Revision as of 17:32, 19 February 2007

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) Proposed descision here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Honey and Vinegar

1) Other users may be more sensitive than expected. When such situations are encountered it may be more useful to the project to soothe their feelings, than to make demands. If you make a mistake and an unexpected reaction results, it may be helpful to apologize. If another makes a mistake, forgiveness may reduce the tension.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed • From the Husnock Case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others: Very true, but for the relevance of this to be judged we will need evidence. Judged irrelevant in the Husnock case. Moreschi 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

2) If one feels it necessary to make changes to Misplaced Pages articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, it is strongly encouraged one submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed • From the conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral Point of View

3) All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed • From the NPOV policy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Inflammatory Sites are Inappropriate

4) Sites that are inflammatory in nature regarding living persons or users of Misplaced Pages are unacceptable external links on Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rather too broad, as worded; attack sites targetting a specific person are not the same thing as sites that are inflammatory regarding "living persons" generally. At the very least, an exception must be made for links in articles about those specific sites; otherwise, this will place us in the bizarre position of having a full-blown article about a site but not being able to actually indicate what that site is. Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better way to word this? What I intend with this is that attacks sites cited in biographies of living persons are unacceptable, doubly so when that person is also a Wikipedian. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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 Misplaced Pages" then that most certainly falls under Misplaced Pages: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 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Links to attack sites

4.1) Attack sites targetting living people (including Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

No Personal Attacks

5) Personally charged attacks are inflammatory, divisive, and contribute to a negative environment on Misplaced Pages. 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)

Comment by others:

Real-life feuds or disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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

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)

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

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a Battleground

6.1) Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by others:

Real-life disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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))

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

Comment by others:

Undue weight

1) Per Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)

The primacy of collaborative editing

1) Collaboration trumps all other policies.

1. Without collaboration between editors of opposing POV, nothing functions as intended, and Misplaced Pages 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.
2. 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.
3. Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- Fyslee's (First law) 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to help him collaborate. This is but one example. healthfraud Misplaced Pages . A short time ago, someone else also put out a call on their list to edit there. (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)

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

Comment by others:

Neutral Point of View

3) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living persons

4) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Outside conflicts

5) The participants in disputes which are the subject of Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by others:

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

Using online and self-published sources

1) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources

1) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Extremist sources

1) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

1) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns:

1. avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

and must always:

1. avoid breaching relevant policies on Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view,
2. avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).

Bite: Can you explain why it’s a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of a client? How does the Misplaced Pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Comment by parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

Struggle by Ilena

1.1) Ilena has engaged in combative behavior which, besides being rude, betrays misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policies .

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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" .

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. , or introducing questionable material advancing an agenda . Most of Ilena's contributions are directly related to Barrett v Rosenthal and participants.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is official policy. Fred Bauder 14:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages policies. On the contrary. -- Fyslee's (First law) 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

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)

Fyslee has indeed been in litigation with Dr. Clark, and putting it in "quotation marks" does not change the definition nor skirt the of his editing articles about her. As a co-defendant with Barrett, this also raises even more 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)

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 fans describe themselves as serious losers. Quite. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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 I sit corrected! Thank you. Ilena (chat) 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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 ) 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 . 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 ] (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 Misplaced Pages. 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" in this encyclopedia. Thank you very much. Ilena (chat) 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Disputed editing between Fyslee and Ilena

1) Disputed edits which involve Fyslee and Ilena:

• Hulda Regehr Clark December 24, 2006, Edits by Ilena: , , and . 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: "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)

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)

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 . --Ronz 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 . --Ronz 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Here you can see, 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 Misplaced Pages for six months.