Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05 Stephen Barrett

Who are the involved parties?

 * Please do not add/remove any parties without noting in the Administrative notes section.


 *  &mdash; Mediator
 *  &mdash; Requesting Wikipedian



What's going on?
Last year, Stephen Barrett has come to Wikipedia and offered information about himself not being board certified because in 1964 when he took the exam, he failed the neurology half of the test. He never retook the exam. Detractors have claimed that he has hid this fact and that it was a revelation when he was "forced to admit" this under oath at trial. Barrett contends that he has never tried to hide this information. Offering this info at Wikipedia was Barrett showing how open he was with this information. Anyhow, statements in new articles that circulated around that web that stated that Barrett was forced to admit this under oath, all became part of the subject of several libel lawsuits which Barrett filed. Barrett contends that it is untrue and damaging to his reputation for a person to claim that he was forced to admit this information under oath. Most of these lawsuits have been dismissed, though at least one is still pending.

Now then, the question here a Wikipedia is: do we include this factual information (that Barrett is not board certified because he did not pass the exam) on the Wikipedia article for Stephen Barrett?

Some editors feel we should include this information because it is factual, has been offered up to wikipedia by Barrett himself, and - based on the lawsuits and other articles which have been written about it - is entirely notable. However, some editors think this information should be excluded for a host of reasons, included violations of WP:OP, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.

We have moved through the steps of WP:DR and are ready for Mediation.

What would you like to change about that?
It is starting to get uncivil there, so before it escalates, I would like to request immediate mediation. We have tried to get some third-party input, by thus far our request has gone unanswered.

Mediator response
✅ Accepting Case &mdash; anthony [ cfc ] 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * Parties will be contacted in due course.