Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop

It really might be a good idea to get something into Evidence before bothering with proposals at all... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My line of thinking was - "I make a point, then I prove it." ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per their talk pages, both Ilena and Fyslee are working on statements with diffs. They have asked if there is a "deadline" for their presentations. I have advised that they should move promptly but there is no actual deadline or timetable. If the arbitrators have a specific target date in mind for reaching this case, please advise so the parties can be aware. Newyorkbrad 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And Mr. W. Dragon's point makes sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical POV, Peter's methodology sounds good, but he has not yet provided any proof. Can someone get him to do so? (From a scientific POV his methodology is more questionable, as the "points" he makes should be developed based on the evidence, not the opposite. But....this situation is more like a courtroom than a laboratory...;-) -- Fyslee's (First law) 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this and apologise. I have had very little free time due to real life concerns (namely a full time job that ends up cutting into home time too), however I'll try and get something done before I go to sleep this evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter M Dodge (talk • contribs)

I understand you are having trouble and sympathize with you in this situation. Keep in mind that some of the rest of us are also pressed very hard by this unnecessary situation that could have been prevented from escalating. My original private (well, there's no such thing as private here! - and I can see now unwise) comment about suicidal thoughts was not coming out of nowhere, and you of all people should know what depression (especially when caused and then exacerbated by these constant attacks and now an RfArb) can do to people's thinking. It is very disturbing and causes one to say too much in the wrong settings. So please be careful how you deal with this situation and please provide evidence as soon as possible. Be careful not leave out anything, because that will only force me to dig up what has been left out, since context is important. We are both aware that there are things that don't really have to be brought up, but I will balance things if necessary. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena's early ip addresses?

Since Ilena's earliest edits here on Wikipedia where through ip addresses less than a year ago, I thought it might be helpful to list them here. I just ran across 196.40.14.198 (talk · contribs). I believe there are a few more that were listed somewhere. --Ronz 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting there is to follow the next couple of edit strings. Fyslee quickly accuses her of being a sock puppet. I don't think there was any deliberate deception there on Ilena's part - just a fundamental lack of Wikipedia know-how. And thus Fyslee's antagonizing of Ilena begins. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sockpuppet accusations are unfounded. BLP, NPOV, and NPA warnings should have been given instead. --Ronz 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. Though NPA? Was she attacking an editor personally? Mind you, this was before the subject of the article became an editor. But yes to BLP and NPOV. I think if Fyslee would have started out treating Ilena with a gentler hand, we might not be at this point here with the RfArb. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) is another --Ronz 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough about not technically being a sock. She just kept switching around and I thought she was gaming the system. That was a long time ago!

As far as where we are now, you can thank her mentor. We all may have contributed in various ways, but it could have been stopped if she hadn't been protected and defended when she did wrong. It happened all too often, with chiding remarks all too few. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) is another --Ronz 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various IPs from Costa Rica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.40.14.198

16:55, 10 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stephen Barrett (→Two different matters) linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.40.12.109

20:37, 10 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stephen Barrett (→Two different matters) linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.40.12.235

23:12, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) The National Council Against Health Fraud (→Introduction)

23:10, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→Biography)

23:08, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→External links)

23:04, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→External links) linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.40.14.167

16:47, 7 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→External links) linkspam

16:46, 7 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→Biography)

16:45, 7 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→Platform for activism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.122.153.238

03:17, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→External links)

03:16, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings)

03:15, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings) link spam

03:14, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→California Supreme Court decision)

03:13, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→External links) link spam

03:12, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→California Supreme Court decision)

03:11, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings)

03:10, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.40.13.172

16:02, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal

196.40.14.47 Used in a comment on my blog (11.17.05 - 10:05 pm). I have removed the link spam she left then. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is definitely not a newbie anymore, yet she has a NOOB user box on her user page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: Ilena has edited as:

196.40.14.198 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006
196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006
196.40.12.235 (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2006
196.40.14.167 (talk · contribs) on 7 July 2006 (same date she started editing as Ilena)
200.122.153.238 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006 (an ip used by others at other times)
196.40.13.172 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006

--Ronz 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ronz!

I have never denied the edits I have made before I created an account. Because of the recent research because of your accusations, I just today found out that Stephen Barrett edited as recently as last month (January, 2007), and that before Fyslee slid in and took over, he was posting linkspam after linkspam and attempting to change the history of various articles.

Before Barrett had an account

Stephen Barrett posting anonymously as recently as January, 2007

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

Barrett had another bad day today, btw ... he just lost yet another motion! Ilena (chat) 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, the fact that Barrett edited as Sbinfo is noted at the very top of Talk:Stephen_Barrett in a position that will never be moved to the archives. Since this ArbCom is not about Barrett's behavior here on Wikipedia, I don't think it's relevant. --Ronz 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni

Just found out that Geni (who first blocked me) posted absolutely false information about NCAHF and then blocked me for a week. Geni's lie:(the lisense expired it was not suspended.) In fact, NCAHF was suspended, not expired. State of California showing NCAHF suspended Her block has been used against me and I just found her email with false accusations and further disinformation about NCAHF. Found her also on this forum where Fyslee's called for Skeptics needed for Wikipedia Ilena (chat) 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a lie. --Ronz 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Geni is not a party to the case. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk should also note that user Sbinfo is also not a party (AFAIK) to the case Shot info 07:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Arb was very accurately labeled Barrett v. Rosenthal ... and ever increasingly, continues to be. Ilena (chat) 19:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff cited by Ilena, I see unsourced information, some of which involved living people, being removed by Geni. Using words like "lie", "absolutely false", "false accusations", etc to describe such an edit (which is actually in line with Wikipedia policy), particularly here in an ArbCom proceeding where one of the issues is disruptive and confontational scorched-earth editing, is inappropriate. MastCell 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni told me in an email and noted the reason she blocked me was because I had claimed that NCAHF's license was suspended, which it was and is. State of California showing NCAHF suspended Her comment was the lisense expired it was not suspended.) That is absolutely a proven lie. I'm sorry it doesn't sound nice, but NCAHF was and is suspended, and I was only posting verified facts. Her statement that their license had not expired is a lie and I believe pro-Barrett propaganda. Ilena (chat) 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." You added unsourced material. It was removed. Even now that you're familiar with Wikipedia policy, though, you persist in seeing this as a pro-Barrett conspiracy. MastCell 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I provided this link to the State of California databased that accuratedly showed NCAHF's suspension. State of California showing NCAHF suspended Ilena (chat) 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a lie. It's irrelevant to these proceedings. What's the point? --Ronz 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for posting the facts which she removed. Ilena (chat) 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And multiple editors have told you it's irrelevant. The rules and scope of this ArbCom are very clear. If you don't trust my word for it, see the clerk's note above by Newyorkbrad. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Involved_parties and note that the proceedings were started by limiting it to just Fyslee and you [1] --Ronz 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Response to Ilena) Please look at the diff you yourself provided. You inserted an unsourced statement, which Geni removed. I understand that now you are providing a source, but at the time Geni removed it, it was an unsourced statement. The point, if there is one, is that editors who follow policy (like WP:V or WP:BLP) are not de facto agents of a pro-Barrett conspiracy, yet even now Ilena insists on casting things in that light. MastCell 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni did not just "remove" the facts. She made this false claim the lisense expired it was not suspended.. Where was she getting this false information? She appeared out of nowhere. One would have to have researched it like I did to have a valid fact to back up her edits. She provided nothing but deletion and false facts. the lisense expired it was not suspended.. She sourced nothing, just deleted my edit and posted a lie about the license status. She told me in an email that she blocked me because I claimed NCAHF's suspended license was suspended. She also is a part of the Randi list (on Fyslee's webring). I do not believe she was neutral nor fair. She lied (I'm sorry, that's a fact) about this and that block (which is listed twice) has been repeatedly used against me and was insolent and unWiki. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot info and COI

We have very strong evidence that Shot info is in fact, a very close relative to SBinfo, Stephen Barrett and has been attempting to delete negative and factual information about Barrett's various operations, harass me, and claim that I alone, have WP:COI issues here. Should this be proven to be true (he has been politely asked whether or not he is a blood relative of Barrett's, and he has refused to respond with anything but distraction), this new information may be highly significant to this Arbitration, very accurately called Barrett v Rosenthal. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have to comment on Ilena's accusation here, as I became involved in this issue yesterday (22nd Feb 2007). First of all, some of the requests by Ilena and Levine2112, for Shot info to release personal info have IMHO been close to harassment see, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], please see User talk:Shot info#Interesting development for how the discussion is developing. I have tried as a neutral editor to intervene see [7], [8] and [9], but now as Ilena has brought the issue here, I will leave it up to others to decide on how to proceed. I would strongly suggest though, that as Ilena states "we have very strong evidence", that this evidence is provided as a matter of urgency. Making accusations without providing evidence can be seen to very uncivil and leading to unnecessary conflict. Cheers Lethaniol 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to name and give the evidence here. Is that what you want me to do? I can do in a heartbeat. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you follow Durova's advice below and present any evidence you have to the ArbCom or clerks via email as appropriate. Cheers Lethaniol 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for helping bring this to light.

I have a question regarding this. If in fact, he either admits to it or it is proven that Shot_info is indeed, a very close blood relative of Stephen Barrett's, who took this as one of his multiple user names to help remove and cast doubt on factual negative information about Barrett, then what?

Will my allegations and concerns that Barrett has been attempting to stack the decks against me here be looked at in a new light? I can show that shot_info has worked collaboratively with Fyslee and others close to Barrett to the point of harassment of me, repeatedly citing what he claims are my [WP:COI]] while his remained hidden. I can show that despite Fyslee's repeated false claims, it was Barrett, himself (followed by Fyslee taking over) who brought this case to Wikipedia, not me, and that they collaboratively battled against me to keep off negative facts about Barrett, with shot_info's help. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena this ArbCom IMHO is about your inappropriate user conduct, not whether other editors with a COI are editing articles that you are involved in. If Shot is shown to have a COI this might be a very, very small mitigating factor, but again IMHO you should be concentrating on answering the claims of adding inappropriate links, edit warring, uncivil behaviour, breaking BLP etc... Just because others may have a COI, that is never going to be a valid excuse for these cases of inappropriate user conduct. Cheers Lethaniol 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that if one of Barrett's family members, joined Fyslee (Barrett's Asst. Listmaster & Webring Owner) and other anonymous editors to gang up and harass me here with uncivil behavior ... constantly keeping me on the defensive and never exhibiting a moment of WP:AGF ... that will matter basically none at all, in your opinion? Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to consult with others, but yes IMHO these issues are essentially irrelevant to the case being brought against you here. I myself, and I suspect this happens to Admins all the time, get baited by other users quite frequently. If we were to respond in an inappropriate manner, no matter how bad the baiting concerned, then we would also have a case to answer. So yes in my opinion the way other users respond to you and your edits, will only be the smallest of mitigating factors. If you look through this ArbCom, you will rarely if ever see people saying to the effect, "well I think that X should be treated less harshly, because Y was real nasty to them." There are many mechanisms to deal with any inappropriate behaviour that may have occurred - you needed to have chosen them. Cheers Lethaniol 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is beginning to feel very, very, unbalanced to me. Yesterday you said this: Note this should only be done if Shot's editing is seen as biased or disruptive on the COI articles I have provided several diffs showing blatant disinformation he posted. The struggle to get this accurate and verified and factual information on Wiki was met with his and Fyslee's and others here ready to hang me from the highest gallows mutual collaboration. Shot_info has repeatedly pointed out WP:COI allegations against me. Now you are backtracking, it appears, and saying that even if Stephen Barrett's son himself is here eliminating valid and negative information for his Daddy (with Fyslee and Ronz' help,) in your opinion, that will be only "the smallest of mitigating factors" ???

Please take care when quoting others - a fairer quote would have been:

if you feel that Shot Info has a potential major COI (so much so that they should not be editing on the COI article) and they are actively and regularly editing these articles, then it may need further investigation. This should be done so at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Note this should only be done if Shot's editing is seen as biased or disruptive on the COI articles. If this is not obvious for all to see then I would assume good faith and leave the issue.

Also note that in the linked discussion, I was talking about the COI of Shot info, which until you brought the issue to the AbrCom, I was and still am treating as a separate issue, there is no backtracking involved. Cheers Lethaniol 19:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is: Fyslee contacting Shot-info for collaboration

Here is: Ronz mocking me to Shot_info

Here is Fyslee intentionally editing false information about NCAHF: ...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) [10] for over 6 months.

Here Fyslee's biased and unfactual edits are collaborated with Shot: 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 attempting to make his father, (who had lost his case to me in two courtrooms and who brought this issue of the case himself to Wiki) look good.

Single purpose? His edits (under this user account) appear to be to advocate for Barrett and to attempt to keep off any criticism and negative facts about him off of Wiki.

I post these archives as there are many lengthy discussions, and any with open eyes can see that Shot_info and Fyslee and Ronz and Rubin. worked collaboratively to keep true & negative information about Stephen Barrett off of Wiki, at my expense. [11] [12] [13] Thank you. Ilena (chat) 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is important for the ArbCom to note is that Ilena was treated badly from the moment she arrived on Wikipedia. There is clearly an established pre-history of ill-will between her and Fyslee (and other editors). Fyslee (and these other editors) made no attempt to curb this sentiment upon Ilena's arrival. Perhaps if he (and the other editors) would have attempted to start off on a better foot with her - leave real-life disputes off of Wikipedia - then we wouldn't be at this point today. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only so far we can push the "you should have done something else" until we reach a point where even a reasonable person would snap at someone. Ilena's actions are hardly commendable but whether they were agitated or not will play an important part in the length of any bans. Therefore it is important to determine whether these reactions were provoked. I tend to think they were. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me)

I respectfully disagree - there is IMHO never an excuse for snapping, especially if that snapping spans a period of time. Cheers Lethaniol 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about provoking people? Do you think there is ever an excuse for that? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and ArbCom precedent disagrees with you, Lethaniol. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, is it possible to point me in the right direction with respect to both the policy and ArbCom precedents in question. Cheers Lethaniol 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no excuse for provoking people, and I think it's worth seriously considering whether Shot info should continue editing Barrett-related articles if he/she is, in fact, a blood relative. But as Lethaniol states, unacceptable behavior is unacceptable, and people have to take responsiblity for their own responses. This applies to Fyslee and Ilena both, and is why I proposed the finding that "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." No doubt Ilena's been provoked - and, I might add, done quite a bit of provoking of others as well. MastCell 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the original question, evidence regarding personally identifiable information should be submitted confidentially via an arbitration clerk. As for the later discussion, baiting an editor is different from taking the bait. I discourage anyone from doing either. I regard baiting as a more aggressive action than taking bait. That statement is tempered by four realities.

Once a situation devolves badly enough it can be difficult to identify anybody as a primary aggressor.
Primary aggressors often bait strategically in order to muddy the waters and make other users look as bad as themselves.
Getting baited is a test of character: few people can withstand months of baiting without responding in kind at least a little bit.
The ideal response to baiting is not to respond in kind at all. Then it's crystal clear who the aggressor is and simple to solve administratively.

Most of the time the waters get at least a little muddy. Admins who specialize in complex disputes weigh those factors as best they can. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and these other editors"

Levine2112 is now introducing the phrase "and these other editors" in connection with how Ilena was treated when she first arrived [14]. Since he at one time included me in such a context, which he admitted was a mistake and withdrew, I'm requesting he consider identifying these editors. --Ronz 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted it was mistake to drag your name (or any other editor's name) into this (and I have profusely apologized to you). This isn't about these other editors specifically. But it is significant to note in Ilena's defense that that Fyslee and other editors (who out of respect shall remain nameless) ganged up upon and provoked her. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't name these editors, but just imply that there's a shadowy, nebulous conspiracy out there, then it doesn't come across as "out of respect". If you believe other editors inappropriately provoked Ilena, please provide names and, ideally, diffs. MastCell 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't about them. Why drag their names through the mud? That's rude. Remember, this is just a talk page of the Workshop section of this ArbCom. I am not submitting into evidence that there were several other editors egging Ilena on. I had done that, then realized it was not very nice, so I deleted it. This is just a place to work out our thoughts. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because my user id was listed earlier, I was able to bring up the issue and it was worked out (Thanks for your recent clarification, Levine2112. I do appreciate it). While I'm not assuming bad faith on Levine2112's part by saying "and these other editors", I do believe they should be given the same chance as I was. I hope he will consider naming these editors. --Ronz 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not. That would be rude. You helped me realize that. So I am confused. Why would you want me to be rude again? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're saying that it should be noted in Ilena's defense that nameless editors ganged up on her to provoke her. I'm not trying to be difficult, or give you a hard time here - if you want it to be noted, then you need to be more specific. Otherwise it casts a general cloud over everyone, without clarifying any of the issues at hand. I can only speak for myself, but if you're including me in this number, I'd rather you came out and said so. I think most others would feel the same. MastCell 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112 - I don't think it would be rude of you to mention the names. Quite the opposite, but it's your choice. It would give them the same opportunity you gave me and might also provide others with areas of investigation. --Ronz 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is disruptive to make a big fuss over a small thing. Stop it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I will have to disagree with Pete here - this is a big deal, as Ilena is trying to use it as a basis for her defence. It is not acceptable to highlight a nebulous group of users as evidence of bias without providing evidence. If there is no evidence then the point is irrelevant. Cheers Lethaniol 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peter that we don't need to look for new battles to fight, and I'm happy to drop it. I just object to insinuation and would prefer either a declarative statement or nothing. MastCell 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general it's a good idea at arbitration to be as specific as possible and support assertions with page diffs. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]