Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Case Opened on 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Amended by Motion on 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * (filing party)
 * (filing party)

Statement by Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)
I only became involved in this issue after a AN/I post, and therefore have not been involved on the onset, however, I feel that this issue has only worsened to the point where it has been agreed by a small consensus that an Arbitration Committee intervention is required to sort this case out. So without further ado, allow me to summate the situation as best as I can:
 * 1) Ilena was listed at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents section for repeatedly posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites.
 * 2) Several users attempted to step in and fix the situation.  Ilena felt attacked by the sudden interest of these users, and refused or reacted in a hostile manner to several of these requests.
 * 3) In the interests of diffusing a situation and attempting to mentor a trouble user who appeared to have good intentions, I intervened on her talk page.  I suggested that she stop adding the links to the article, and use the talk page as an outlet to let editors who did not have a conflict of interest regarding the situation to evaluate them.  I also suggested that she apologize to some users for her harsh words, and she did so.
 * 4) I worked for some time with her to try to help her make more productive edits to Wikipedia.  This went well, in my opinion, as steady improvement both in her contributions and behaviour ensued.
 * 5) This was sabotaged, however, when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal matter.  I removed the link with a strong notice about the Arbitration Committee's views on the matter, such as exemplified in the MONGO case.  I elaborated that I was of the opinion that the Committee took a dim view of users posting links sites that attack another Wikipedians.
 * 6) Ilena did not react very appropriately to this link, and although her response was understandable, it was not acceptable and very regrettable.  She responded by reciprocating with attacks on Fyslee's character and associations.
 * 7) Via both on-wiki communication and off-wiki email correspondence, I cautioned Ilena against these attacks.  Many times I told her "be better than Fyslee, not as bad, or worse."  She seemed to tone down, but not stop, her attacks.
 * 8) Fyslee and Ilena, as well as a few others including Ronz, myself, and tangientally involved user Jance discussed Ilena's behaviour on her talk page.  Fyslee continued very abrasively worded demands for "proof" of her "charges".  Other users, myself included, attempted to diffuse the situation.
 * 9) Ronz attempted to pitch in as a mentor to Ilena.  Ilena did not want this.  Ronz pressed the matter, and Ilena replied with a very hostile response, comparing Ronz's help to the "help" Nazi's gave the prisoners they put in concentration camps.
 * 10) At this juncture, administrator Durova became involved.
 * 11) On an AN post, Taxman commented that information widely available via by Google is not actionable on the mere fact that it is personally identifiable information.
 * 12) The mediation attempt was closed by demon^ since Fyslee refused to participate.

And here we are, here.

The issues as I see them are thus:
 * 1) Ilena's behaviour is clearly unacceptable, but she has made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
 * 2) Fyslee's behaviour has been divisive, unacceptable, and as of now, has not been addressed by an adminsitrator,

I also wholeheartedly welcome review of my own actions. This is the first time I have ever tried to "coach" a user extensively, never mind in such a controversial situation, and one only improves through criticism and review. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fyslee
I will make a short statement now, and then await Ilena's presentation of her precise charges against me (she is currently blocked -- again), along with the precise documentation and diffs, which she has refused to provide. This is the place for that to be done. Her serious allegations should not be allowed to stand here at Wikipedia without any documentation.

Lest anyone be mislead by the new title of this RfA, this issue is not about the now stable Barrett v. Rosenthal article, but is about user behavior. While it primarily involves Ilena's serious allegations against me, presented without clear evidence, it also involves my own reaction and feeble attempts to defend myself (my evidence was deleted), and the involvement of many other editors who attempted to deal with both of us.

Any discussion about content issues in articles will only become a diversion from the real problems.

The real issues here are:


 * 1) User attitude and behavior. (both of us!)
 * 2) Lack of collaborative spirit.

Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing by editors of opposing POV. It just takes a will to do so, and this results in the best quality articles, because all significant POV get presented in an NPOV manner. My attitude on collaboration is elaborated here:


 * Collaboration trumps all other policies

Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC (which has been skipped in this case). Those are the issues here. Wikipedia should not be used to further Ilena's Usenet wars (especially since I have never participated in them), and I need to learn how to meet such attacks in a more constructive manner.

I expect the participants here to hold her (and myself when I begin my rebuttal) to a high standard for presentation of her charges and evidence:


 * 1) Very precise and specific accusations
 * 2) One accusation at a time
 * 3) Worded briefly
 * 4) Precise quotes
 * 5) With precise diffs and links
 * 6) Civil in tone

I hope to come away from this experience an even better Wikipedian. -- Fyslee 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy
Like the others here I have been sucked into this rather than being a participant as such. I endorse the statements of Peter and Daniel above (except in the case of Durova, an admin I hold in high regard; I think that the sheer number of others dragged in is testimony to the disruption this is causing). This is a bilateral issue, although Ilena is probably more of a problem than Fyslee, partly because she is not learning, partly because Fyslee is promoting the mainstream, which is less fo a problem than promoting views against the mainstream. It's a complex dispute and undoubtedly user conduct is the heart of it, so I hope the committee will take the case.

Barrett v. Rosenthal is an important case, in that it apparently protects those who republish defamation. I'm sure Brad has a view on that and may well be able to moderate that article, if he can find the time.

Ilena's editing also covers articles related to breast implants. Ilena is convinced breast implants cause harm. Medical evidence for this is, however, weak and equivocal, and Wikipedia is in any case not the place to argue the merits of this, only to document the dispute (and we have the same problem in dental amalgam controversy, where an editor insists that we give equal prominence to the facts that amalgam is not conclusively proven to be safe or damaging, notwithstanding the fact that it is used daily by the vast majority of the world's dentists and has been for a century and a half). My principal concern over Ilena, then, is that she gives the appearance of wanting to use Wikipedia for purposes of advocacy. I hope that either I am wrong, or if not that she can be persuaded out of it. As Jance says, the non-mainstream view can, in some cases, turn out to be right, but Wikipedia cannot be part of the process of change. We absolutely cannot Right Great Wrongs, we can only document their righting in the real world. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jance
I have been peripherally involved, because I have edited the article (trying to correct legal misunderstandings of the case). I agree this is a bilateral (!) issue, and partly because one promotes "mainstream" and one does not. I am not sure there is a "mainstream" position on the case and article of Barrett v. Rosenthal, although presumably there is on Barrett. On Barrett v. Rosenthal there were misstatements or misrepresentations of the case, by several parties. I don't know how much of those were honest misunderstanding of how to read a court opinion, and how much was POV pushing. The most egregious editor on this and NCAHF is not listed on this Arb - and that was Curtis Bledsoe who stated on his talk page "People aren't the problem - even when they're excessively abusive and confrontational." He seems to have disappeared, or be editing other articles now. I think Guy hit the nail on the head re understandable (although not always appropriate) bias for 'mainstream'. But I don't feel strongly one way or the other on that, and defer to the *experts* on that, here. My main interest was to help in the articles since they are heavily laden with descriptions of court cases. I have not taken 'sides' in the personal disputes, or the article editing - at least not based one point of view.
 * Ilena - I have *known* Ilena outside of Wikipedia,on the internet, because of my own interest in breast implants.  I know that she is articulate, and a tireless advocate for women.  She also is controversial, and I do not agree with the inflammatory posts on usenet or her website.  This is no surprise to her, since I have told her that before.   My personal "POV" is that sometimes, non-mainstream views will ultimately be found to be correct (particularly re breast implants).  However, histrionics and broad generalizations will not help further serious consideration.   If she wants to consider her website as a professional website for a non-profit corporation, then the website should reflect that and be professional in its content.  Her website has a wealth of information, but that is overshadowed by the inflammatory posts about personal issues.  That seems to spill over here.  The most egregious act, in my opinion, was the repeated posting of Fyslee's real name by Ilena.  It does not matter if someone goes by a real name outside of Wikipedia, on other internet articles, or even in WIkipedia in rare instances.  It should be that person's decision whether or not to use a pseudonym on WIkipedia.   To violate that privacy is wrong.  I would be livid as well, and I don't blame Fyslee for being furious about it.   I think Ilena has stopped, but it took awhile.  The next issue is the link..  I am still somewhat mystified as to what links are allowable and what are not.  I would think that the posting of a link, even like Ilena's, may be appropriate depending on the article, as is Barrett's link on non-Barrett articles. That aside, I believe Ilena could be a good Wiki contributor, if she is willing to leave the personal disputes out of Wikipedia.
 * Fyslee - To my knowledge, Fyslee only posted one 'attack' link, which Peter removed. Fyslee was not insistent about reposting the link.  As I said above, I do not blame Fyslee for being angry about the personal information that Ilena posted.  However, Fyslee continued to argue with Ilena, and his posts have been condescending, insulting and confrontational.  .  At some point, it would have been better for either Fyslee or Ilena to simply ignore the other.  I know how easy it is to get sucked into an argument on Wikipedia, and want to defend yourself.  On a recent Afd, I realized that an experienced editor (an admin) was baiting me, and I finally ignored him altogether, which seemed to stop the behavior.  Wikipedia is much like *the real world* only without the personal interaction - and that makes it all the easier to say regrettable things, or for another to misinterpret what is said.Jance 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by peripherally involved KillerChihuahua
My involvement falls under item 2 in the list, attempting to help with the situation. My attempt was not well received, and I did not wish to inflame the situation so after one or two more attempts at communication, as well as removing links to attack pages which she posted on her user page, I withdrew. I later added my voice to a suggestion that Ilena might benefit from the adoption program, and provided a link to her block log when she requested it on her talk page. As she responded in a far more civil fashion, I ended my self-imposed avoidance of her page. I made two further posts on her talk page, concerning forms of dispute resolution. As long as I have been dragged into this, for so marginal a contact (I have edited none of the articles in question), I will make free to offer some observations. In this editor's opinion, more time has been spent trying to "save" Ilena and turn her into a productive editor than has been remotely warranted by her behavior or her potential value to this encyclopedia. Why doesn't Peter spend a similar amount of time on defending an actual productive editor who is of clear value to the encyclopedia, such as Giano? People have been indef blocked for the type behavior Ilena has exhibited, and her only interest seems to be editing COI articles. To accuse Durova, who has been admirably calm and patient, of being "heavy-handed" is beyond absurd - I say this with the caveat that I have not read WD's talk page, and am commenting only on Durova's interactions with Ilena. Administrators have many roles, and one of them is to help newbies, of course - and one is to prevent disruption of the project by others. I cannot comment on Fyslee, as I have had limited contact with him and found him always civil, but observed some of his accusations against Ilena, which were not all made in a civil tone. In addition, he may be a violator of COI himself - I cannot say. In short, All I can offer this case is that I have attempted to discuss things with Ilena, been immediately flamed and attacked, and witnessed her unbelievable hostility and suspicion of editors not actively assisting her in her "cause". I fail to see how that is of much value to this case, but if evidence is desired I will offer failure to AGF and NPA evidence, and there ends my ability to be of any use to this case. 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
Arbitration should be the last recourse in a dispute. Having given this some careful thought since my post to WP:AN two days ago I'll suggest two alternatives.

1. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation and ask their legal advisors to evaluate this situation for possible liabilities to Wikipedia. This arbitration request is closely linked to the actual Barrett v. Rosenthal libel case and one of the named parties here is the Rosenthal of that case. She proclaims that she is and everyone seems to agree on that point. She has repeatedly asserted that Fyslee has a professional or close personal affiliation with the Barrett of that case. Fyslee disputes that the relationship is as close as she represents. Their exchanges have certainly been heated, the involved parties have debated whether Ilena's posts at Wikipedia meet the definition of libel, and Ilena recently linked to an outside site that disclosed Fyslee's real world name. Some editors have speculated that Barrett v. Rosenthal creates some precedent that shields Wikipedia. I doubt that a case from the California state courts would affect a Florida-based foundation and the prudent course would be to maintain our usual expectations unless advised otherwise by Wikimedia's counsel. I think the professional specialists ought to give this a good once-over. An office action might result to simplify things for the rest of us.

2. Reopen the request for mediation on different terms. Fyslee doesn't appear to be opposed to mediation per se but to the specific terms that Wizardry Dragon/Peter M. Dodge introduced unilaterally. Peter's attempts to initiate actions appear to require revision (such as the renaming of this arbitration request). Fyslee has expressed a strong preference for RFC or other more moderate solutions. That leads me to conclude several people including myself misinterpreted his reaction. Ilena has also posted an emphatic request for a second attempt at mediation. Since these are the two most heavily involved parties let's respect their wishes.

I am having some hardware problems that may interfere with my participation if a case opens. Although I trust the facts will vindicate my actions I ask all concerned to extend their patience if I go inactive for a while. Respectfully, Durova  Charge! 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Alan2012 It's rather odd to amend this page at the voting stage, but I'll note for the record that when I blocked Ilena in January I was monitoring Fyslee's responses for exactly the type of trend Ilena and Alan assert.  I would have preferred if Fyslee had disengaged.  At the time this case had opened Fyslee had not expended my assumption of good faith regarding the attack/rescind/apologize/attack pattern the other users claim is deliberate.  If Fyslee's actions had continued my response would have changed from advice to formal warnings and to blocks.  During the span of time when I intervened I did not find it necessary to issue a formal warning against him.  In my opinion, their conclusion is premature.  Durova  Charge! 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I feel pretty peripheral here and don't have much to add. Ilena has been involved in a legal dispute with Stephen Barrett which has gone all the way to the California State Supreme Court. That alone makes her participation here very tricky from a WP:COI and WP:AUTO standpoint. Further, Ilena's participation here has been limited to dealing with said legal dispute. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum to continue a real-life dispute, period. In the interest of WP:DBTN, Ilena's had what I would characterize as an exceptional amount of attention and assistance from Peter Dodge, as well as an extraordinary amount of forbearance by the community, yet has shown little progress in understanding that this is Wikipedia and not Usenet or another forum to continue a real-life dispute.

She's gone after Fyslee. I can't say who started it, nor is it particularly relevant. I can't even cite most of Ilena's attacks, because they use Fyslee's real name, which he has recently asked not be further publicized. In spite of both carrot and stick, she's responded to requests to modify her behavior to conform with Wikipedia norms with claims of bullying, censorship, or persecution. I think the final straw was comparing another another editor (not Fyslee) to a Nazi death-camp guard, or linking from her talk page to an off-wiki site at her personal webpage, both naming Fyslee and consisting of personal attacks.

Fyslee's behavior hasn't been perfect. He's alternated between relatively civil and aggressive attempts to address the situation. I think he crossed a line in that even the threat of litigation (e.g. "I could sue you for libel, but I won't") is probably inappropriate. On the other hand, recent events have made me more sympathetic to the plight of editors, like Fyslee, who find themselves on the receiving end of unsupported, vitriolic charges by someone who absolutely refuses to provide diffs/evidence. I'm inclined to go easier on Fyslee, because he has a history of constructive contribution and I think the likelihood is that this unpleasantness is an aberration. On the other hand, Ilena has not really contributed much other than disruption, and the absence of a learning curve (in spite of Peter's extensive efforts) makes me pessimistic.

I think there needs to be a mechanism for Ilena to present and correct any potential WP:BLP violations about herself that appear on Wikipedia. But that actually hasn't been a major issue - this has been more about back-and-forth on the talk pages, and I think Ilena's shown enough inability to handle the WP:COI that she shouldn't be there, other than to correct clear BLP issues. There were (and are) plenty of other editors sympathetic to her general point of view on those articles, so her absence would not completely remove a POV. MastCell 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David D.
I find there are many similarities here with a previous case for Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel. I have suggested on three different occassions that she should consider avoiding Barrett related articles (early dec, twice in Jan) she is personally involved with him via a lawsuit. She has declined to consider these suggestions. On several occassions I have suggested taking it to RfC since this might offer a better forum for aggrieved parties to understand each others opinon, rather than discussions being fragmented in different locations. Yet here we are at Arbcom. David D. (Talk) 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by named editor Arthur Rubin
I concur that both the principals Ilena and Fyslee have acted badly, possibly both violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SPAM. I hope I haven't violated any of those, and I have made some attempts to diffuse the situation, which may have made things worse.

I want to agree that Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the primary locus of the dispute; the entire Stephen Barrett cluster is the approximate set of articles involved, but it's extended on to the talk page of various users. I also believe that mediation and/or an article cluster RfC might resolve the matter without bringing in ArbCom.

I wanted to add that Ilena's web site, spammed in her signature for some time, has been used a locus to attack Wikipedia editors, not just Wikipedia in general. She has (finally) removed misstatements of fact about me from the site, but still has clear misstatements about Fyslee and attacks which are not clear misstatements about a number of Wikipedia editors. Off-Wiki attacks are not technically considered violations of WP:NPA, but may be used to deduce intent.

The fact that she has removed items about me which are clearly false from her web site may be noted in her favor.

The corresponding claim that Fyslee spammed his web site seem unjustified; he runs a web ring which includes some of Barrett's sites, and Quackwatch may be a WP:RS for some matters. I admit to not looking closely at that, however, and Ilena may be right about his violating WP:SPAM.

As an additional note, I have been fighting arguing with Ilena on Usenet for a number of years. I list this in the interest of full disclosure, as I don't think it's affected my actions here.

I think it would appropriate to wait for Ilena to become unblocked in order to make a statement before the arbitration actually starts. 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ronz
First, I want to state that this being the first RfA I've been involved with, that I have a great deal of apprehension as I've been warned, directly and indirectly, not get involved with such proceedings involving Ilena. (That said, these issues may be outside of what anyone wants to address, and I'm happy to revise my statement to focus it on narrower issues.)

I've been editing NCAHF for some months now, trying to help with a number of pov issues. It's been a learning experience for me working on an article that has so many regular editors that have very stong viewpoints on the subject matter. It's often been frustrating, but I was pleased with the cooperation and progress.

This all changed Dec 6, when Ilena began editing NCAHF and the two related articles after having only made a single edit to NCAHF since her July 9 block. She immediately began edit warring, attacking and harrassing editors (Fyslee and Arthur), attacking the subjects of Barrett v. Rosenthal, making disruptive statements on the discussion pages, promoting herself and her organization, and pushing her theories of NCAHF being run illegally.

I made a number of attempts to guide Ilena away from her attacks, and toward the relevant wiki guidelines and policies. As with others' attempts at guidance, mine were either ignored or met with hostility.

As the problems escalated, I was able to get KillerChihuahua involved through a WQA.

After the Dec 26 AN/I and Ilena's much improved behavior, I began removing her old attacks and disruptions from discussion pages in response to a request I received. While her behavior after the AN/I toward me was still often inappropriate, it was certainly improved and she did eventually remove the attack against me on her website.

After the incident of Fyslee's antagonistic external link on Jan 2, which I found extremely inappropriate but also very poorly handled, Ilena was back to her old behavior. After some discussion with Wizardry Dragon, I sought help through WQA, which led to the Jan 5 AN/I.

When Ilena started editing again, making some questionable edits, I chose Sally Kirkland as neutral ground for making some edits helpful to the article she was obviously interested in, not realizing that Ilena was using it for self-promotion. While Ilena did respond to my edits with hostility, overall the situation turned out very well compared to her usual behavior.

When Ilena began her attacks against Fyslee again, I pointed out and suggested she discuss the issues with other editors, I discussed some issues with Kmccoy, removed Ilena and Fyslee's fighting from User_talk:Apsedona, and defended myself against Ilena's new attacks.

While to this date I don't know how to properly address behavior such as Ilena's, I agree that Fyslee's response to her attacks against him has often been very inappropriate. His continued arguments with her have been at best nonproductive. At the same time though, he is very responsive to others' guidance on these matters.

Statement by Ilena
I've spent the last months taking Wiki 101. I fully understand now, that many would give me a failing grade. Others have privately and publicly expressed their support of who I am and what my intentions are on Wikipedia. One kind editor said it simply and truthfully, "She just wants to be heard."

For my apparent many errors and missteps, for those I sincerely apologize.

My intentions to edit with facts and verifiability have been my only goal at Wikipedia. I have utter respect for the collaborative process, have many varied interests, and fully believe that I can be a valuable editor. I have studied and have experience with SLAPP suits, public relations campaigns, mass_media, breast implants, Latin America, Civil Rights, , Women's Rights, and First Amendment Issues , bringing decades of advocacy and experience to aid my editing.

Much of what goes on in Public_relations was discussed brilliantly in one of my favorite Seinfeld's The_Opposite When it showed up again on Jon Stewart's Daily Show this week during my research for this Arbitration, I got a hearty laugh and a new love of Wikipedia ... and the amazing job they've undertaken to separate unbiased facts from disinformation and create this much sourced encyclopedia. I often feel that any interactions with Fyslee feels like being in that Seinfeld show, or the logic displayed in this brilliant satireI saw this morning

I realize that it may appear to some that Fyslee is a more flexible kind of guy, ready to admit his mistakes, and I more brash and caustic. I can understand that and have every intention of softening my tone and being less reactive to what feels like censorship and lack of balance to me. I also fully believe that he frequently posts blatant and intentional disinformation, and only when challenged, will ever so graciously rescind the false information, apologize, and make it appear as an honest mistake and he one heck of a guy for admitting his error. False statements he has made around BvR and the still in progress, Barrett Vs Clark cases, could frequently go undetected. I came back to Wikipedia, in fact, when I was told that BvR on Wikipedia made it seem like Barrett lost only on a technicality, and I allowed no description whatsoever. The fact that I am head of a non profit foundation, have been a breast implant awareness advocate and activist for 11 years, a woman's health advocate for decades, been quoted in Wired Magazine, MyDNA, WebMD, Chemical & Engineering News, Glamour, US Magazine, Los Angeles Times, to name a few, mattered none.

(more to come ... will be away for a few days)

Comment by Alan2012
Ilena: "I realize that it may appear to some that Fyslee is a more flexible kind of guy, ready to admit his mistakes, and I more brash and caustic. I can understand that and have every intention of softening my tone and being less reactive to what feels like censorship and lack of balance to me. I also fully believe that he frequently posts blatant and intentional disinformation, and only when challenged, will ever so graciously rescind the false information, apologize, and make it appear as an honest mistake and he one heck of a guy for admitting his error."

Yes, that's his style, as many others have noticed. It works pretty well, too, at least on those who have not picked up on it. Once you see through it, the game is over, but casual or intermittent readers won't see through it. One would hope that the WP arbitrators will pay sufficient attention to see through it. -- Alan2012 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

 * Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Although I would prefer to see an RfC first. Paul August &#9742; 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. FloNight 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kirill Lokshin 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Neutral Point of View
1) Neutral point of view, official policy, requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject be included in an article on that subject.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
2) Biographies of living persons, an 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.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Using online and self-published sources
4) Reliable 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."

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources
4.1) Reliable 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.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremist sources
4.2) Reliable_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.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
5) Conflict of interest, a guideline, warns:

and that editors must always:
 * 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;
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies  on Autobiography and Neutral point of view,
 * 2) avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

"Bite: Can you explain why it’s a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing Wikipedia on behalf of a client? How does the Wikipedia community react to such activity? Wales: It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda."

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of view editing
6) Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy and propaganda
7) What Wikipedia is not, an official policy, precludes use of Wikipedia for advocacy or propaganda.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilena
1) is Ilena Rosenthal, a women's health activist (see User:Ilena  and Ilena Rosenthal on Wikipedia). She was the appellant in Barrett v. Rosenthal, defendant at the trial court level. In addition to that article she also edits with respect to alternative medicine.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Struggle by Ilena
1.1) Ilena has engaged in combative behavior which, besides being rude, betrays misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Ilena
1.2) Ilena in her editing aggressively advances the partisan viewpoints expressed on her website and those associated with alternative medicine.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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,.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee
3) is a health activist who participates in a number of internet sites critical of alternative medicine, see "user=fyslee" and (contains list of sites)

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by Fyslee
3.1) Fyslee has engaged in incivility and personal attacks.

passed 6-3 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources used by Fyslee

 * Note: This header was altered by a motion, passed by the Committee in January 2009.

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

passed 6-3 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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) Ilena is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilena banned from editing alternative medicine
2) Ilena is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to alternative medicine, Quackwatch and related articles, and litigation she was involved with. The ban includes talk pages with the exception of articles which relate to breast implants.

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee is cautioned
3.1) Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits.

passed 7-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Violation of bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by blocks of appropriate length. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * blocked as editing by proxy on behalf of Ilena. 11:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)