about Wikipedia off-wiki, and recommends the editing experience here, they end up getting accused of violating policy, then we are all guilty of meatpuppetry and have a COI problem. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV still rules Wikipedia

In response to Fred Bauder (above): Fred is absolutely correct. The proposition is not itself a policy, but a corollary principle, so we're talking about the difference between the means (collaboration) and the ends (NPOV), and ends are always the most important, but are "indebted" to the means for their existence and effectivity. It's a comparison between apples and oranges. Believe me, NPOV is absolutely sacred and supreme among policies, and a further reading of my "collaboration" principle should make that very clear, IF one really understands NPOV. Those who don't understand it may miss the subtle details. I'm sure Fred and most other admins (but not all) understand it.

Now I'm just going to fire off a few thoughts, which I haven't actually voiced before or discussed with anyone. If I miss something or word it incorrectly, don't take this as gospel! It's not written in stone and does not fully represent my full understanding of NPOV, which is still developing, and will hopefully never stop developing:

Everything about my "collaboration" proposition is designed to ensure that NPOV doesn't get sabotaged, crippled, dominated, usurped, or otherwise thwarted, but is designed to make sure it actually ends up working. Without collaboration, nothing at Wikipedia will work as intended, and the first and most vulnerable victim is NPOV. It's beauty, strength, genius, and subtlety do not prevent it from being the weakest of policies when it comes to getting violated. Therefore many other policies exist to protect and enforce it, since it has no strength of self-enforcement. It is a beautiful ideal towards which we strive, and is dependent on help, adoration, and devotion, to ensure it preserves its position on the top pedestal, while also getting down in the trenches, getting sweaty and dirty, and coming out on top with a great product -- Wikipedia -- the greatest encyclopedia around.

It is likely the most violated policy here, at least on controversial subjects, which is where it really comes to its right and is tested. When in doubt about whether a conflict or other problem is endangering Wikipedia's purpose or in danger of violating NPOV, just ask this one single question:

"Does this situation promote a collaborative atmosphere?"

If the answer isn't a resounding "yes", then the problem likely violates one or more policies, and nearly always violates NPOV to some degree. The "collaboration question" is the "gold standard" for quickly understanding the basic problem. All policies and guidelines should in one way or another seek to encourage and enable collaboration. That's what ends up producing this encyclopedia. Even then, we lack policies that will raise it to becoming a reliable source by its own and other standards. On that point it often fails miserably. I hope to see the day when that happens, but it will take a full time paid editorial board, with a paid staff of full time reviewers and topic umpires to do it, and a registered-users-only editing policy, at the very least. (Lots of controversial stuff there! Yes, I do have dreams for this place....;-)

The use of the word "trumps" is not critical and can be changed to avoid confusion. (I'll try a change right now.) It has a history, because it's first use was in response to the word itself being used to justify a noncollaborative (mis)use of the NPOV policy, which would actually be improper. That misuse of NPOV was designed to further the goals of an m:MPOV editor, who is now banned because of it. The history can be found in the longer version, which is worth reading. Ironically, that banned editor makes a comment on that page, but now under a new user name. (Is that allowed?) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral Point of View

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, official policy, requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject be included in an article on that subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This appears to duplicate 4.1.4 Neutral Point of View above. --Ronz 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

4) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, official policy, requires that biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Controversial material must be verified by reference to reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. The problem is defining reliable sources. It seems that if something is reliable, there should be more than one source of the information.

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The question of defining reliability is a separate matter (although significant in its own right). Durova^Charge! 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside conflicts

5) The participants in disputes which are the subject of Wikipedia articles may be banned, or otherwise restricted, from editing those articles if their editing is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Hmmm. I thought that disruptive editing, of any sort, could result in a ban. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What is the defintion of disruptive and does it take two to be disruptive? -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. For reference, see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The banning remedy discussed there refers to community banning. ArbCom remedies are a different matter - it's well established that the committee can apply a variety of solutions. A single user may be disruptive (no threshold requirement for number of people). Durova^Charge! 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack sites versus sceptical sites

6) An attack page or site may be defined as a page or site which attacks another individual personally. Generic foosucks.com sites are generally considered attack sites. Sites which offer evidenced critique of a person's views, without the use of inflammatory language, or which oppose a viewpoint which is primarily identified with a single individual, are not usually attack sites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly disagree with Dēmatt; rejecting inclusion of sites that attack an idea would eliminate the entire 9/11 conspiracy article set. Hmmm. Maybe I don't disagree.... No, it's probably better to restrict the definition of an "attack site" to those which attack an individual, not even those that attack an individual's actions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many claims have been made about the horrific "attacks" made against Wiki editors. My link would be removed, and their attack allegation only would remain (so that others could not make their own decisions). After being blocked (unfairly, to my experience yet again) I created this page in December. Both Arthur Rubin and Paul Lee have claimed they have been libeled by me via this page. When I asked for examples, Lee had none, and backed off. Ronz has been going through Wiki removing any links to my sites, claiming I was "attacking editors." I disagree with others that pointing out the long and close relationship Barrett and Paul Lee have is "attack" ... I call it facts they don't want to admit to, so that their own WP:COI will not be examined. I will reiterate, since Barrett sued me in 2000, he and others from this list have been attempting to denigrate and elimininate me from the internet, as well as other defendants in their various SLAPP suits. This list is accurately been labeled a satire ... using comedy to criticize and attack concurrently those Barrett and team are suing.[15]

Ilena on Wiki current

Ilena on Wiki in December from cache. After being blocked I made this page to be able to have a place to voice my Wiki comments. SLAPP suits such as Barrett etc. are one way of silencing critics, removing their links are another. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow: If you're defending yourself against the charge of creating and linking to attack sites, it might be best not to link to two attack sites you've created as part of your ArbCom presentation. It not only compounds the problem, but also makes it clear that 8+ months down the line, you still don't understand why these kinds of things are inappropriate here. MastCell 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, to define attack site. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably also include that attack sites may also attack and idea, philosophy, or competing industry (not just an individual). -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what this drives at. The current wording might not be very easy to apply in future situations, though. Suggest another draft. Durova^Charge! 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using online and self-published sources

1) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner., "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Certainly. This just makes sense for an encyclopedia. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Obvious, uncontroversial, and heavily supported by past precedents. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources

1) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan.2C_corporate.2C_institutional_and_religious_sources, a guideline, cautions against use of partisan sources:

The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties, companies, organizations and religious groups should be treated with caution, since they may be used to advance particular political, corporate, institutional or religious viewpoints. Of course such political, corporate, institutional or religious affiliation is not in itself a reason to exclude a source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Even better. Agree totally. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per the previous proposal. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremist sources

1) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources, a guideline, cautions against use of extremist sources:

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Especially when extremist definition tends to suggest such a minority POV that does not even have to be mentioned. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Doesn't need to expand to cover the tiny minority clause at WP:NPOV, although a separate finding based upon the latter might be worthwhile. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns:

avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

and must always:

avoid breaching relevant policies on Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,

avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Bite: Can you explain why it’s a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing Wikipedia on behalf of a client? How does the Wikipedia community react to such activity?

Wales: It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda.[16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, I think this is really the heart of the current issue. MastCell 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee for discussion of reliable sources (Quackwatch, etc). --Ronz 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a partisan website with few collaborating ends, I do not believe Quackwatch is a reliable or verifiable source. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As far as link spam goes, I think it would be to point out just how pervasive links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises are within Wikipedia. I performed a series of specialized link searches and this is what I found...

QuackWatch.org: 486 external links
QuackWatch.com: 5 external links
NCAHF.org: 108 external links
ChiroBase.org: 96 external links
CaseWatch.org: 27 external links
HomeoWatch.org: 17 external links
CredentialWatch.org: 19 external links
NutriWatch.org: 4 external links
MLMWatch.org: 20 external links
DentalWatch.org: 6 external links

In total, we are dealing with approximately 800 external links all feeding into Barrett's sites... sites that have been deemed to be unreliable sources. What I fear is that Wikipedia is being abused as a link farm for Barrett Enterprises. I would like to see this practice curbed or put in check. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crux of the problem on this artilce that results in edit warring. Difficulty is that when dealing with alt med articles in which several editors are either advocates or competitors, such as the case here. All, (including myself), have personal agendas, so who gets to actually edit? Suppose this is why the advice is to avoid editing rather than do not edit etc.. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) Proposed descision here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) Proposed descision here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ilena

1) Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Ilena Rosenthal, a women's health activist, see User:Ilena and Ilena Rosenthal on Wikipedia. She was the appellant in Barrett v. Rosenthal, defendant at the trial court level.

1a) Ilena is also an activist promoting the theory that women's health is damaged by silicone breast implants. This theory is, at present, a minority dissenting view and is not widely accepted by the scientific community. Ilena's websites are a resource promoting this theory. These sites make no pretence of being a neutral resource, being openly adversarial in their approach.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fyslee&diff=prev&oldid=96420688

Comment by others:

Proposed 1a in respect of Ilena's websites.

I must admit even the thought of a leaking implant makes me sick. Fred Bauder 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure don't think I would suggest any after seeing that. Apparently the site is effective for its intended purpose. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle by Ilena

1.1) Ilena has engaged in combative behavior which, besides being rude, betrays misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies [17].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 20:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

From the day I began editing, adding factual information to various articles, I was reverted by Stephen Barrett, who then posted vanity links to his pages. Every time I would make an edit, Fyslee would put a warning and threat on my user page, while Barrett edited articles about himself. Fyslee immediately proved that WP:AGF was not even an option as you can see from my talk page and his prominent immediate warnings and threats. [[18]]. I feel that then, as now, Barrett's webring master and then list assistant was attempting to rid Wiki of my POV, while protecting and promoting Barrett. When Barrett stopped editing under his own UserID, Fyslee IMMEDIATELY took over, and kept every linkspam Barrett had added, added more, and removed every trace of my input possible. I believe Barrett's commercial "anti-quackery" operation is continued here, with Paul Lee protecting Barrett and attacking his critics.

Comment by others:

Certainly betrays misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies. Rudeness may be a subjective assessment for more of a defensive posture mechanism. Confident in her beliefs, yes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse. I did my best to explain site policies and standards to her and repeatedly suggested she augment her circle of mentorship through formal means such as WP:ADOPT. Unfortunately, as even her reply to this proposal reveals, she has not adapted or shown measurable progress toward adapting. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barrett

2) Stephen Barrett is a retired physician and health activist. He is one of the founders of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and webmaster of twenty-two websites that describe what he considers to be "quackery and health fraud," most notably Quackwatch. While this dispute revolves about him and his involvements, his editing is believed to be limited to comments on talk pages, Sbinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Some modifying remarks: Barrett is a founder, not the founder, of the NCAHF. Just a small difference. The dispute certainly involves the subject of Barrett, but the subject of this RfArb is about user behavior, not about content issues or Barrett himself. That would sidetrack the real issues here. The original and proper title of this RfArb was "Fyslee, Ilena, et al.". Regardless of the title change, the issues are the same, since the article has been stable for a long time, and was stable when this RfArb was started. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To I'clast, below). If there is such a person, he is not a party to this ArbCom. (In other words, it's not Fyslee.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Barrett's likely to have used a few sockpuppets himself. I thought about placing the evidence thereof in the evidence section but as he's not a party to the case, I decided against it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Suggest removing the "limited to talk page" sentence. I've seen evidence here that a few anonymous IP's, at least, have been used by Barrett in addition to Sbinfo (talk · contribs), including in article namespace. MastCell 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I too have seen such edits in the article namespace by Sbinfo and suspected IP addresses of Stephen Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It is noteworthy that an apparent Quackwatch author, consultant/advisor and subject / prinicpal's direct relative has been participating in the Quackwatch related articles for several months, introducing an apparent COI distortion in the discussions, interactions and edits without acknowledgement.--I'clast 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Though not too far fetched to think that associates, family, and friends are participating in other articles on his agenda. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... whom are we talking about? Can you be specific? MastCell 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see where this is coming from. Read I'clast's post into evidence. Let's get to the bottom of this! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this work? Fyslee has claimed I "attacked" him because I used his own name on Wiki ... something he had done and linked to multiple times. So, let's say, I believe I know who you are, for example, and believe that you are a close associate to Barrett, member of his Healthfraud List, one who distributed the same attack site that Fyslee did against me, listed here with Barrett & Polevoy & Fyslee & others [19], a blogger that promotes Barrett and he promotes you, and I name you accurately. Even if I am dead right-on ...this could be used against me it appears. So, how does one answer your question without breaking Wiki rules? Thank you anyone who can answer. Ilena (chat) 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To "get to the bottom of it", you're going to have to state clearly what you're implying, because it's not clear, at least to me. Are you saying User:GigiButterfly is potentially a sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Because it's clearly a single-purpose account with a suspicious editing history. If you suspect it's a sockpuppet of Barrett, Fyslee, or anyone else, the edits are probably recent enough to submit a request for checkuser, although it seems the account's been inactive for a bit. But please spell out what you mean, instead of making implications. This should be easy enough without using real names, although if you must, perhaps an email to the Arbitrators or something would be appropriate. MastCell 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I think I understand. May be worth looking into, but not clear that it relates directly to the scope of proceedings here. I'clast, it's better if you come out and say these things instead of cloaking them in insinuations. Otherwise I get confused. MastCell 00:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee

3) Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Paul Lee, a health activist who participates in a number of internet sites critical of alternative medicine, see "user=fyslee" and (contains list of sites)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Notes Fred Bauder 01:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Level of participation is debatable as to COI. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I felt it appropriate to defer the question of whether his involvement amounted to COI to the community or the committee when I investigated. Durova^Charge! 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and personal attacks by Fyslee

3.1) Fyslee has engaged in incivility and personal attacks, "This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena has driven to suicide. I've never had her so in-my-face before since I have always avoided her. Most people I deal with everyday are pretty reasonable, but when such hatred gets forced on me it hits pretty hard" [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Hmmm. The example is only slightly over the line; if the contribution were "This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena's web site has driven to suicide," it would seem almost reasonable. I do think he's gone over the line from time to time, but I don't think that's a good example. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fyslee's behavior may also be a form of defensive posture. If he was aware of who Ilena was and was aware of the lawsuits, he might well have felt threatened by her as well. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an excuse. Wikipedia has an expected Code of Conduct and those that consistently do not follow it will be sanctioned. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee

3.2) Fyslee has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references [21].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I of course (as is expected here) use Quackwatch and other V & RS that contain POV (are there any that don't?), that particular edit was a restoration of one of Ilena's improper reverts, and the source was already included in the article by someone else. It took several editors and three admins to get it to stick during her edit war at the time. I was only restoring her deletion, and she got blocked by SlimVirgin for nRR (maybe 6-7 reverts).[22]

She has even clearly misrepresented that very edit here on this Workshop page, using this erroneous edit summary: "Example of Fyslee removing a good link of mine to post a Quackwatch page that severely criticizes the subject of the article ..."

I only restored the Quackwatch source without touching her edit, except to improve the Hulda Clark wikilink she had messed up.

Unfortunately this charge is an adoption of a clear misrepresentation made by Ilena.

Statement about Quackwatch as a reliable source

Quackwatch is not a radical or improper "partisan" site, anymore than any other site that represents a mainstream POV. Such sites are not excluded from use here, but each use must be evaluated properly on its own merits. The myriad articles and thousands of pages at Quackwatch are quite varied as to authors, purposes, and quality. Some few are not suited for use here in any manner. Some are useful only as external links. Some are useful as representations of mainstream or skeptical POV. Yet others are fully suitable as absolutely top notch sources for inclusion as references, on a par with any good scientific research or government report. IOW, each use must be evaluated independently of other uses. Those POV suppressionists who regularly delete Quackwatch links and sources, simply because they are related to Quackwatch, quackbusters, Barrett, or scientific skepticism, are guilty of gross violations of NPOV and AGF.

It is not a one man site, or a site that doesn't document its sources. It has a 150+ group of advisors. It is generally considered quite reliable by mainstream scientists and medical professionals, many consumer protection organizations, including Consumer Reports, the FDA and FTC, university professors, authors, scientific writers, insurance companies, ad libitum. It has won numerous awards and prizes and is regularly cited in scientific literature, the media, and consumer protection articles.

It is quite vital to note that it is only questioned and attacked by alternative medicine sources, fringe and pseudoscientists, quacks, scammers, frauds, and criminals who find their practices exposed as improper or illegal. Such criticisms are lacking from mainstream sources.

Just that fact alone should give it a specially protected status here at Wikipedia, along with some other high profile sites that are often reliable sources, but that are targets for POV suppressionists and deletionists. Such deletions should be given special attention from admins, who would then consider any deletion as a red flag for possibly gross NPOV violations by POV suppressionits from non-mainstream sources who have an illegitimate and often unethical and/or illegal agenda to forward here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be protected from the undue and often illegitimate influence of such editors, and they should not be allowed to slant articles towards their POV by deleting or watering down opposing and mainstream POV from reliable sources, in violation of NPOV requirements. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch ref acceptable for Clayton article

The consensus for the Clayton article appears to be that the Quackwatch source is acceptable, provided that the conflict with Clark is noted [23]. --Ronz 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little leery of labeling Quackwatch a "partisan source" with the implication that it should be completely avoided. It's a quite useful compendium of mainstream/skeptical opinion on alternative and fringe medical and scientific topics. On the other hand, it's not peer-reviewed or subject to independent editing. My feeling is that when used, its assertions should be clearly labeled as coming from Quackwatch, a "self-appointed alt-med watchdog group" etc., but that it should not be entirely disallowed as a source on partisan grounds. MastCell 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unaware of links to Quackwatch or related sites being considered unreliable sources anywhere within Wikipedia, much less ruled unreliable for all of Wikipedia. --Ronz 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quackwatch and its affiliate sites are much too partisan to be considered reliable sites. One of the main concerns when dealing with site reliability is if it presents opinions as facts and thus misleads the reader. Aside from various Wikipedia admins lodging this assertion that Quackwatch isn't reliable, a peer-reviewed analyis of Quackwatch showed "that it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity" because it is "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo". It is important to recognize that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed (a quality which often lends itself to making a source more reliable). Much of what is written on Quackwatch is done so by Barrett, a retired psychiatrist who failed his board certification exams and admits that his version of "peer-review" is allowing his wife to proof-read his articles. Note that a California Superior Court judge had this to say about Barrett: Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. and Dr. **** and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and **** are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies if this is getting off topic). All these accusations have been made and rejected elsewhere in Wikipedia multiple times. Why are you bringing them up here as if no other discussions have taken place? Your use of an unreliable source to back your claims is more than a little ironic (a book review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration written by a alt med advocate). --Ronz 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch articles have been repeatedly shown to fail verification steps such as current source checking which *is not OR* but rather WP/JW encouraged source based research. This point is also the most basic basis for the utility of Kauffman's web site review, especially when combined with his book and current mainstream medical science sites (e.g. Lipids online, BCM).--I'clast 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman's "review" has been discussed at length and found to be wanting per RS. It's use here to claim that QW is itself RS is largely an amusing anecdote on what is the Talk page for "RfArb/BvR", as Ronz pointed out above. Shot info 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman's review doesn't even have to be RS to drive a stake through a number of the QW articles, I have cited it as a guide to WP:V, that when combined with most current sources, including current medical school research, will demonstrate that a number of QW articles repeatedly fail fact checking & WP:V based on source text research and that Kauffman's phrase "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." will be vindicated within the bounds of WP. It may be slow and tedious in some cases, but rest assured, it is quite doable. But first, we need to resolve your WP:COI problems, I have given you many hints and opportunities to cleanup or withdraw gracefully over this past month in the Barrett related articles. I've seen enough unrecognized astroturfers and trolls come to my attention over the last month that WP:COI needs to come out to reveal some innermost truths in a number of blatant COI cases.--I'clast 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Way off topic, obviously) A proper discussion concerning these reliability issues would include a basic understanding of medical consensus which considers not only current research, but also current consensus on all research to date, current guidelines and best practices derived from the consensus, current medical practices, the ability to change current practice into best practice, and the ethics of doing so in a given time period. But of course this is all an ex-horse. --Ronz 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless we're expecting ArbCom to rule on the reliability of Quackwatch as a source, which I doubt, let's stop right there and ~~beat this dead horse~~ try to achieve consensus on Talk:Quackwatch. Speaking of presenting opinions as facts, you're citing a "Website review" by a contrarian writing in a fringe-science journal as "a peer-reviewed analysis". Even at the New England Journal of Medicine, website reviews are not considered scientifically peer-reviewed content. Damn it, now I'm the one beating the dead horse. MastCell 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I am not presenting my own opinions as facts. Barrett is. What is worse, he is asking people to make health decisions based on his non-expert opinions. That is morally reprehensible. The reason why I put this here is because the heading above reads: Statement about Quackwatch as a reliable source. Quackwatch isn't a reliable source nor does it represent true scientific skepticism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree • I can't believe people are arguing with Fred here. It's common sense that linking to a site that is unreliable will damage the integrity of the encyclopedia. I certainly don't buy Durova's "slippery slope" argument below, common sense always prevails, and the First Pillar and What Wikipedia is not explicitly state we are not a soapbox for advocacy.. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

*Oppose There's a fundamental problem here beyond whether Quackwatch.com meets WP:V and WP:RS: this proposal introduces partisan as a basis for disallowing a source at Wikipedia. As an article content RFC veteran I can affirm that one recurring theme in edit disputes is that some party tries to disallow The New York Times or some other authoritative source because of its editorial bias. That paper leans a bit left of center, Wall Street Journal editorials are considerably right of center, and nearly anything from the Mayo Clinic website would be pro-allopathic medicine. We shouldn't empower the edit warriors to exploit an ArbCom precedent as a wedge issue. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that no "edit warriors" are forcing a wedge issue. This issue was brought here and proposed by ArbCom. I think you are misinterpretting the issue at hand. They aren't here to decide whether or not Quackwatch is RS, but only to show Fyslee's persistent use of unreliable sources such as Quackwatch. For the record, it does sound like you agree that Quackwatch is a partisan source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plea: Interpretation of specific instances of WP:RS should take place by consensus on the relevant article talk pages. Durova was, I think, making a much more general statement about precedent. This is now beating the bloody smear where the dead horse used to be. MastCell 04:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell is correct: my post was not a veiled insinuation against any editor related to this case (AGF, please). Arbitration committee precedents get cited in other discussions related to dispute resolution. Sources that otherwise satisfy WP:RS get challenged at various disputes on the basis of perceived POV. So far that has not been accepted as a legitimate basis for challenge: the appropriate response is to supply additional citations to reliable sources that supply other POVs. A ruling from the committee legitimizing that argument would have serious consequences for other areas of the project - and in my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives. I assert this as someone who's answered probably hundreds of requests for comment. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee uses QW as a source because he agrees with the contents. He realizes that he is presenting one POV and expects others to counter with other sources. The problem is that QW is quite derogatory in its approach to alt med issues (which is apparently all it covers) and once a cite is made, the tone of the article changes in such a negative fashion that to reach a NPOV can be very difficult, especially when several "mainstream" editors pile on. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning would lead to a conclusion that POV or sarcastic tone from an otherwise reliable source renders the source unreliable. You're on the slippery slope when you go there. I don't think that's a sustainable precedent for future disputes on other topics. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest: Ilena

4) Ilena has edited against conflict of interest guidelines, including adding links to her own site(s) and editing articles about herself and her endeavours. New editors are not expected to know about the Byzantine rule structure of Wikipedia, but are expected to understand and take note when rules are pointed out. Ilena was slow to accept consensus in respect of conflict of interest and civility. Independent parties were involved in the process of bringing these policies to her attention. Some of Ilena's edits are problematic, removing well-sourced material from articles on controversial subjects, e.g. [24], or introducing questionable material advancing an agenda [25]. Most of Ilena's contributions are directly related to Barrett v Rosenthal and participants.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong endorsement, and I think one of the major issues here. If WP:COI doesn't apply to someone fresh off a landmark court case coming here to work on articles related to her legal adversary, what does it apply to? MastCell 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorsement WP:COI gives editors a great deal of flexibility on how to handle conflicts of interest, but all require taking responsibility for knowing and adhering to wiki guidelines. --Ronz 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 16:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to editing against COI which suggests avoiding. The rest appears to have improved within BLP allowances. She has shown willingness to collaborate in the Clayton article (even without Peter) when others listened to her concerns. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest: Fyslee

5) Fyslee is skirting the margins of conflict of interest through his edits to the articles on Barrett and his endeavours. Since his involvement was on a voluntary basis, and in respect of only the Healthfraud list, the conflict is not a strong one. For the most part, these edits appear to be reasonable, and edits to NCAHF-related articles are balanced by a wider participation in other areas. It is possible that Fyslee's bias is less apparent in these edits for being in support of the scientific mainstream - while the scientific point of view (SPOV) and neutral point of view (NPOV) are not synonymous, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience they may be treated as approximately synonymous when dealing with scientific issues, albeit not to the exclusion of covering significant minority views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unacceptable, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is official policy. Fred Bauder 14:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Guy is quite correct about POV. The NPOV policy is definitely not identical to the scientific or skeptical POV. I am very conscious of my well-informed and chosen biases (not the same as uninformed prejudice), and do not consider my POV to be the same as NPOV, IOW I seek to avoid the MPOV, and seek to collaborate with other editors who hold opposing POV. I do not see it as my duty to prevent their POV from being represented in articles, as long as it is done in harmony with Wikipedia policies. On the contrary. -- Fyslee's (First law) 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but my experience with all parties forces me to disagree strongly with most of what was written above. I believe Fyslee's WP:COI is a very, very strong one, despite his claims to be appear otherwise. I believe the evidence is extremely clear that Fyslee has functioned as Barrett's publicist on many, many internet medium for years, Wikipedia being yet another since December, 2005. It honestly feels to me that when he came here, he set up "shop" to expand their mutual "anti-quackery" Public_relations vehicle. Remember, Barrett calls himself, "the media.

I will use one recent edit that is illustrative of hundreds as an example of why I disagree that Fyslee's edits are in any way "reasonable."

Regarding the Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health article: I have been told I have COI problems with this page. I have no relation with the article, except that I know many people who have either gone there and loved their education, or who have been treated by graduates. Dr. Clark who is discussed here, was a co-defendant of mine but someone I never have met. She and Fyslee and Barrett have also been in litigation (on opposite sides), yet Fyslee is welcome to edit with not even a nod. This article looked totally like it had come from a page on Quackwatch when I went to edit there. The graduates listed were both under severe criticism and /or lawsuits by Barrett and Quackwatch. I thought some balance would be created by adding a graduate that they were not suing. So I added a link to another graduate -- a notable and respected author [26] You can see that within 5 minutes Fyslee immediately removed it and replaced it with a Quackwatch link which was a blatant shot at the school quoting Barrett advising "avoiding both the school and its alumni." This is, in my opinion, not reasonable, nor is unique to his editing.

Thank you very much for considering my evidence. Ilena (chat) 17:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, this page is not for making more accusations. Put simply, I believe the above comment is a distortion of the actual facts in general, and of the actual editing situation at the time, which also involved other editors. It is also based on a failure to AGF (a policy violation), and thus fails to take into account the policy considerations that motivated my editing at the time. I suggest that this attack be removed. This RfArb is not about content issues. -- Fyslee's (First law) 17:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been "in litigation" with Hulda Clark. She withdrew the "scurrilous" (the judge's word) charges she made against over 30 entities before it ever went to court, and is now awaiting trial for the most classic example of a SLAPP suit I have ever seen. Barrett filed the malicious prosecution suit against her, and the case can be read here. -- Fyslee's (First law) 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee has indeed been in litigation with Dr. Clark, and putting it in "quotation marks" does not change the definition nor skirt the [WP:COI] of his editing articles about her. As a co-defendant with Barrett, this also raises even more [WP:COI] issues. To me, this is classic doublespeak ... denying being in litigation in one breath, and in the next, linking to Quackwatch site that confirms the litigation from Barrett's POV. Ilena (chat) 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly as a matter of fact, the allegation that Fyslee removed and replaced the link with a Quackwatch link is provably false. Fyslee added a commentary, but left Ilena's edit intact. The link is still there, albeit now in a ref tag. In keeping with normal practice (per WP:MOS), the doctoral title has been removed. I do not know why we have a "notable alumnus" with no article, though, that runs counter to normal practice. On the plus side, that profile does include one of the most priceless gems in the entire dispute: many of [Bowden's] fans describe themselves as serious losers. Quite. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Indeed, Fyslee did only move the link (that was allowed to remain after numerous edits) to where he preferred it to be, and then added a link to Quackwatch, publicizing Barrett's POV [27] I sit corrected! Thank you. Ilena (chat) 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why we have a "notable alumnus" with no article, though, that runs counter to normal practice.

'Thanks for the reminder! It's all coming back to me now. Earlier that day, (when I first attempted to bring balance to the article and put in the link to the College's site regarding graduate Bowden [28]) it was within a couple of minutes removed by JoshuaW, him claiming that Bowden was not "notable." Then I added in a link illlustrating his notability [29]. When Fyslee returned to the article, he immediately removed it, claiming it was a "commercial site" and that it was forbidden. I am still in confusion why this site is considered "commercial" and thus forbidden [[30]] (which I had added to illustrate notability) -- while hundreds of links to Quackwatch and NCAHF, commercial sites selling "anti-quackery" books etc.,etc, etc. and soliciting donations, fill Wikipedia. I am further stymied as to why Fyslee could publicize this quote from Stephen Barrett (no naturopathic education, promoter of a different philosophy of health, years in litigation with one of their graduates mentioned too in the article), recommending "avoiding both the school and its alumni" [31] in this encyclopedia. Thank you very much. Ilena (chat) 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Healthfraud list... I joined the list in 1999 when Rebecca Long owned the list. Later she stepped back and Barrett became moderator. The list was not hosted by the NCAHF, so the association is rather informal and mostly by shared POV. Barrett just started moderating an existing list started by Rebecca Long. It may as well now be considered a part of its service to people who are interested in those POV, since the list is now announced on the Quackwatch and NCAHF websites. It's for people who are interested in combatting healthfraud and quackery. There are over 500 members. I have never met any of the people on the list, nor am I, or ever have been, a member of the NCAHF or any skeptical organization. I simply subscribe to the list, just as Ilena has done (or does?), and just like people who subscribe to Yahoo! Groups do, or the way editors here put an article on their watchlist. That's about it. If I am disqualified because of participation (not much anymore) in a discussion list, then Ilena should also be disqualified, and many others here as well, who are also on skeptical discussion lists or other lists with certain interests. Is it a violation of wiki policies to have a POV? On the contrary. It is just a requirement that editors edit neutrally. POV suppression is forbidden here by both NPOV and COI. Ilena has violated that by her continual attempts to delete skeptical POV, even when documented from V & RS, even governmental ones. I believe in allowing opposing POV. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This unacceptable. The Neutral Point of View policy is mandated by the Foundation and cannot be overturned. Period. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, a bit clumsy but I think you know what I mean. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-->I am moving this to the talk page where I have given many examples of Fyslee being Barrett's publicist.

As noted before, there has been no evidence presented that Fyslee has been Barrett's publicist, and that deleted section was improperly inserted in Fyslee's evidence section. It was quite properly removed; if I had done it, I would have moved it to the Evidence talk page, rather than just deleting it. However, this insertion mangles the edit levels of this document; could a clerk refactor? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like Guy's summary. There may be no clear cut and simple way to express the thought. I think he gets it about right. One thing maybe someone can formulate is a standard I've articulated at other arbitrations such as the Midnight Syndicate case: the general standard for when to disclose a potential COI is whether it would look bad to an outside observer if the involvement came to light without the editor's disclosure. Fyslee was forthcoming with the full details as soon as he was asked. Ideally editors should volunteer this type of information without waiting to be asked. Durova^Charge! 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee has a COI. As do I, and Ilena, and some others. Whether any of us should be editing any of these pages is the question for WP to answer. -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just because you're a chiropractor (I think?) and I'm an allopath, that WP:COI prohibits us from editing a particular article - or else who would work on those particular articles? There's a world of difference between that, and coming straight from the California Supreme Court to Wikipedia to edit articles on your legal adversary. I agree with the lead phrasing here - I think Fyslee is on the margins of a COI - certainly more of a conflict than other editors, but less so than Ilena. MastCell 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, mere status as a chiropractor or an allopath does not automatically mean conflict of interest on chiropractic or allopathic medicine articles. Wikipedia actually encourages participation by professionals in their area of expertise. It would be a different matter if, for instance, a chiropractor or a medical doctor who had written a book for the general public about back pain then edited an article about back pain. Ilena's conflict of interest is clear and unmistakable. Fyslee is more on the margins of that policy. Their respective status regarding COI is not identical and the language of the committee's finding should acknowledge shades of distinction. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee is no more on the margins of that policy than Ilena. Even by your rationale about a back pain author editing the article about back pain. Fyslee operates his own site which lambasts alternative medicine. He is affiliated with groups which advertise inflammatory information about alternative medicine. He is/was assistant listmaster for an anti-alternative medicine mailing operated by Barrett. He has a link to his website which lambasts alternative medicine right on the home page of Barrett's Quackwatch under the heading "Recommended Sites". There is a link to Fyslee operated web rings for anti alternative medicine websites found on the home page of nearly every Barrett sites. Fyslee has spammed links to Barrett's websites all over Wikipedia. Fyslee has been named in litigation as a co-defendant with Barrett. Fyslee has been able to summon Barrett to edit on Wikipedia. Fyslee has cleaned up Barrett's comments on Wikipedia without apparent permission to do so. Fyslee is part of a website whose sole purpose to mock and enflame Ilena. How much more of a possible COI can there be? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed editing between Fyslee and Ilena

1) Disputed edits which involve Fyslee and Ilena:

Hulda Regehr Clark December 24, 2006, Edits by Ilena: [32], [33], and [34]. Revert by Fyslee, restore by Ilena, "Restored to prevandalized Kinu version. Facts are facts. The changes also screwed up the references. Rmv. commercial link - fobidden here.. Concession by Fyslee, Restore by Ilena, final revert by Ronz.
Hulda Regehr Clark February 14, 2007, opposing editor MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits by Ilena: "Unless we add that Barrett, her nemesis is also unlicensed, this is just attack." "removed attack links that involve ongoing litigation (Wiki is not to be used to further legal attacks)" "That's redundant and attacking. There's a whole article we're working on for Clayton, this isn't appropriate nor necessary here ... thank you" "To clarify ... the sites removed are attack sites of Dr. Clark, that sell their "anti-quackery" books and solicits donation and are used to defame her while they are suing her in courts". final revert by JoshuaZ
Clayton College of Natural Health Edits by Ilena: [35] "make your point ... this is not another weapon to use against this school please" (edit fix) another fix At this point she was unaccountably blocked by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "3RR on Clayton College of Natural Health" Checkuser shows no evidence of use of sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Investigation Fred Bauder 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't recall perfectly, but there was no suspicion of sockpuppets involved for her. It was purely a 3RR thing. If it was counted wrong, then that might have been a problem. (I have been blocked (only once) because of differing interpretations of the meaning of "revert." Apparently that is not a well-defined term here, and no admin was willing to give a concrete and unambiguous definition at the time, so I'm still in the dark.) -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a 3RR warning to Ilena and counted six reverts by her before she was blocked. When I saw that JoshuaZ had already started a 3RR report, I contributed to it [36]. --Ronz 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is within 24h. Anything slower might be disruptive editing but aren't breaches of 3RR. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make a list of the edits I feel were reversions? As I pointed out in the report, I started counting with her 15:12, 14 February 2007 edit. I gave her a warning after she made two more edits the last at 17:24, 14 Feb. She made seven more edits before being blocked at 02:37, 15 Feb, three of which reverted at least some of the same information as the edit where I started counting (15:12, 14 Feb). That's 11 edits. She made two more edits in the same 24 hour period, but before I started counting. --Ronz 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is overly legalistic. Disruptive editing is disruptive editing, and there's no doubt that Ilena's editing was disruptive here. Revert warring is unambiguously wrong, 3RR is a limit not an entitlement - feh, we all know this stuff. Was it posted to ANI for review? Guy (Help!) 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of disruptive editing was brought up on her talk page. The discussions got no where, and Ilena ignored all suggestions that anything might be inappropriate with her behavior. I think everyone has put it aside until this ArbComm is resolved [37]. --Ronz 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is above. It doesn't support 3RR. Nor does checkuser. If Slim'd blocked over disruptive editing, I probably would've given her a barnstar at this point, but the block she did give was incorrect and improper. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reverts at all at Clayton College. I don't see any basis to block her for 3RR on that article. I don't think this is part of the case, but being blocked for 3RR when she didn't revert at all must have been confusing. Fred Bauder 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz (talk · contribs) added sourced info on the unaccredited nature of Clayton (and the source was not Quackwatch). Ilena reverted, specifically removing the sourced info on states that list Clayton as "unaccredited" here, here, here, here, here - totalling 5 reverts, with removal of sourced and relevant information, within about 6 hours. After which she was blocked by SlimVirgin. Am I missing something? MastCell 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see, [38] I was providing information as to what Clayton College was ... not what it wasn't. It was not claiming to be an accredited dental college, nor accredited psychiatric college, nor offering accreditation in flower arranging. It clearly stated what it was and that is what I included. It continues to feel to me that this article is all about bashing Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health and telling what it is not ... not what it is. It felt so unbalanced, and when Fyslee pulled my reference to one graduate that provided balance to the two they were spotlighting (Dr. Clark, who had been in litigation with Fyslee and Barrett) and replaced it with yet another shot at the College, a quote from Stephen Barrett from Quackwatch in less than 5 minutes, my frustration levels rose [39] . I would also like people to realize that every time Fyslee links to Quackwatch or any of the many related websites operated by Barrett's team, that link is just one link away to Fyslee's Webrings and Webpages and Blogs. I felt again that I was being bullied and that Fyslee and friends were again attempting to remove any trace of my input into Wikipedia. This is a very beloved Naturopathic College ... it does not claim to be a Medical School with the same accreditations and governing boards. My edits were but attempts to represent it for what it was, which is what I thought this encyclopedia is about. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unaccredited. One of its most famous alumni, Gillian McKeith, has just had to agree to stop using the title "Dr." when advertising her products, following a challenge because her doctorate is not an accredited one. There is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of its unaccredited status. We created a carefully worded boilerplate, {{unaccredited}}, for use in the lead of articles on unaccredited schools. It is not only critics who say it is unaccredited, and it is not only critics who say that the use of unaccredited degrees may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, or that credits from unaccredited institutions may not be transferrable to accredited institutions. School accreditation has a lot more relevant information, and we have a long-standing problem with the whitewashing of unaccredited schools. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to open a can of worms on accreditation - my point is that, regardless of the particulars, reverting 5 times in 6 hours, especially to remove sourced material, is a problem. Also, given the justification provided above by Ilena, note that a) the source in question was not Quackwatch/Barrett, but rather state government websites, and b) none of the edits Ilena reverted were by Fyslee. MastCell 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Fyslee - isn't there some surrounding question of Ilena editing through Costa Rican IP addresses? You didn't post evidence back at last month's WP:AN thread so I'm unclear about whether that happened before she registered an account or whether it happened in ways that could be interpreted as sockpuppetry. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a summary of the various ip's Ilena has used to the Evidence page. --Ronz 00:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these IP edits are easily identifiable as Ilena (she placed her vanity link in each), it is clear that her intention wasn't fool anyone that she was some other editor. I think the sockpuppet charge is trumped up. If anything, she has been very clear with who she is and hasn't tried to hide behind any anonymity or sock puppet account. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she wasn't hiding her identity for the purpose of sockpuppetry. It does look like she may have made at least one 3RR violation with them, and mention of them would certainly have helped support why she was blocked both on July 9th and December 6th. --Ronz 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not have. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The punitive issue is a red herring in this instance. If it can be demonstrated that an editor has used an IP to violate 3RR then the committee deserves to see the evidence. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reaching again and trying to pin something on me like you did with your legal threat accusations: False legal threat accusation

I have never attempted to hide my identity. Any 3RR was done to stop having Barrett's websites linkspammed while mine were removed. Here is but one example: Fyslee adds Quackwatch Site Removes Mine.

I was brand new. I soon learned about what are called vanity links and linkspam, but to this moment, do not understand why links to Barrett's POV is allowed on Wiki, but mine forbidden. I honestly only wanted to correct with verifiable facts on this case, but was met with Barrett himself and Fyslee and Rubin holding the fort to prevent that. I have not found that you realize the aggression and hateful behavior Fyslee immediately attacked me with ... concurrent to this situation of removing my links and adding Barretts. You may believe that this is [WP:CIVIL] and [WP:AGF], but others disagree. Stop using Wikipedia for personal attacks It is a well-known fact that you hate certain people. Take it elsewhere, like Usenet. Wikipedia is not a place to carry on your attacks. -- Fyslee 22:22, 8 July When I arrived there was Barrett posting misinformation on the case and I got attacked for correcting it. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is this disputed editing or is this Ilena removing offensive material according to BLP with piling on occurring? Hulda is still alive. Remember, is QW as a source a good idea when they are actively in a lawsuit? Ilena may have a point. -- Dēmatt (chat)

Looking at the 5 reverts for which Ilena was presumably blocked, listed in my comment above, none of them involved Quackwatch as a source, nor WP:BLP - they involved removing cited content from state accreditation bodies regarding an unaccredited school. MastCell 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was and is overdone. I attempted to edit in verifiable evidence as to what the college is. You all filled the article with what it is not. When I got there, there were 5 vanity links to Barrett' (and other litigants) POV against Dr. Clark, none mentioning that Barrett and Fyslee had been in litigation with her. Let's talk about WP:COI. Ilena (chat) 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs say it all. They have nothing to do with Barrett. The state governments of Oregon, Maine, Michigan, and Texas are not "Barrett's parrots". If, after all of this, you still consider concerns over documented edit warring, removing sourced content, and 3RR to be "overdone", then I don't know what else to say. MastCell 21:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still an attack on Hulda Clark's credibility by what Ilena sees as Barretts parrots. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[40] I was providing information as to what Clayton College was ... not what it wasn't. It was not claiming to be an accredited dental college, nor accredited psychiatric college, nor offering accreditation in flower arranging. It clearly stated what it was and that is what I included. It continues to feel to me that this article is all about bashing Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health and telling what it is not ... not what it is. It felt so unbalanced, and when Fyslee pulled my reference to one graduate that was not being sued, moved it to the bottom, then took yet another shot at the College. That was a quote in the main space by Stephen Barrett from Quackwatch with this unencylopedic and biased POV advising people about: "avoiding both the school and its alumni." . I would also like people to realize that every time Fyslee links to Quackwatch or any of the many related websites operated by Barrett's team, that link is just one link away to Fyslee's Webrings and Webpages and Blogs. I felt again that I was being bullied and that Fyslee and friends were again attempting to remove any trace of my input into Wikipedia. This is a very beloved Naturopathic College ... it does not claim to be a Medical School with the same accreditations and governing boards. My edits were but attempts to represent it for what it was, which is what I thought this encyclopedia is about. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for one's actions

1) Being the target, or perceived target, of disruptive or uncivil attention does not excuse one to behave in an equally or even more disruptive fashion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as an extension of WP:CIVIL#Reducing the impact, WP:DR, and WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks. Seems basic, but there still seems to be an issue with taking responsibility for one's actions. MastCell 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorsement I agree with MastCell's comment above. The more we can do to help editors resolve disputes, the more we can prevent the situations that resulted in the ArbCom from occurring again. While it seems basic that people should take responsibility for their actions, it's often hard for anyone to do when they feel threatened or on the defensive. --Ronz 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Easier said than done. Goes both ways. -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I had in mind that this applies to both parties. MastCell 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing violations of policy

1) During the course of this Arbitration, Ilena (talk · contribs) has continued to edit in a disruptive manner on the topics at issue. Examples include edit-warring/3RR violation at Clayton College of Natural Health, ongoing personal attacks against Ronz ([41]), against Durova ([42], [43]), and against Geni ([44], [45]), using abusive edit summaries to communicate ([46]), and linking to off-wiki attack pages as part of her ArbCom presentation ([47]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A central issue is whether this behavior can be expected to change. As it's continuing, even with the threat of an ArbCom sanction in the balance, it's hard to be optimistic. MastCell 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ilena Banned

~~1) For disruptive editing, continued personal attacks and incivility, Ilena is banned from editing Wikipedia for six months.~~

Comment by Arbitrators:
It's rather premature to discuss remedies when there are no corresponding findings of fact (and, more importantly, no actual evidence presented in the case). Kirill Lokshin 13:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There will be, don't worry. Try to reserve judgment until I've posted all the sections of my statement. I've just been very tried and stressed in personal life lately - organisation isn't coming very easily. My apologies, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed • It is with great sadness that I table this motion, but recent events have made it a necessity. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
My English is pretty rusty after so many years away from the states, but I suppose you mean to "propose this motion", rather than "table this motion" (which would mean to put off an existing motion and not deal with it yet). I wish you would activate your email..... -- Fyslee 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of semantics in response to Fyslee, I don't know where Peter is located geographically, but I believe he's using the British/Canadian meaning of "to table," meaning "to place before the body for consideration," rather than the U.S. meaning of postponing deliberation. See table (verb). Newyorkbrad 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~Ahh! Learned something new there. In that case it should be reworded to remove any ambiguity. -- Fyslee 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
~~~~In Canadian law, the term is to table, as described above by NYB. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
~~~~Yes, I understand that. Therefore there needs to be used a term that can't be misunderstood by anyone. -- Fyslee 13:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
Again, no evidence, so it's hard to judge, but perhaps a little punitive? I think there are better ways to sort this out than an outright ban for six months. Not sure that will really serve any purpose. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight this was premature and I wholeheartedly apologise for "jumping the gun" ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll probably propose the same thing. I'm not sure we have an alternative to an indefinite ban. Fred Bauder 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ilena banned~~
~~1) Ilena is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Endorse. Persistent disruption x 8 months with no evidence of progress in working within Wikipedia's policies, in spite of dedicated mentorship and advocacy from some members of the community. These issues are already contentious, and an editor with a major real-life conflict of interest whose style is relentlessly inflammatory is fuel on the fire. If anything, Ilena's presentation here has made me feel more strongly that a ban is appropriate, as it shows a continued and compounded lack of understanding of how policy works here and contains repetition of the inflammatory rhetoric that landed us here in the first place. MastCell 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not endorse. The ban should be for a year or less, with possibly an extended ban on medical articles (including their talk pages). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment • Arthur's the only one that has given a rationale for their support or opposition. This isn't a vote. Please provide rationales. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see other options along the lines of Arthur's. Since her problems appear to stem from her pov and advocacy, I think an extended ban as Arthur suggests should be on the topics she advocates for and against. Perhaps other articles where she has conflicts of interest, like Sally Kirkland could be treated differently. --Ronz 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Endorse. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll expand on that. Ilena is a textbook example of a WP:COI who creates a drain on project volunteer resources that far outweighs any positives she brings. Persistent violator of multiple fundamental policies who - in my view - has exploited the good faith assumptions of the community to prolong her disruption and baiting. If she actually does reform she can appeal for a reversal of the ban at some future date, but I see no reason to automatically end the ban. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Endorse. Much too harsh. This includes a BLP issue with strong POV editing. We should have listened. -- Dēmatt (chat)

Do not Endorse. At least I don't see any reason why she should receive any more of a punishment here that Fyslee. I don't see any more wrong-doing on her part. I am not defending that what she did okay; I just don't think it is fair that if both parties are guilty of virtually the same things (disruptive behavior, COI, pov-pushing, carrying on real-life disputes here, etc.) then why shouldn't they receive the same punishment? That Fyslee is a more experienced editor with barnstars or whatever is even more damning. Shouldn't he have known better? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The difference is that historically, Fyslee, like you, I'clast, Arthur Rubin, and (hopefully) myself, has generally found a way to express his personal beliefs in a way that conforms to Wikipedia policy. Ilena has not. In fact, as noted elsewhere, she violated 3RR (not for the first time) in an edit war on a Barrett-related subject even while this proceeding was ongoing. We're talking about giving Fyslee a second chance (after whatever sanction is deemed appropriate), whereas Ilena's had plenty of second chances and has thus far been incorrigible in terms of working within Wikipedia's strictures. MastCell 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:I disagree. I think Ilena has performed well on the Clayton article as noted by Dematt. I think whatever punishment this committee endorses, it should be one of equity. Perhaps Ilena only appears more disruptive when you are at odds with her opinions. There is enough evidence here to show that both parties are in violation of sanction-worthy action. I would think that in Fyslee's case, his greater experience should count against his poor behavior. IOW, he should have known better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: POV Although I normally keep my personal POV off Wikipedia, rebuttal requires disclosure here. I am entering an evidence statement for easy reference. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I see your point, and it's certainly possible that I view Ilena's actions in a harsher light because I agree with Fyslee on most of the content issues (peripheral as they were to the matter at hand). I agree with you that both Ilena and Fyslee have crossed the line - I just don't agree they've done so equally. I don't agree that Ilena's participation on Clayton College of Natural Health is evidence of redemption - quite the contrary; her edits there ended with a 3RR block for edit warring and removing sourced content. MastCell 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As openly and honestly as I have ever been, with what I consider friends in Fyslee and Ilena, I hate to see either of them go. I personally write better and more neutrally when I get to hear more than one side of an argument. Fyslee and Ilena are two sides of the same coin and have probably lead to more NPOV editing than has been on these pages in years. It was our responsibility to temper them and we didn't. Instead we aligned ourselves with one side or the other, making matters worse. We are as much to blame as either of them. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I, too, find an indefinite ban excessive, though some kind of ban (3 months?) is warranted. Bucketsofg 05:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that these remedies are not seeking to punish users or bring them to justice - note this mostly a reply to Levine2112's comment above - I don't see any reason why she should receive any more of a punishment here that Fyslee. They are there instead to protect the content and future integrity of Wikipedia. Cheers Lethaniol 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My bad. It was kind of a "for lack of a bette word". What term would be more preferred? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fyslee banned~~
2) Fyslee is banned from Barrett v. Rosenthal, all articles which relate to Quackwatch and similar activities, and all articles which relate to alternative medicine. He may comment and make suggestions on talk pages.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Agree with Durova: Definitely some unacceptable behavior, but prior history as a good citizen should be weighed. Would endorse topic probation ~~or a 3-6 month topic ban.~~ MastCell 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support • Wikipedia has an expected Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable, but continued misbehaviour will be sanctioned. Fyslee has been given lead enough in regards to partisan editing and hasn't shaped up. Therefore, he should be sanctioned. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Durova. (Actually, I don't see disruptive edits on BvR, except on the talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Comment Overlooks Fyslee's three barnstars and generally good history as a Wikipedian (aside from the dispute that landed him here). Also overlooks that he isn't a single purpose editor. Topic probation or a time limited topic ban (3-6 months) is more the norm for someone whose overall contributions to the site have been positive. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A time scale needs to be added in here - is such a ban going to be for a month, year or indefinitely? Also I agree with Durova, a topic probation deserves further discussion as an option here. Cheers Lethaniol 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Topic probation makes much more sense. This is a very productive useful editor who has in fact made many neutral productive edits to these articles. JoshuaZ 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A ban seems to me to be disproportionate and unnecessary: some kind of probation would be equally effective in restraining negative behaviour and retain this editor's positive contributions. Bucketsofg 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fyslee and Ilena limited bans~~
~~1) Fyslee and Ilena banned for 3 - 6 months. Fyslee to not use Quackwatch as a source or external link. Ilena not to link her website or discuss WP offsite pending permanent ban.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
What is the basis for supposing either will change their behavior in that time? Fred Bauder 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Support: I would be more inclined to support this because of its equal treatment of the two parties. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question above by Fred. I just want to be clear that whatever the final decree from the Arbitrators, I would be in support of it if it treated Fyslee and Ilena equitably. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Given his constructive history, Fyslee is more likely to be chastened, and perhaps oversight/probation is most appropriate to ensure that this happens. If it doesn't, then a ban is appropriate. I've seen no progress at all from Ilena (see "Ongoing Violations of Policy" above) and don't see any reason to think that her behavior will change. MastCell 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed -- Dēmatt (chat)
Ridiculous, Ilena's behavior has been far worse. I see no reason to ban Fyslee at all when probation makes far more sense. Ilena should just be banned period. JoshuaZ 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bite the newcomers. Perhaps Ilena could have been able to share her knowledge in a less hostile environment. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have both made constructive edits. The problem is that they both have also made disruptive edits. I prefer to leave the finer points of sanctions to the Arbitration Committee, who have undoubtedly hotly debated this topic in the privacy of their mailing list. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, this matter has not been discussed. Any suggestion you make is welcome. This page is for your feedback. Fred Bauder 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. False equivalence. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Analysis of evidence~~
~~Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~General discussion~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~