all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

As of the opening of this case, there are 12 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Neutral Point of View

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of living persons

2) Wikipedia: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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Using online and self-published sources

4) Wikipedia: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."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources

4.1) Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, corporate, 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Extremist sources

4.2) Wikipedia: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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Though why not either split these as seperate Principles, or merge them as one? All seem to apply...[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I agree with James though. These are not alternatives, although the formatting suggests that they might be. I think these are best presented as three seperate proposals.[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

5) Wikipedia: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 that editors must always:

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Point of view editing

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Advocacy and propaganda

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 [2] 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note minor parenthetical insertion and permalink to user page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Struggle by Ilena

1.1) Ilena has engaged in combative behavior which, besides being rude, betrays misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies [3].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption by Ilena

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fyslee

3) Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a health activist who participates in a number of internet sites critical of alternative medicine, see "user=fyslee" and (contains list of sites)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul August ☎ 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Incivility and personal attacks by Fyslee

3.1) Fyslee has engaged in incivility and personal attacks [4].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Bad enough. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — Oppose for now, while I support the contention, we really need a better example here. I will look for one later. I have read through the evidence and workshop pages again, and while I see several assertions of incivility and personal attacks, I don't see the necessary evidence to enable me to support this finding. Of the few candidate diffs provided this: [5], was the "worst" I could find, and it seems boderline at best. Paul August ☎ 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee

3.2) Fyslee has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references [6].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Paul has a point; but partisan editors can manage to make a whole site look bad, by the way they select from it. Charles Matthews 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — I not sure about labling "Quackwatch" as unreliable. How about changing the title to "Use of questionable sources by Fyslee" (see 3.2.1 following)[reply]
2. FloNight 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Use of questionable sources by Fyslee

3.2.1) Fyslee has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references [7].

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fred Bauder 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The problem is that "reliable" has a particular meaning on Wikipedia, while "questionable" is just vague. "Questionably reliable" might be best, come to think of it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Fyslee

3.3) Fyslee in his editing aggressively advances the partisan viewpoints expressed on his own website and those associated with Quackwatch.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Reaffirmed. While FloNight has a point I still believe there is a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Paul August ☎ 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Stop the presses. Strongly oppose. Fyslee edits are broader than represented by proposed Finding and are supported by the mainstream scientific point of view. This Finding gives a false impression about Fyslee's editing. FloNight 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind, per Flonight.[reply]
3. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think they have a point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

"Tim Bolen"

4) An anonymous editor who identifies himself as "Tim Bolen (quackpotwatch.org and bolenreport.net)" has made disruptive edits [8]

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I see the relevance now, --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I don't see what this accomplishes. In addition it comes from left field, at the eleventh hour, and has little relevance to this case.[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC) While this may be true, I believe that it is important that we be more firm about containing scope on cases. Bolen was not mentioned on the original RFAR, and he does not appear to have been notified as to the presence of this case.[reply]

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Though this probably might as well be a permanent site-ban.[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (Note minor fix.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fyslee banned from editing alternative medicine

3) Fyslee is banned from editing Barrett v. Rosenthal, all articles which relate to Quackwatch and similar activities, and all articles which relate to alternative medicine. He may comment and make suggestions on talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Should there be doubt, check this out. Fred Bauder 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Unconvinced.[reply]
2. FloNight 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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.

Support

1. FloNight 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Fred Bauder 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Charles Matthews 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 00:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

"Tim Bolen" banned

4) The anonymous editor who identifies himself as "Tim Bolen (quackpotwatch.org and bolenreport.net)" is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Per my argument above.[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC). We would need a separate case for this.[reply]

Abstain:

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Log of blocks and bans

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Charles Matthews 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. SimonP 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for advocacy or propaganda. Fred Bauder 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

As of 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC), my understanding of the decision is as follows:

• There are 11 participating, non-recused arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.
• The proposed principles all pass. This includes 4, 4.1, and 4.2, which appear from the comments to be separate proposals rather than alternatives to one another.
• Proposed findings:
  • Findings 1, 1.1, and 1.2 (concerning Ilena) all pass.
  • Finding 2 (concerning Stephen Barrett) passes.
  • Findings 3, 3.1, and 3.2 (concerning Fyslee) pass, but 3.2.1 and 3.3 do not pass.
  • Finding 4 (concerning Tim Bolen) does not pass.
• Proposed remedies:
  • Remedies 1 and 2 (concerning Ilena) pass.

**Remedies 3 and 3.1 (concerning Fyslee) do not pass.

• • • Remedy 3.1 Fyslee cautioned now passes Thatcher131 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remedy 4 (concerning Tim Bolen) does not pass.
• Proposed enforcement 1 passes.
• Per e-mail from the arbitrator who principally drafted the decision, certain personal identifying information about editors will be redacted from the final decision. Newyorkbrad 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

2. Motion to close. Paul August ☎ 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Fred Bauder 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Charles Matthews 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. FloNight 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Four votes noted to close the case. Per policy and procedure, will be closed in 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]