Revision as of 17:16, 18 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)

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 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)

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)

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:

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:

Comment by others:

Proposed 1a in respect of Ilena's websites.

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:

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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:

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ahh! Learned something new there. In that case it should be reworded to remove any ambiguity. -- Fyslee 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

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: