 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / February 2007Ilena Rosenthal now totally BANNED from Wikipedia
***Appears the Arbitrators votes are in! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosen thal/Proposed_decision Ilena banned 1) Ilena is banned from Wikipedia for one year. 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 with relate to breast implants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***Some comments from the 4 Wikipedia arbitrators empowered to 'vote her off the island': "Disruptive editing", "widely acknowledged as extremist", "point of view editing", "an official policy, precludes use of Wikipedia for advocacy or propaganda", "Ilena has engaged in combative behavior which, besides being rude, betrays misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies", "Ilena in her editing aggressively advances the partisan viewpoints expressed on her website and those associated with alternative medicine." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosen thal/Evidence#Ilena_has_been_blocked_indefinitely ***Some comments from Wikipedia editors: "In spite of mentorship from an experienced user, Ilena has not modified her approach to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines " "People are very tired of her", "she edits poorly in general", "she seems not to understand the content policies", "she's rude to other editors" "Ilena edits very aggressively about issues she's involved in in real life;", "Ilena makes off-Wiki personal attacks against specific Wikipedia editors", "she tries to out other editors"; "she constantly assumes bad faith"; "she violates BLP, one of our most important and most strictly enforced policies, and to make things worse, violates it in relation to people she's been involved in real-life litigation with" "The conflict of interest is clear and her refusal to back down despite it is also clear. Ilena is a single purpose account with a strong POV and should be treated as such." "Ilena makes off-Wiki personal attacks against specific Wikipedia editors" "Ilena spammed her web site in her signature, in violation of WP:SIGNATURE" "Ilena was uncivil and committed personal attacks" "but she's been disruptive, prone to personal attacks, and an edit warrior" "She's continued her battle against Barrett here even while this ArbCom case is ongoing" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [The official vote:] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosen thal/Proposed_decision Ilena banned 1) Ilena is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Support: 1.. Fred Bauder 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2.. jpgordon???? 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 3.. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 4.. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 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 with relate to breast implants. Support: 1.. Fred Bauder 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2.. jpgordon???? 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 3.. James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Though this probably might as well be a permanent site-ban. 4.. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain: All the issues that led to this banning were explained to Ilena several times from what I gather in the reading. She was told that the articles were written with the intention of being based on verifiable facts. Though there are other places on Wiki to express viewpoints, the actual articles themselves are not intended to be based on opinions or ideas of one person, but to mimic an encyclopedia in offering valid and verifiable information without bias. It appears that she violated many of the user rules while editing on Wiki. Only one of which was using the real name of Fyslee. She was asked in a moderated community to respect the preference of that user in using a nick. She refused to respect that request. It appears that the people governing this case went well out of their way to offer Ilena guidance and assistance in proper usage of Wiki within it's policies and guidelines. Many warnings went unheeded. Though Ilena seems to think that she did no wrong, or like a child caught in an act of defiance would point a finger at another's actions to take the heat off themselves, the fact remains that Wiki policies are set out and available for reading by anyone with interest. These policies were pointed out to Ilena several times, and she defied them regardless. She added salt to the wound by attacking those who were part of this fiasco off Wiki. Were Ilena's expression of opinions done within the guidelines of Wiki policy and done appropriately, this would not have happened. Ilena treated Wiki as she does everything else...without self control. Her viewpoints are the ONLY valid viewpoints in her estimations, and she attempts to shove them down the throats of those who see differently. It seems that Ilena never learns that she cannot force her opinions on others. She has typed away doing just that on Usenet, and in other venues for years, but Wiki is moderated, and not as easily controlled as Usenet and other open forums. And of course, anyone who has followed Ilena's antics can predict accurately that her replies to her banning from Wiki will be that it is intended to silence her 'message'. She will likely claim that many were in colusion to ban her from Wiki because they are embedded with health care professionals and manufacturers, and that it boils down to m-o-n-e-y. Her disruption and disrespect shown on Wiki, as on any other venue that she has been tossed from, never is a factor in her mind. Sad. > ***Appears the Arbitrators votes are in! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosen thal/Proposed_decision [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > Oppose: > Abstain: |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.