User talk:Ilena: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:26, 19 January 2007

December 26, 2006

I see things differently from my critics here. From July when I posted, my edits were immediately reverted and me threatened with POV. When I discovered that the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article (I'm Rosenthal) was unrecognizable as to the facts of the case, every edit I made to correct it was reverted .. sometimes in seconds. In the last 24 hours, people I've never heard of have gone through and removed every edit of mine and replaced it with the Barrett/Quackwatch/NCAHF POV. As the winning defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett's links are allowed and mine removed. On the Stephen Barrett page under Critics who have been in litigation with him ... again my link removed. This reminds me of the Gladiator Days ... I'm going to write about defeating Barrett & Team in the Supreme Court of California, but Killer Chihauha and MastCell rule on Wikipedia. Have a lovely holiday season all. Ilena 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [[reply]

As an uninvolved party I would humbly suggest you read the Pillars of Wikipedia. They are our hard-and-fast rules (insomuch as any rule here can be hard and fast). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We deal in verifiable facts, not truth. As someone who has been in the legal system, I am sure that you understand this. In the legal system, if you want to make a claim, you must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. On Wikipedia, the way you do this is by citing reliable sources.

If you are having problems doing so, have a misunderstanding with other wikipedians, or just want to talk, you can always post to my talk page, or find me on IRC or email - I can provide contact info for either if you wish, I disable email myself due to harrassing emails from other wikipedia users myself. I know what it is to be a newbie with ideas, and how I was treated, so if I can help clear things up, I don't mind at all. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message on your page. Thank you very much. Ilena 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experiences on Wikipedia

For how I feel about defeating all three so called Quackbusters ... and their attempts to silence my voice and to change the history of this case: [1]

For the mutt and others attempting to bully me ... Woof Woof Woof ... I don't respond to anonymous dogs.

I presume you are referring to me? Please confirm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ilena 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard post

I've posted to the admin noticeboard asking for a community review of your edits and continued disruptive editing. This is a courtesy notification. MastCell 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on this page and it was removed here and on the NCAHF page. I am reinstating it and do not appreciate your attempts to rewrite history and archive your complaints and remove my comments. This has gone on since I exposed NCAHF for not having any apparent legal corporation.

What was removed:

Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please do not revert removal of links to your own site. Per an arbitration committee ruling, links to sites which include attacks on Wikipedia editors may be removed on sight. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Please note you're close to violating WP:3RR with your edits to Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Whoever is removing my links is in the wrong. Pure and utter censorship. Ilena 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted from Talk:Stephen Barrett:

No, it is enforcing Wikipedia policy. If you'd stop warring and spouting accusations of vandalism and bias long enough to learn what the rules are and which you are violating, you might become a good contributor. As it is, you are being disruptive, argumentative, hostile, and generally a pain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am an administrator, and would be happy to help you learn the ropes and rules. Why are you rebuffing every attempt to help you and attacking or ignoring those trying to assist? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't work for Barrett. I don't know Barrett. In fact, I don't care about Barrett. The world is not divided into Barrett henchmen and those who support you - really, truly it is not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see things differently from my critics here. From July when I posted, my edits were immediately reverted and me threatened with POV. When I discovered that the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article (I'm Rosenthal) was unrecognizable as to the facts of the case, every edit I made to correct it was reverted .. sometimes in seconds. In the last 24 hours, people I've never heard of have gone through and removed every edit of mine and replaced it with the Barrett/Quackwatch/NCAHF POV. As the winning defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett's links are allowed and mine removed. On the Stephen Barrett page under Critics who have been in litigation with him ... again my link removed. This reminds me of the Gladiator Days ... I'm going to write about defeating Barrett & Team in the Supreme Court of California, but Killer Chihauha and MastCell rule on Wikipedia. Have a lovely holiday season all. Ilena 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I didn't remove those edits. The links to your site are prohibited by an Arbcom ruling, and the only thing I've done is remove them, after JzG brought that to my attention. Otherwise, I've tried to talk to you here about how to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and been called names and had my posts removed. You seem convinced there is a cadre of Barrett thugs on Wikipedia - and there well may be, but not everyone who disagrees with you is a member, and more importantly, some of what you're doing is against Wikipedia rules. You keep going on about how your edits were immediately removed - guess what, that happens to a LOT of new editors. Not because there is some conspiracy, but because the edits were incorrectly formatted, incorrectly cited, or broke some other rule here. Most editors seem able to realise when someone says "I removed this edit, please read WP:V" that their edit was not cited correctly, for example. From what I've seen, you don't care what anyone is saying. If you see someone saying 'WP:CIVIL is important to us" and asking if you understand that, which is what my very first interaction with you was, you called me a bully, a mutt, and refused to speak to me. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I could have blocked you for that and I dont' think anyone would have disagreed. You're reactive, rude, hostile, and uncivil. Explain to me why anyone should allow you to edit here with your disruptive attitude and hostile demeanor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability vs Truth

No offense, but I think that this might give you some insight into others' actions here:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

(quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is often abbreviated as WP:V) --Ronz 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Vs Rosenthal article and thanks to Wizardry Dragon

Thank you so much Wizard. I can assure you I do apologize for any mistakes I made in the past and I definitely intend to be a better Wikicitizen in the future and move forward from here. There are some issues with the article Barrett Vs Rosenthal {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal] that I would really like help on. I would like people to really understand how this ruling in my favor, protected ISP's, blog owners, and users who post things written by other people. Wikipedia can be mightily protected from nuisance lawsuits as they host the words of others. I have not been able to keep the final words in the article. I'm going to re-open that topic on that page. I hope I have some support. The plaintiffs in this case have been spreading information about this case that is clearly unfactual. This paragraph found on page 39, are the final words of the 41 pages. From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." Unlike those who wish this removed, I feel there was definitely a purpose for Judge Moreno to have added this. All I want as an editor, is the verifiable quote from the Supreme Court of California quote [2]. I would also very much appreciate being able to edit my own user page and have my links restored where they have been systematically removed. There are some excellent articles on this case: [3] [Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet] and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. I'll gladly rewrite my page about my Wiki experiences. I send healing energies and thanks tonite from the jungles. Ilena 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the errors of fact in regard me on your web page. In case there is any question about it, I'm willing to withdraw any claims of WP:NPA related to past actions at this time. User:Ronz and User:Fsylee will have to speak for themselves, but I'd recommend that they also withdraw any such claims related to past actions, while reserving the right to complain about future actions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note for the future, this could have been avoided if instead of removing the links outright, you simply asked, and if Ilene and yourself had kept a cooler head. The Code of Conduct exists not to be used as a policy beating stick, but because adherence to it makes the environment that much better for everyone. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold...

Ilena, I would like to point out that your userpage on Wikipedia is about you. It's not encyclopedic, so really, the best idea if you do want something on your talkpage is to talk about yourself. Tell us about you, what you do, what you believe in, whatever, not all about your court battle - it leads to the idea that all you're about is that court case and I'm sure that's not the case, and am sure there is much more to you than a court battle, even if it was six years of your life, so please, do tell us about yourself a little on your userpage :) If you need help, just ask and I can lend a hand. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am passionate about many things .. and have been involved with Women's Health Issues since the 1960's (while studying for my psychology degree) at the University of Colorado. Thanks for the offer for help on the page. I don't know where to look for all the icons and announcements to put on my page. 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends on what you want to do with it. If you can tell me, I can direct you where you need to look. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one spot to start looking around that's very well-organized [[4]]. Hi, by the way:).Nina Odell 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wiki World. Thanks so much for the tip!Ilena 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty up your page like mine based on what little I know of you, Ilena, if you want. I'm not sure how aware of wiki code you are, but given your posts I hope you don't take offense but it seems that's not your forte. Cheers ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I'm figuring things out with your help. Ilena 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was so bold as to beautify your page a bit with some elements I borrowed from my page, let me know if you like or dislike it :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love it ... thanks so much! Ilena 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hun, I would suggest avoiding external links on your userpage after what happened previously, or at least putting them all together in an "External Links" heading. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone help me do that. Not sure how and am on the run. Ilena 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Hope you don't mind and that you like it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
From some random kid. Nina Odell 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From some random kid. Nina Odell 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Feel free to look around my userpage and steal shamelessly anything you might want. The links are particularly useful. Just hit edit, then cut and paste! You might also consider making sub-pages on your user page Wikipedia:Userpages. Have fun, and Happy New Year! Nina Odell 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're going to want to see is Wikipedia:Uploading images if you want a personal picture. What I use to create framed images now is the "gallery" button, located at the top of the white "edit" screen when you go to edit something. All the buttons are incredibly useful, I just found out. I think I might have more for you in a minute...Hang on...Nina Odell 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out Wikipedia:Images.Nina Odell 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page layout

Hi Ilena,

Happy New Year!

I have tried to improve some small problems on your user page, but I can't figure them all out. I recommend this user, who offers to help other users with their layout:

User:Mets501

Just leave a request on his user talk page.

Regards,

Fyslee 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What issues are there? I did the original layout so perhaps I can assist. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The layout is screwed up, at least to my eye. The user boxes are up to the right, and the major User content is down to the left. Maybe that's the way it should be, but it looks weird. It's no big deal, just trying to be helpful. I thought that fixing the width problem would help, but that wasn't enough. -- Fyslee 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Hi Ilena. It looks like there was an edit conflict when you edited Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal, resulting in some comments being removed accidentally. I've restored everything including your comments. Help:Edit_conflict discusses the situation and what to do about it pretty well. The biggest problem from my perspective is that I sometimes don't notice that there is a conflict until it's too late. --Ronz 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits?

Your latest edits are all marked as minor edits, when they are pretty major. Please fix your settings. -- Fyslee 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena, you have previously] been warned that you are improperly marking major edits as if they were minor. At that time you were advised to change your settings. I see that this is still a problem, and it can be construed as misleading behavior. Please fix this matter. If you need help, just ask. -- Fyslee 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'm not this blunt, but oh come on! If you're worrying about mislabelled edits, then that's reasonable. Using threeatening language, especially over something so (ironically,) minor, on the other hand, is not constructive. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your views on this

Always find your comments interesting. Perhaps you would like to weigh in over at List of articles related to quackery. There is currently a debate as to whether this article should exist or not. Thanks Steth 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett articles

There is a lot of precedent that people directly involved with a person should not be editing related articles. I am formerly asking you to stop editing Barrett related articles. It seems that your edits are not improving these article but instead being used to forward your OWN agenda. Please do not bring your arguments with Barrett into the wikipedia domain, but please do use your energy to edit other articles in wikipedia where you edits will be less contention and more constructive. I hope you can see this is a sensible step forward. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case and claim libel, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it against him. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Wikipedia, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. I disagree that I bring nothing of value to the discussions of Barrett. For example, in June I tried to post that his NCAHF had been suspended for several years, but was blocked and it reverted as it his operation was legal. Now, after much ado, the article is less POV and more balanced. Also, there was a clear error in regards to Barrett Vs Rosenthal regarding Barrett's appeals that I corrected yesterday. No one else would have known this and this unfactual / unverified point would have been left on. I am further confused as to why there are Wiki articles filled with Barrett's viewpoint as a critic, even after courts have ruled him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I could name 20 articles that sound more like Quackwatch (which in itself is an attack site against those he deems worthy of defamation) than anything encyclopedic. I am a serious health advocate and activist with a support group of several thousand of women, run a legal non profit foundation, and have been a target of Barrett's for years. I am not the only activist who has been successful in defending myself against his meritless SLAPP suits. However, I am outnumbered here, as those in his operation, seem to have a full time job defending his articles. Thank you. 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ilena, i was just made aware of the AN from late December. I was not aware of that when i posted the above. Clearly you have seen this advice before and I apologise for piling on. If you follow the advice you have received from wizardry dragon, then i think you will be fine here. David D. (Talk) 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent

Good stuff on the Barrett talk page. Let's keep the editing there for a while until we get something that we can all agree on. Give this a chance, it will work. David D. (Talk) 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the Nazi card?

So now you're comparing me to Nazis? [5] I'm appalled and deeply offended. Please remove it as a show of good faith. Thank you. --Ronz 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it myself. --Ronz 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to continue this? I suggest you discuss it with some editors you trust rather than continuing further. --Ronz 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be as offended as you wish. That's your game. You attack my edits, try to erase me from Wiki, then play victim. You should be ashamed of actions, attempting to change history like you do. Ilena 06:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess asking you to be civil and show good faith is too much to ask then? --Ronz 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Adminstrator's notice board

Ilena - As this does not require immediate adminstrator action, please try dispute resolution. - brenneman 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiStalked by Ronz and fyslee (who works with Stephen Barrett)

Please help me. These editors are a team to bully me and others off of Wikipedia. I edit only in good faith. I have been attempting to edit for several months and continually and immediately get reverted by fyslee and ronz . fyslee claims he is an "attack" when I discuss his work with Stephen Barrett, however, he himself advertises the fact of his years with Barrett. fyslee treats Wikipedia like the Healthfraud List where he is assistant listmaster to Stephen Barrett and they censor anyone who won't march to their drummer. When fyslee first set up his QuackFiles on Wikipedia, he posted links showing that it was his 'responsibility' to post on Wikipedia, as well as run the Skeptic and Quack Webrings. Here is the link where he writes about this, [6] If you read these, which fyslee posted himself on Wikipedia [7] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/SCAM}, you will see Wikipeida is just one of the hats he wears while working with the Barrett empire. As the woman who just beat his partner, Barrett in the Supreme Court of California, I have years of experience with their ways. fyslee cyberstalks me here too, and attempts to undo all my edits here, just like he has censored me on Barrett's Healthfraud List. Together with Ronz, they continually lied that Barrett's NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and removed every link to the State database showing the facts of the suspension on the NCAHF article. Then they join together to complain about being my victim. I am used to fyslee and his attacks and they are the same here on Wikipedia as on the blogs he hosts and his webrings filled with Barrett's viewpoints. Their bullying kept facts about the Barrett operations off of Wikipedia for 8 months because every edit is a fight and ~~fyslee treats this as his job or "responsibility." ~~Because of who they are, they project their bad faith editing onto me. Thank you and have a lovely evening. Ilena 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~ [reply]
~~(Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~

It looks like you're asking someone to paddle off on a fishing expedition. The three links go to two offwiki sites and one 59kb archive talk page without much specific indication of where and what to search for, yet the accusations against a couple of editors are very serious. WP:RFC may be the place to take this because, from the quick browse I gave things, this looks like a mostly civil content dispute between allopathic medicine and alternative medicine proponents. I won't comment on the content dispute, but if you build a more serious case for policy violations with specific page diffs I'll look into that. Durova^Charge 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me. Here is the exact link where fyslee advertises his responsibilities on Wikipedia and on the Healthfraud List. [8] He treats Wikipedia the same as he treats the Healthfraud List where he has been a censor for Barrett for several years. Fyslee brought his and Barrett's hatred of me to Wikipedia from my first edit here. He is used to being able to censor me and others who he disagrees with. When Barrett lost his suit to me, several of his teammates like fyslee have attempted to change history and one way is by reverting my edits. I will get the diffs where he reverted factual, verified information such as Barrett's NCAHF's suspension, and ~~replaced it with his lies. ~~Thank you very much. Ilena 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]
~~(Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~

~~See AN Jan 5 for some history. --Ronz 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
As for my behavior, I have recently been trying to help Ilena out of the problems that she gets herself in, after being very impressed with her attempts to change her behavior here after AN Dec 26. Sometimes she attacks me for this. I'm happy to explain any of my edits, why I did them, and what if anything I'd do differently today. As long as Ilena cannot understand nor follow even basic Wiki policy, she will always be causing problems here. --Ronz 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Removed) You repeatedly reverted verified facts regarding the NCAHF having no apparent legal status and replaced it with nonsense and distraction. It took months to get the facts in that article because of you and fyslee. Every time fyslee links to Barrett, this is the same as linking to his own quackery blogs and webrings filled with Barrett propaganda against me and others they are suing or have lost to. fyslee is the ringmaster for all of Barrett's websites and everyone is linked to him and his vanity sites.. My edits are made in good faith. I am very, very, very familiar with fyslee and your techniques. I spent 6 years defending myself against Barrett and his team in the courts and now on Wikipedia. The more Barrett lost in court, the more fyslee advertised his losing viewpoint on his blogs and webrings. You misrepresent the facts again. Ilena 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~

~~Ilena, you still attack people for nothing more than not agreeing with you. You still attack people for following wiki policy of verifiability, not truth. --Ronz 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
(Removed) Ilena 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, perhaps it would do you some good to edit some other articles. That way, at the very least, if people are wikistalking you, it will be readily apparent. If you want, Gap loss is a stub I have been trying to improve, as is Guy Marchant. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen to Peter. He's trying to help. If you believe you are being stalked, please compile evidence supporting that claim rather than making a number of unsubstantiated claims. If you have technical problems doing this, Peter may be able to help, or you can ask for an impartial advocate to help you. MastCell 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I was editing other articles, and ~~every time, ~~fyslee and ronz were there reverting my edits.Ilena 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]~~
~~(Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~
Then present page diffs to demonstrate that accusation. Another thing that would help is the mentorship program. It doesn't really work to try and mentor someone who holds a serious grudge and accuses the would-be mentor of wikistalking. Bear in mind that references to real world court cases in which editors have been disputants are worrisome from a Wikipedia administrative standpoint. If that crossed the line into threats of additional legal action it would lead to a swift siteban. If the court case bears some functional relevance to your current Wikipedia activities then please present that in a more formal manner to someone who has the expertise to deal with it appropriately, which would probably mean contacting the Wikimedia foundation. I'm a volunteer admin and that's out of my ball park. If that case doesn't have direct bearing on the present dispute then please let it rest. Durova^Charge 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter has been very fair and neutral. However, fyslee/barrett's grudge against me is carried on here on Wikipedia much like on the Healthfraud list where fyslee is used to censoring me and other critics. He comes after me ... not vice versa. fyslee's blogs and webring are filled with my losing plaintiff' rants and lies against me. He brings them here. Any need only see his ~~various responsibilities ~~listed here. [9] ~~He totally treats Wiki like it is Barrett and his Healthfraud list. ~~Have a lovely nite all. Ilena 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~~~~~[reply]
~~(Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~
Agree with Durova. Stop making accusations and provide diffs. If you don't know how, please ask for technical assistance. The only "other article" you've edited, as best I can tell, was Sally Kirkland, and your edits there consist primarily of the repeated insertion of an external link to a site which you apparently maintain, and which links to your own promotional site. You will find you're cut more slack if you appear to be here to build a better encyclopedia, rather than looking for spots to insert self-promotional links. As you are familiar enough now with Wikipedia policies to accuse others of violating them, please re-read conflict of interest. As you consider your personal assertion that "Her breast implant advocacy is very important to Sally. Leave this in." to be adequate grounds for including the link, please re-read the verifiability policy, or Ronz's perfectly civil suggestions on the article talk page. Please believe when I say you've been cut an extraordinary amount of slack - it's incredible that your actions haven't gotten you blocked yet. Meaning, there's still time to demonstrate that you care about Wikipedia and its policies, and are not here solely to make a point. MastCell 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be offensive, but it wouldn't hurt if you assumed some good faith yourself Ronz. And Ilena - I cannot emphasise this enough - please remember everyone here is a valued and respected contributor. Yes even these "Barret" folks. We would not be an impartial encyclopedia if we picked and chose who we let edit. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, this is not the way Wikipedians conduct a dispute. Several editors have advised you how to support your complaint with meaningful evidence or get help in doing so. If you continue to disregard all feedback and respond with inflammatory and uncivil statements I will block you for disruption. So far you have presented no evidence that anyone else has violated a single policy, but you have crossed the line regarding WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:POINT. Durova^Charge 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punative blocks aren' really all that helpful, Durova. As long as the discourse here is somewhat civil and still ongoing, I don't really see any basis for calls of disruption. Ilena's behaviour is improving, so instead of chastising her for the things she is still does wrong, it may be better to guide her further. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punitive? She referred to a court case immediately after I cautioned her to hold off on that and contact the foundation. She's skating on the thin edge of a really swift siteban and I don't think she realizes it. Good judgements seldom follow in the heat of the moment after a conversation descends to comparisons to Nazi death camps. She could still post an adopt-a-user request to her talk page to get some guidance. I'd rather hand out twelve hours today or tomorrow - or at least remind her that I could do it, than hand out an indef. This is a very clear case for a preventative block. I'd rather talk about it and not do it than use the tools, but I stand by the warning. Durova^Charge 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment as "follow my suggestions or be blocked". Perhaps that was not your intention, but it is what it came off as. I do feel compelled to mention that I may not have formally "adopted" Ilena (I disagree with the needless bureaucracy of these programs), I am more or less trying to mentor her. Her behaviour has greatly improved since her first edits - I think anyone that posted to the first ANI post would say so, so as long as we can at least control the negative behaviour, I think it's beneficial to let her try to contribute positively. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: you have more history than I have on this case. If you've seen her show some responsiveness to feedback then I'll trust your call - it hasn't been apparent to me from this thread. Has she shown understanding for how we handle legal threats? If so, then consider the warning revoked. Durova^Charge 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she makes any further legal threats against Wikipedia users or the Foundation itself, I will be the first to support her blocking. Otherwise, there's no good reason not to keep working to improve her contributions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I am unclear where I made any legal (or otherwise) threat against any user or the Wiki foundation. I believe that is a misunderstanding. In fact, the precedence set by my successful defense in Barrett Vs Rosenthal would protect Wiki against meritless lawsuits because of the words of others posted on this site. Ilena 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, it would help you on Wikipedia if, for the time being, you could "let go" of the court case and focus on something else for the time being. I gave you a couple articles you can try editing. Perhaps, to put it a little differently - try getting experience editing smaller pages such as the two I linked, before moving on to bigger ones. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strike throughs of misleading statements~~
I have made a number of strike throughs (and probably missed a few) of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. (I call them "lies" because she has been informed and corrected, yet repeats them.) Her repeated serious charges accusations against me all over Wikipedia (in gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA), as well as outside of Wikipedia against Wikipedia editors, are so confusingly blended, filled with hyperbole, imprecise, without clear diffs as documentation, and so filled with her conspiracy theory opinions, that it is impossible to properly defend myself or really answer them, so I've just signalled that the striked out portions are in one way or another incorrect or deceptive. I also know from experience (and mostly observation of her interactions with literally countless others here and on Usenet), that any attempt to defend myself or comment on her behavior will only lead to more charges accusations from her, so I usually refrain. I'd like to see the situation de-escalate, but I can't just ignore repeated policy violations, especially when she has been repeatedly warned, and then does it anyway, in what could be (and has been) interpreted as deliberate provocation that is very disruptive and time-consuming.
It is not so much the content of her edits that I object to, it's her manner of doing it (which nearly always violates policy or is done uncollaboratively) that's the problem. When done properly, I have always allowed the content to stay, regardless of POV (I'm an inclusionist). As an experienced editor here, I have made my newbie mistakes, and I also know that everything here is available for examination and criticism (so lying would be futile and foolish -- if she would AGF she'd interpret it as "misunderstandings" or "mistakes", never as "lies").
My offer: If I have done something wrong, then I'll be happy to examine the diffs and either explain or apologize (it wouldn't be the first time!), but I won't do it with a hodgepodge jumble of confusing and paranoid accusations. It needs to be (1) specific, (2) short, (3) one-at-a-time, (4) with precise diffs, (5) precise quotes, (6) civil in tone, and (7) very precise accusations. I think that is only fair. Ilena can do it on my talk page, and any other editors who are interested are welcome to join in. If she does it in a civil manner, I won't consider it yet another violation of WP:NPA.
I am making this unnecesary and gracious offer in good faith, so if she misuses it and her tone gets nasty, I'll request that the admins above react with an immediate block, especially considering that no other editor to my knowledge, has ever been allowed to get away with so much and gotten away with it for so long. She has now received so many clear warnings and "suspended sentences" that one more violation should result in a very long block. Only then can we get back to peacefully editing here.-- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [10]. See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [11]. -- Fyslee)~~
Ilena, although the tone of Fyslee's comment is (understandably) rather brusque, I completely support what he says above. The offer is a sound one: if you have issues, you should raise them as he suggests, being specific, short, one-at-a-time, with precise diffs if possible, including precise quotes. This is always sound advice to anyone engaged in a heated dispute. If you try to handle too much at once, or your complaint is that "this article sucks", well, that's just unhelpful - much better to detail what precisely needs fixing, and what is should be fixed to. If you can do this without rudeness and aggression you may get what you want. If you can't, then it's not unlikely that the community will simply wash its hands of you. And remember always that your own personal view of events which directly concern you may be out of line with how others perceive the same events; this does not make either view right, but it is unquestionably the case that many editors have great difficulty being objective when they are personally involved in the subjects under discussion.
Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich for a more extreme example of how the community views people who appear to be here mainly to advance their own external agenda, and see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for an example of the relative weight given to mainstream versus non-mainstream theories, and why.
Fyslee has extended an olive branch, I suggest you accept it with as much good grace as you can muster and proceed on the basis of issues with articles not with editors. I think I am not the only person who is weary with arm-waving and hyperbole (not that you are anythign like the sole offender). Keep focused on the articles and hopefully you will be able to make progress. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Fyslee's user page you comment "You were never "attacked" by me as you falsely claim." I beg to differ Ilena. From an outsiders perspective you are very combative. Obviously "attack" is a strong word, but the cumulative effect of your edits speak for themselves. As I suggested before, editing pages with which you are not personally involved would be the better strategy for an enjoyable experience in wikipedia (see the Agapetos_angel below). I might add, editors in wikipedia seem to have been remarkably tolerant of your disruptions, one presumes to allow you to get used to this more collaborative environment. ~~Unfortunately, you do not seem to be taking the hint.~~ (I retract this part as you are not edit warring like before.)
Read what people are saying, if you continue this way I am certain your editing privileges will be reviewed, this has happened time and time again here (gastrich example above is a good example). Please, it is not usenet, and wikipedia is not about the truth, which seems to be the crux of your conflicts. Editing here is primarily reporting "verifiable information" from "reliable sources" that is "notable" and "not original research". If it fails any of these four criteria then you will have an uphill struggle. Please consider using the talk pages to over come the differences in a collaborative way. Convince people of why you are correct. Getting mad just makes your points less convincing. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Note I have edited this a bit since first posting David D. (Talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
FYI: The Gastrich case went to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich where a one year community ban was endorsed. Subsequent violations resulted in this being extended to an indefinite ban.
Antoher case of interest to you was the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel that resulted in Agapetos_angel being banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. To cut to the chase, review the reason for her ban here and consider how many of those issues also relate to your editing pattern on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some thoughts~~
Okay, as everyone here is quickly seeming to "pile on" to suggestion of wrongdoing, I feel compelled to comment further. Talk about blocks, bans,and punishments is not going to bring about the positive changes you want to occur - if they do bring on any positibve change at all, I suspect that change would simply revert if the axe over Ilena's head were ever remocved, and it is unfair for us to expect Ilena to keep contributing in ANY way if she is editing under duress. My suggestion is to try more proactive ways to help her. You are only throwing fuel on the fire and feeding that "persecution complex" by threatening her, and I indeed do see many of the comments here as threatening behaviour. That is not the wiki way, and I would respectfully ask all involved to kindly stop. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't interpret them as threats, that was not the purpose. But we also have to deal with reality and I'm not even sure Ilena is aware of what can, and does, happen on wikipedia. I think it is useful to observe what has happened in the past. We can learn from history. We can't ignore the fact that this is escalating. Note guy's comment above, he is an outsider to this dispute, so it is obviously being noticed outside the sphere of the Barrett related pages. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When a situation is escalating, we should be diffusing it, not aggrivating it further, and threats only aggrivate an already untenable situation. Ilena made mistakes. We get it. Harping on them continually is just going to perpetuate the disagreement. Instead, suggest remedies for the situation. At this juncture, I do not see blocks as a very tenable remedy, not when there is solid willingness to reform. What has made this issue go on so long, in my opinion, is the unwillingness of many editors to forget and/or forgive, and move on. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe we have a different definition of threat? What above do you perceive to be a threat from myself? This is the real world and explanations of reality should not be interpreted as a threat. It does not serve Ilena to assume there is a never ending supply of good faith. We all know that is not true. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yours in particular - it wanders in places and I found it a little hard to follow but I don't really see it as a threat - but Durova and Fyslees responses have been a little more abrasive, at the least. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to simplify what I wrote in the section above, to make it a little more clear. I'm not sure if I have succeeded but it will do for now. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I think you've gone above and beyond here. That said, actions have consequences. If we keep telling Ilena she needs to be civil, stay cool, avoid personal attacks, not compare other editors to Nazi death camp guards, etc and she continues, then what should happen? At some point, we cross over to enabling. If I behaved as Ilena does and proved refractory to all intervention, I'd be blocked. So would you. We're still hearing the "Ronz/Fyslee made me do it" excuse (coupled with personal attacks) from Ilena. She's still inserting self-promotional external links and charging others with censorship when they are removed. Despite her accusations, she has not provided diffs or evidence for the charges she keeps making, despite suggestions on how to go about this from me and others. Perhaps an WP:RfC is in order, to get some outside input and try to resolve the situation - and as always, there will be scrutiny on the actions of others (Ronz, Fyslee, myself, etc) and their roles in the situation as well (i.e. it would not be a venue to "go after" Ilena). MastCell 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MastCell, so often we hear of the RfC from a negative perspective, however, it is a venue for comment only. It should not be for retribution but for constructive discussion. Personally i think it would help a lot to clear the air and cool down all parties. It would also be a venue for Ilena to air her frustration with respect to the Barrett related pages. We need to think about the big picture here and clearly the talk pages are not working. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way saying that Ilena has not done wrong, the Nazi diff is something that had me itching to say something - but we all have to ask ourselves before we comment "is this comment going to help the matter, or just make it worse?" Knee-jerk negative reactions are what the majority of this has been, and while mostly the people talking at length such as David, Guy, and Mastcell have avoided it, others haven't. All I ask is that people remember there are two sides to every story, and Ilena HAS been attacked here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I haven't counted how many RFCs and requests for investigation I've answered, but they probably number in the hundreds. Most Wikipedians who know my history would say I err on the side of WP:AGF. I was Agapetos Angel's sole defender and I was among the last to come down against Jason Gastrich. I even stood up for the underdog at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors while my sysop nomination was active and took some heat for it. When a user makes strong accusations I ask for evidence. If I ask for evidence three times and someone refuses to provide it - instead digressing about Nazi death camps and court cases - then the odds of that person developing into a productive Wikipedian are very slim. I'm not being sarcastic; I've fielded responses that nearly mirror this one. Volunteer time isn't infinite and at some point every editor has to assume responsibility for his or her behavior here. That's why the tools exist - I don't get a charge out of using them but they're there for a reason. I hope Ilena understands that she's very lucky to have this much attention and support: this site has fewer than 1 sysop for every 2700 accounts. On a cost-benefit basis I'd rather spend my time mediating Talk:Joyce Kilmer where some people are trying to work out a dispute and get a good article featured. Durova^Charge 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I honestly thought I was wasting my time, I wouldn't bother with trying to help Ilena. I find it kind of offensive, really to suggest that it is. I don't have time to waste, and I'm not getting any younger. If I did not have faith that Ilena can reform, I would not bother. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is your standard for taking offense then I wish you chose your own words more carefully. You were rather quick to call my block warning punitive when it wasn't. I seem to be one of the people whose reactions you characterized as knee-jerk and possibly as threats. You haven't retracted any of those opinions even though I explained the preventative nature of the block warning and outlined my long history for being rather the opposite type of Wikipedian. What I can't show you are the private e-mails from editors who have been blocked or banned and seek me out because they know I'll give them a fair hearing. It would be a gesture of good faith to suppose that the very experienced Wikipedians who have weighed in to express doubts about this endeavor may have good cause for our opinions, or at least to impress upon Ilena that we do not do this lightly. If Ilena develops into a productive editor I'll give you a barnstar because you seem sincere and I'd be happy if you prove me wrong. Yet I neither hesitate nor apologize about calling this a low percentage situation. Respectfully, Durova^Charge 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no reason despite her missteps to question Ilena's overall intentions on Wikipedia, and therefore I assume good faith. It would be refreshing if some more people could start doing that. As Werdna said on the ProtectionBot RFA, bruised egos are secondary, the encyclopedia comes first, and I sense that some bruised egos in here perpetuating this argument. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, but aren't Guy and Durova expressing an outside opinion? Why would their egos be bruised? David D. (Talk) 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy's response has been quite reasonable. Durova's seems to be saying "I know how these things go, and they don't work out well", which really seems to be assuming bad faith to me. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words into my mouth: that reflects poorly on both of us. If the effort I have exerted building a reputation for fairness and integrity fails to sway you, then consideration for Ilena - who is probably pretty confused by now - ought to have put an end to that. Good intentions are not a substitute for accountability, nor are we required to continue assuming good faith at this point. The editor she targeted in the post about Nazi death camps cried foul and she has been unrepentant. Her other accusations would be damning if she supported them, but she neither did so so nor retracted the claims. These are insults and character assassination. Your defense of of those actions has amounted to tu quoque, which - in a typical unblock request - cuts no ice. It's counterproductive to act as if she were exempt from WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL (and possibly WP:COI as well), then employ logical fallacies as justification for her policy infractions and impugn the motives of thoughtful responses. When another editor characterized this as enabling I worried that word was too strong. I'm not so sure now. Given your reactions to my other statements - and how nothing reflected a perusal of the relevant links - these may be wasted words. I've really never encountered this from an editor who has your amount of experience before and I'm baffled. Durova^Charge 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Minor correction to the above: I'm not a sysop. MastCell 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Some honest questions, would appreciate answers~~
I can honestly say, I have every intention of being a quality editor. I would also like to say, that from my first edits, I have been overwhelmed by fyslee ... someone I have known for years & years & years, and someone who has censored me for years from his and Barrett's Healthfraud List. It is my honest and experienced opinion, that he treats Wikipedia and any criticsm, like Stephen Barrett treats any critics ... threats of lawsuits and immediate censorship. I love the Wiki concept and can certainly play by rules, and feel that I have knowledge and experience that can benefit this encyclopedia.
1) Is it factual that fyslee can remove any comments he desires and claim they are attacks, even when they are not? 2) Is it factual as his talk page states, that he has full control, can censor at will, and that his rules must be followed? 3) If 2) is factual, why does he then fill other talk pages (mine included) with his declarations that he has been "attacked"? This happened from the first day I attempted to edit on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).
Ilena, please review the above discussion and the responses you got at WP:AN/I. No, Fyslee is not allowed to do the things you describe, but you need to provide evidence that he is doing them in the form of diffs. If you don't know how, Peter Dodge or someone else will help you. However, if you keep repeating your charges umpteen times without providing any evidence to support them, despite repeated pleas that you do so, then you are attacking Fyslee. It could even appear that you're attempting to "bully", "harass", or "censor" him. Provide evidence. If you need technical assistance, ask for it. Does that make sense? MastCell 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, please study the edit history on my talk page regarding what she's claiming. You'll find there is a history behind it. She has made serious charges accusations, but seems to think she has no obligation to document them. That is not true. Her charges accusations are very serious, and are extremely gross violations of WP:NPA, yet no admin blocks her! I have graciously provided a fair forum where she can calmly present evidence of my purported misdeeds, and if done as instructed, I won't even consider a repetition (as instructed) of her accusations as violations of WP:NPA. (If I don't do that, then I can't get to the bottom of this!) I am more than willing to apologize if shown wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. She is refusing to meet her obligation. Please encourage her to cease and desist all other activities at Wikipedia until she has fulfilled them on my talk page. -- Fyslee 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [12]. See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]~~
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [13]. -- Fyslee)~~
~~Documentation of inaccuracies by Ilena~~
(Here's a cleaned up version of my documentation that was deleted by Peter. Such documentation should never be deleted!):
Ilena writes above:
~~"Fyslee is now threatening to SLAPP sue me claiming I have 'libeled' him."~~
Please provide a diff that proves the truth of that statement. I obviously dispute it.
Here is precisely what I wrote:
"It's her interpretation of things and the way she frames them in her charges accusations that is the problem. I believe she is grossly misrepresenting things in an obvious effort to injure my reputation (a portion of the definition of libel ⁽¹⁾ -- but no threat of a lawsuit here), and I'd like to be able to explain things for her (and whoever cares to listen)."
Where is the threat of a SLAPP suit? I have expressly written that there is "no threat of a lawsuit here." Can that be anymore clearly stated?
Now that I have provided fresh documentation refuting her clear statement above, 'is any admin going to do anything about this? I'm tired of her ~~charges ~~accusations against me which are wasting our time. -- Fyslee 07:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (Original: 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC))~~~~ [reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [14]. -- Fyslee)~~
~~Request for Mediation~~

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

~~Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.~~
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

~~✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Thank you. I'll go read up on this. Ilena 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Block warning~~
Site policies hold you responsible for acting conservatively about allegations against other editors. That means you must be forthcoming with page diffs and other relevant evidence that connects all the dots to your conclusion, and retract what you cannot support. If you read something into a certain piece of evidence and the same meaning wouldn't be clear to a reasonable person, then the burden of proof is on you to supply more evidence that fills those gaps. You say you've won a court case at the California state supreme court so you ought to be more familiar with that basic principle than most of the editors at Wikipedia. As of now I hold you fully responsible for supplying adequate and reasonable evidence. This cannot be unduly burdensome to the successful plaintiff of a prominent lawsuit. I will use my sysop tools up to and including blocks and bans to enforce that expectation. Durova^Charge 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. Ilena, people will give you a fair hearing if you provide evidence. They will lose patience if you repeat charges without providing evidence. If you need technical help, ask for it. MastCell 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thank you Durova. I have been trying to get her to provide diffs on my user page, but she refuses. -- Fyslee 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Fyslee Claims he Was "Libeled" ... He can provide Evidence of libel here~~
Fyslee claimed: Just because she libels me, I am not obligated to sue her. Very interesting supposition ... false, defamatory, but interesting. Now let him list the "libels" as he claims. Have a lovely evening all. Ilena 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/me sighs. Okay. This is exactly sympthomatic of this dispute. Everyone is talking past each other without providing any evidence. It is all just hot air and bruised egos, and I'd suggest everyone just calmed down and tried to contribute in good faith to the Request for Mediation. The alternative tends to be messy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She posted that while I was composing my final warning, so I'll give her a chance to strikethrough that allegation. I'll wait a reasonable interval after her next post to this page and if it isn't retracted she's blocked. Durova^Charge 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While dispute resolution is open I would strongly suggest you didn't. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Wikipedia dispute resolution creates no shield against user blocks. Editors are fully responsible for their behavior and may be blocked during any phase of it by the same standards that would apply in any other situation. Blocking is actually rather commonplace during user conduct WP:RFC and arbitration. The only thing that active dispute resolution typically forestalls is WP:RFAR. I retracted my first warning when you requested it. The subsequent ones are very firm. Durova^Charge 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, honestly, I am very disappointed in you. Administrators on Wikipedia are chosen for their good sense, social clue, and ability to handle difficult situations. If you were a new admin, or one that has not dealt with these kinds of issues before, I would extend the benefit of the doubt. You have, however, by your own admission above. Threatening blocks only escalates the situation, and should only be used as a large measure. Telling someone you will block them if they don't shape up only aggravates the situation further in most cases. You should be diffusing a situation, not perpetuating an argument. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over the reason for my warnings before. These are routine for the actions Ilena displayed. Indeed, as a result of your vigorous defense I have been somewhat more conservative than my typical response, which is already rather forgiving as sysops go. Raise this at WP:AN for review if you really think I've crossed the line. If a consensus of admins support your assessment I'll revert the block myself. I'm pretty confident they'll agree this was appropriate. Durova^Charge 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~24 hour block~~
Specifically for this post.[15] It is unacceptable to alter another editor's section heading into something inflammatory, then level false accusations of improper behavior. Durova^Charge 00:11, 18 January 2007
Excuse me, but several of us have had entire posts deleted by fyslee. Now he has made false and inflammatory claims that I "libeled" him and scores of accusations of "attacks" which are not substantiated. Claiming to be "libeled" is a very, very serious accusation. Since fyslee has so far refused to provide evidence of this so called "libel," perhaps you would like to diff them for me. Thank you very much. Ilena 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am very confused. I just read fyslee's talk page and it is so distorted and inaccurate and chopped up, it gives an entirely false picture of what is happening on Wikipedia. Why I would be blocked when he is allowed to distort reality seems very un-encyclopedic to me. I look forward to mediation. Ilena 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to contest your block, you may use the {{unblock}} template. I would suggest just taking the day or so off to cool off. This whole thing is escalating needlessly because people cannot leave well enough alone. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Contact me as necessary for follow-up. Suggested reading to all concerned: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova^Charge 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
To Peter: if you read the diff for which I blocked Ilena, it shows clearly that she altered fyslee's heading into something uncivil as she accused him of improper action. There can be no good faith interpretation of that and blocking is the routine administrative response.

To Ilena: editors are free to delete posts from their own user talk pages. That, unless you demonstrate otherwise with page diffs, is what WP:AGF requires me to presume Fyslee has done if that happened at all. Also, I don't like to repeat myself regarding tu quoque. If you wish to earn goodwill I suggest you take this opportunity to retract unsupportable accusations here at your talk page and supply page diffs for the things you can support.
~~Durova^Charge 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
With all due respect, I feel you are being very biased in blocking me and allowing fyslee to continue his accusations which I believe are baseless. He has accused me of "libeling" him, a very, very, very serious accusation. Yet, you seem unconcerned with that and he refuses to provide any evidence of libel whatsoever. Perhaps you would be good enough to have him support his inflammatory claim of "libel." Thank you.
He specifically disavowed any actual legal threat so your concerns are largely hypothetical. He also supplied a reference for his definition. I don't know upon what basis you claim to give an opinion of libel...are you a lawyer? I happen to have studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum. So while I'm not qualified to offer legal opinions or advice, I know enough to say that I would not conduct myself in the manner you have chosen because I would not want to expose myself to the risk of a libel allegation. WP:AGF would object to characterizing my decision as biased, yet if you think it unjust you are welcome to take Peter's advice and request an unblock. Durova^Charge 01:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ilena, I think it would be in your best interests to just wait the block out. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually no one would hold it against her if she tried a request. I suspect, however, that her time would be better spent verifying and retracting statements she has already made. That would demonstrate a willingness to accept feedback and adjust to site standards that would weigh favorably in any future decision I might make. Durova^Charge 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agreed. My offer to Ilena still stands. She can provide evidence for her ~~charges ~~accusations there. -- Fyslee 07:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]~~
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [16]. -- Fyslee)~~
Here's what I experienced. (1)Fyslee has made false and defamatory claims that he was "libeled" by me. (2) He repeatedly deletes what he doesn't want the public to know, making unsubstantiated claims of being "attacked." His claim that he is not going to sue me even though I "libeled" him is, to use Wiki Terms, "weasel." I have asked for evidence of the supposive "libel" and he refuses to provide it. If you would like me to carefully illustrate his years of working closely with Stephen Barrett, including as one of the censors on the Healthfraud List, I will readily do so. Did he claim he would sue me, no. However, he made a much more egregious claim ... he falsely accused me of libeling him as if he had a case against me. As someone who just defeated three members of the Healthfraud List where he has been Assistant Listmaster for several years in a classic SLAPP suit, indeed I take his false accusations seriously. [17] Your decision to block me and not even question him about his libel claims seems extremely biased and far from neutral. Thank you and good nite. Ilena 04:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That link gives me a 404 error. A claim that fyslee defamed you means nothing to me unless you support it with specific diffs. Fyslee has already invited you to provide evidence and has volunteered to retract any problems that you substantiate. So no administrative intervention is necessary in that area at this time. Whether or not you do so has no bearing on my block decision here: a choice to ignore my references to tu quoque will not establish that fallacy as a basis for unblocking. Likewise, repetition of previous arguments I have already rejected is a futile strategy when interacting with me. Another administrator may judge differently. If there is any doubt on this point I'll express it plainly: an unblock request is your right at Wikipedia. You are fully empowered to exercise it. I suggest you would spend your time better by following my suggestions only because you'd certainly earn my goodwill by supplying diffs and strikethroughs - that would probably earn goodwill from any administrator who visited this page. It's your choice if you do both, or either, or neither. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova has made some good suggestions ("earn my goodwill by supplying diffs and strikethroughs") above. OTOH, removing evidence will not earn any goodwill. Quite the contrary! I'm also going to use the time constructively by making an attempt to defuse the situation. -- Fyslee 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your claim that fyslee has "volunteered to retract any problems" is misleading, although now he believes in God because of your blocking me. Far from retracting anything, he continually denies that every link that he posts to Quackwatch, Barrett, or the suspended NCAHF is one link away to his Webrings and blogs full of Barrett propaganda against me, and his own defamatory "quack files." One click on any of these pages proves it. He is the Webring Leader that every Barrett website is promoted on. His "Just because she libels me, I am not obligated to sue her" is attack and doublespeak. It's a false hypothesis and a unsubstantiated false claim of libel. For 6 months by this sort of game, he kept the verified fact that his and Barrett's NCAHF was suspended off of Wikipedia. You block me for changing an attack title of his on my page, and reward him for removing every trace of comments that he did not like on his own page. This is the epitome of "disruptive editing." A look at his talk page gives no clue to discussions about him ... only his viewpoint of himself as an innocent victim who has been "libeled" when this is clearly not the case. He has been bullying me on Wikipedia and now he has your support. I feel sick to see that Wikipedia is close to recreating the NCAHF's horrific "Quack List" of 1999 [18] and fyslee's current "Quack Files" [19]. He and QuackGuru are attempting to recreate these same defamatory, pejorative, subjective lists now on Wikipedia ... everything I thought Wikipedia was not. [20]Ilena 07:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(arbitrary outdent) Thank you for providing a functional link regarding the court case you have been asserting. It demonstrates to my satisfaction that I stated reasonable expectations in the block warning above. Actions that take place outside Wikipedia - at other websites or in other realms of the real world - would not have bearing on administrative decisions here unless very special circumstances applied. I do not close deletion discussions so if that is an issue for you then contact someone else when your block expires, or petition Peter to do so on your behalf if timeliness matters. Other than that you demonstrate very little other than your own intractability. It is pointless to attempt to dictate to me what the epitome of disruptive editing is: I happen to be the editor who wrote the lion's share of that guideline. Durova^Charge! 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding fislee's comment above, it doesn't actually remove evidence when Ilena deletes something from her talk page because the posts remain in the page history. It's mildly preferable to retain posts (except blatant things such as profanity) and archive when the page gets oversized. The only user page deletions I frown upon are removal of valid block warnings. Durova^Charge! 08:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree, but in the case of such currently contentious issues, her deletion can be interpreted as an attempt to remove documentation of her disputed behavior and the warnings of others. She has done this before on her talk page, so I created archives back then and placed the totally deleted information there. Archiving is better than deleting. -- Fyslee 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, with respect to this comment: "A look at his talk page gives no clue to discussions about him ... only his viewpoint of himself". If you look at the top right of his talk page the archives are there for anyone to puruse. For example User_talk:Fyslee/Archive_4. David D. (Talk) 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the edit history and archives tell it all, and it's only one post that I archived that has repeatedly been reinserted by her that I have deleted. Ilena uses a shotgun approach that only hits with a couple pellets, while most are misleading misses. I am a (former) hunter (16 Greenland reindeer, among others) and prefer the rifle approach. It's specific and easily documentable. Either you hit or you miss. I am asking her to provide specific documentation in the form of diffs for her charges accusations against me. No more endlessly repetitive shotgun blasts of the same ~~charges ~~accusations that hit and miss god knows what. Recycling the same ~~charges ~~accusations is getting nowhere fast. It's impossible to deal with. -- Fyslee 08:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~~~~~[reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [21]. -- Fyslee)~~
~~David, Fyslee: there's no need to examine those assertions or defend against them until or unless she substantiates them. Durova^Charge! 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
If I understand you correctly, then I beg to differ. If she doesn't provide documentation of her assertions, then she shouldn't make such serious charges accusations against me in the first place. That type of behavior is bad faith personal attacks, a practice forbidden here at Wikipedia. Such a practice (of making undocumented charges accusations, and then refusing to provide documentation) violates principles of ethics, honesty, accountability, skepticism, etc.. Such serious ~~charges ~~accusations and claims must be documentable and the documentation presented on demand. -- Fyslee 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [22]. -- Fyslee)~~
And if she continues on her present course, retracting nothing and substantiating nothing while creating more of the type of accusations that prompted the block warnings, then she can anticipate that another and longer userblock will follow rather swiftly after this one. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When fyslee set up shop on Wikipedia, he posted links to his webrings, his quack files, and advertised his job as the assistant listmaster to Barrett. When anyone else points those facts out, he screams "ATTACK" and removes them. He treats, now with your help, Wikipedia like the Healthfraud list, and censors anything that doesn't appeal to him. It is fully substantiated that every click on the links to quackwatch.com or ncahf.org links directly to his webrings and blogs, a fact that he denies to this day. You can be very happy to know that team mates of fyslee's are posting on usenet the portions of this discussion that he wants posted. He claims his team mates on the Rag-tag Posse are not team mates, that it is but a "spoof" ... when in fact this is a list of my three losing plaintiffs along with their publicists on usenet, Wikipedia, the healthfraud list, and various blogs, spreading the healthfraud agenda and attacking those who Barrett etc. are suing. [23] I feel very sad that Wikipedia is allowing this identical agenda replicated here. What is and what is not 'quackery' is totally subjective, but any who read this will see that fyslee's bias is clear. Look at his comments on "attack." [24]Ilena It honestly makes me nauseated to see this clear agenda in an encylopedia. Ilena 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, clearly some wiki editors are more opiniated than others, but I don't see that fyslee is going unchecked. There are plenty of editors that are debating and revising the content he adds. You could be one of them too, if you treat this as an academic exercise rather than a fight to be won. There are plenty of people i have seen negotiate with fyslee. i agree it is often a slow battle of attrition to reach a compromise, however, the compromises are reached. You need to watch these other contributors and see how they work to reach these compromises. One problem with your editing style, at present, is that you lose potential allies. This is a bad strategy since allies are critical to reach your favourable consensus. This is not about who can shout the loudest, or even who is right. It is about presenting an argument so solid and reliable that you can convince people that your preferred version of an article is the best. It is always a slog in these controversial topics and it requires patience and i you don't adjust to that editing environment you will always find it hard to be productive here. Just my two cents... David D. (Talk) 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, one more post of that nature and I will extend your userblock. I have spelled out the standards that you are expected to follow. This isn't a game. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, you may want to look at the contributions of User:I'clast and User:Levine2112. They're both prolific editors who are favorably disposed toward alternative medicine and negatively disposed toward Quackwatch/Barrett (in fact, the "Criticism" section of the Quackwatch article has been the longest part of it since before I came on the scene, which hardly argues for censorship). I'clast and Levine hardly shy away from arguing their cases, but they manage to do so in a way that avoids disruption of Wikipedia. If I could offer a constructive suggestion, it would be to look at the contributions of experienced editors who (I think) share some of your viewpoints, and see how they go about editing and commenting. MastCell 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~That's a very good suggestion. Durova^Charge! 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Cleanup~~
I have removed several contentious sections from this talk page. They are available in the history for those that need them. These sections were only fueling debate that needs to end - now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~If Ilena posts a request for unblock I recommend the reviewer examine the full version.[25] Durova^Charge 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~This link is probably easier on the sanity of a reviewer. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Defusing the situation~~
I am going to make an attempt to somewhat defuse this situation by editing some of my later posts (just follow my edit history to see where I do it, and notify me on my talk page if I miss any that should be changed).
My offer to Ilena still stands, but Ilena is refusing to accept my offer for her to provide diffs and evidence for her serious charges accusations against me, and now she has found what she attempts to use as an illegitimate excuse to turn the tables, which is just another attempt to avoid providing proof of her very serious ~~charges ~~accusations against me. No, it's her turn to provide evidence, not my turn.~~~~
I am now going to begin removing that illegitimate excuse by editing my posts. She won't like it, but I'm being totally upfront and transparent in my actions, and this is a good faith effort to simplify things. I'm going to replace any of my uses of the words "libel" and "attack" with "charges" "accusations", or something like that, as the situation warrants. Since I have never had, or even hinted at, any intent to sue her, the point of whether a specific ~~charge ~~accusation of her's is "libelous" or not is moot. I regularly get libelled and receive death threats without going to the police or courts, and this situation is no different.~~~~
She can't deny that she has been making such ~~charges ~~accusations (which at Wikipedia are considered attacks against another editor), and thus her obligation to provide evidence still stands. -- Fyslee 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~ [reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [26]. -- Fyslee)~~
~~Very good doublespeak. You have claimed you were libeled by me. Please provide the diff. Thank you. Ilena 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yes, I wrote that and have retracted it in good faith. You can no longer use it as an excuse to avoid providing the requested documentation of your ~~charges ~~accusations against me. -- Fyslee 09:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [27]. -- Fyslee)~~
Blows referee whistle • "Charges against me"? No. No. NO. That is far enough. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is not a courthouse. Stop treating it like one, if you wish to remain here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations might be a better word than charges and Fyslee should insert page diffs to that statement, but there's no call for boldface and capital letters. I've read the retraction and Fyslee's post to that effect is basically sound. I'll be the referee here. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's call them "accusations" (or is that also going to get censored? I am seriously wondering if Peter has even read them at all!). Since when is stating the case in common language, without using pejoratives, expletives, or other objectionable language, is forbidden here? We are adults.
Yes, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is not a courthouse, so why is she bringing her off-wiki Usenet battles here and accusing me, thus using Wikipedia as her battleground, and violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and getting defended for doing it? Where is the fairness in that? Why am I, the victim of her accusations, being treated this way by Peter? He should be advising his charge of her duty to not do such things, and that she has incurred a duty to provide documentation, or retract every one of her accusations against me, with a huge public apology on all the pages where she has placed them.
She has accused me repeatedly of very serious things, and yet she refuses to document her accusations. I guess I'm now going to have to further censor my perfectly proper use of the word ~~"charges" ~~by substituting it with "accusations." Fine. I'll do it right now. -- Fyslee 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [28]. -- Fyslee)~~
A few things to Fyslee: first, diffs are what I like to see - please substitute the links above and the "follow my edit history" with diffs. Upon further consideration Ilena has made a couple of allegations that merit specific attention:
. You are an employee of the person who was on the other side of that court case she was involved in.

. You have inserted links to that organization's website into a large number of Wikipedia articles.
If both of these allegations are correct then you have crossed the line regarding WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If they're true then the appropriate way to rectify the situation would be to add a statement declaring the affiliation on your user page and move those links from each of the articles to the article talk pages along with a statement that you work for the organization, you suggest the link would be helpful to readers, and then let other Wikipedians put it back in the article if they agree. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, this is precisely what I'm trying to get her to document, because i dispute her charges accusations. I have never been an employee of Barrett in any manner. I even stopped my function as assistant listmaster after there had accumulated over three thousand unread mails from the list on my PC! I rarely post and Barrett has even ignored or rebuffed my rare suggestions for changes, that's how "close" our relationship is! I have, just like practically all other editors, followed accepted and expected practice by adding internal embedded references and external links that are specific to the topic at hand, and that as have been V and RS. As long as any link is acceptable by Wikipedia standards (not the standards of some editors on the other side of the POV fence here....;-), then I cannot be clandered for such actions. This includes (among many other sources) occasional links to specific articles at Quackwatch written by various experts on the subjects. Other editors of opposing POV (it's good they are here) have naturally disputed those additions at times, and concensus and collaboration has been followed as is expected. That's how things work here. Since these are controversial subjects, it is only natural and expected that there will be some back-and-forth discussions and disputes between editors of differing POV, and that too is normal and perfectly proper, as long as a collaborative spirit is maintained. Now I just want her to document her charges accusations. It is only the promoters of subjects criticized by Quackwatch that complain, while scientists, universities, librarians, government agencies, Consumer Reports, and consumer advocates all consider Quackwatch a good source of consumer protection information written for the ordinary consumer by some 150 experts in various fields. I don't know how many such links I have added, but it certainly isn't as many as is claimed. I have even removed links to Quackwatch when I have found them to have been added inappropriately or superfluously. I am perfectly willing to discuss her ~~charges ~~accusations once she provides the documentation for them. The ball is in her court. -- Fyslee 20:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]
~~(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [29]. -- Fyslee)~~
Fair enough: you declare that you used to volunteer for Barrett's website and have ended your affiliation. So unless Ilena presents evidence to the contrary, WP:COI doesn't appear to be the problem she claims. I still want to see diffs for the assertions higher up at this thread. And per Peter, a strikethough of charges that changes to assertions would be a good faith gesture - not a big issue in my eyes but a courtesy to those who care. I don't consider his citation of WP:NOT to be appropriate for that. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Durova's point of tu quoque becomes relevant here, too. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Also, this link Ilena provided above: [30] concerns me greatly, as it seems there is a conflict of interest. She has provided some evidence, I wish people would stop glossing over it and accusing her of not backing up her claims. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, precisely what is the charge accusation in this case? Are you now adopting her behavior? Please explain and provide the precise wording that is problematic. I'm all ears. I have been -- at your demand -- kissing my own A**, in an exercise of unreasonably long-suffering good faith. Now please provide documentation. -- Fyslee 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of tu quoque there? If Fyslee doesn't work for Barrett as Ilena has been claiming then WP:COI isn't an obvious call. So, by default, we assume his insertions of reference links are done in good faith. Tu quoque refers to the fallacy that actual wrongdoing is negated by the faults of the other party. Do you see another allegation on this point that he failed to address? There's no fallacy to answering an allegation and then making counteraccusations. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is refusing to provide diffs because Ilena won't. It's childish, and is only making things more untenable. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are you refusing my request of you (above) to provide an explanation for your repetition of her accusation? -- Fyslee 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Is it my turn to say "you first?" No, I'll be better than that. Simply put, her accusations seem to have weight, from my following of links on that site, and you should either disprove them, or avoid editing articles that constitute a conflict of interest. THat shouldn't be hard - there are 1,500,000 articles on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be a violation of logical thinking and the rules of debate for you to attempt to turn the tables (by saying "you first"), as you have done above. You have repeated Ilena's accusation, and you are now just as obligated as she is to provide the evidence for your accusation against me.
You have at least given me an idea of what it is. It's a COI problem. Please document the problem by providing your argumentation. Where is the problem? Word it carefully so I can understand it. -- Fyslee 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regarding that link, I've already read it. Reading it twice does not change one word of what I've written. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Recommendation~~
Ilena, I think the site's formal mentorship program Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user would be a good thing for you. The informal mentorship you've gotten from Peter, although devoted and sincere, hasn't entirely pointed in the right direction. I'm concerned that if you follow his advice and opinions you will continue to encounter problems - problems which would likely lead to much more administrative action than your current 24 hour block. This is not the first time you've been blocked and once things reach a certain threshold they often escalate. I would rather see your dispute resolve itself and see you develop into an established and trusted Wikipedian.
You can join the program during this block by clicking edit, removing the hidden colon from this template Adoptme, and posting it to this page. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same template, different way of linking: paste the following (without the "tl|": {{Adoptme}}. Ilena, I think this is an excellent idea. An adopter is someone who can help you understand and follow Wikipolicy, so you can edit more productively, rather than get into situations where your behavior, rather than your proposed edits, are the focus. That will help you edit far more effectively. As a side note, you can also request adoption by a specific adopter, by posting a note on the talk page of an editor from the list at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no recollection of being blocked before. Could you please provide me with that information. Thank you. Ilena 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your block log is here: [31]. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ilena 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, due to how long ago your ~~two~~ previous weeklong blocks happened I decided to be lenient. I won't be lenient if I extend this block or block again on the heels of this one because at that point you'd be on your ~~fifth~~ fourth block. Durova^Charge! 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the log, it was the same block, repeated twice in the log. I should speak to a developer about that hiccup, as it's obviously causing confusion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Duly amended. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Bye for Now~~
Thank you very much to Wizardy Dragon and others who I believe are neutral and unbiased. For the others, with all due respect, because fyslee may say that all his work on the Webrings that promote Barrett's "anti-quackery" websites, and the years of working as NCAHF's assistant webmaster were all voluntary, does not make it so. There is an "anti-quackery" industry that they promote --- selling books, memberships, including soliciting donations for NCAHF.org. No one has shown it to be a legal entity in any state. In fact, what led to the early block against me was fyslee removing the link to the State of California website that verified it's suspension in May, 2003. You may believe that this is just a hobby of theirs, but, as one who has been a target of this team for 6 years, defeating them all the way to the Supreme Court of California, I disagree. Public relations, or "the media" (as Barrett calls himself) is big business, and pretending otherwise is at best, naive. I've got some traveling to do again, so I will leave Wikipedia for a while. There are those far more patient than I to deal with those like fyslee keeping verifiable facts off of Wikipedia. God bless those that will continue to stand up to this "anti-quackery" network. They have harmed too many with their subjective, perjorative "quack files" and "quack lists." (removed) Off on another adventure. Ilena 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A repetition of such accusations does not make them true. My activities are purely a hobby. I earn nothing but attacks from Ilena and others like her. I have no connections with any in the drug industry, AMA, CDC, FTC, FDA, WHO, etc.. (I'm just an ordinary Illuminatus ....;-) I have seen too many deaths, including in my own family, from following the "advice" of alternative medicine true believers and outright con artists. My own mother and both of my MIL (my FIL remarried, and she too died) died at their hands. I have previously treated patients (as a PA), using quack methods, so I have been a personal user and practitioner of alternative methods, all before I learned better. I have now, as a professional PT, an interest in protecting people from being deceived. I do not demand the banning of all alternative methods, only that they not be promoted using deceptive advertising. I have no sympathy with the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, and consider the use of drugs to often be unnecessary, but I am not fanatically against them. They have their place. Ilena has no real knowledge about my personal beliefs, since she has never asked. She just assumes lots of things, then finds some information of some type about me (the only part of her accusations that has some relation to reality), then spins it through her conspiracy theories, filters it through her hatred of all things scientific and conventionally medical, then shapes it as a weapon against anyone that might have some remote acquaintance or sympathy for the views of medical scientists and Stephen Barrett, and promptly places it in her shotgun and shoots it in the direction of her target, hitting with two pellets and missing with the other 148. Now you know just a little bit about me, and she is wrong about me. -- Fyslee 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the NCAHF antiquackery "industry" of volunteers and websites is somewhat under $25 grand a year, while the infomercial and fake meds industries and scammers they seek to expose make millions. There is no comparison, especially when one considers that one industry exploits and cheats people, while anti-quackery activists seek to warn them, and don't even sell them drugs or other products. -- Fyslee 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fyslee, I appreciate your situation, but letting Ilena push your buttons and get you wound up like this is counterproductive. Ilena's behavior has drawn community/admin scrutiny. I've been in your situation and I know it's tough, but I'd suggest that you step back and let process take its course. Ilena's behavior is unacceptable, but getting wound up to the point that you cross the line yourself will only compound the problem. MastCell 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. It's pretty hard to just lie down and take it, since I have a highly developed sense of justice and don't take kindly to being falsely accused. As long as there are admins who monitor the situation in a responsible manner (as we have witnessed here), I can relax and let things take their course. Maybe now we can get back to creating an encyclopedia. This has taken all my available time here. Your advice is wise and I'll attempt to follow it in the future. If and when I fail (I'm not perfect), please remind me! -- Fyslee 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fyslee: retract, strikethrough, and be conservative about making adverse assertions again - particularly without the necessary evidence. Although you have been cooperative about retractions and strikethroughs, such statements really shouldn't be made at all. Please read this essay (which is good reading for all here) and disengage. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that excellent essay. Very interesting and well-written. Some of the principles are useful here, but since the conflict here isn't about editing issues, but about how to deal with being on the butt-end of very serious personal attacks charges accusations misrepresentations (is there any truthful word I'm allowed to use here without actually becoming totally inaccurate?), I hope there is a similar essay dealing with that very different issue. I will certainly read it. -- Fyslee 05:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Off-wiki pages~~
Ilena, the page you've created and linked (the link has since been removed by Ronz), at [LINK REMOVED], is essentially an off-wiki attack page against Fyslee, whom you repeatedly mention by both Wikipedia username and real-life name. You are undoubtedly familiar by now with WP:NPA, which states both that off-wiki attacks are frowned upon, and also that "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack" is listed under actions that are never acceptable and constitue a personal attack. What you do off-wiki is up to you, but may have repercussions here. MastCell 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is an issue from Ilena's Dec 26 AN, and there's even evidence of it left on this page here. It was a major problem on her user page. --Ronz 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~1 week block~~
~~Your block has been extended to one week for violating WP:NPA and WP:POINT after final warning.[32] Durova^Charge! 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have also posted a thread to WP:AN regarding your block and surrounding events. If you wish to comment on that thread or offer topical improvements to articles you can post them here and request Peter to repost for you. However, if you continue to abuse the privilege of editing your talk page during your block period it can be page protected. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses at WP:AN lean toward a userban as of this posting. If you wish to comment or take conciliatory steps, now would be the time to do so. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Different Editors ... Different Rules ?~~
I am told that I may well be banned off of Wikipedia permanently, in part, for posting a link to my webpages.
It appears to me that Wiki rules are subjectively applied.
As Rosenthal, the successful defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, I believe those close to the plaintiffs have serious grudges against me and spend enormous amounts of time attempting to demonize me. I have made edits in good faith, provided verifiable facts and links on several occassions, yet believe I am continually misrepresented as to this fact.
Despite denials, fyslee is closely linked with the plaintiffs. I know he considers this an "attack" yet I consider it factual and verified.
Personal information removed. You know better, Ilena. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different rules for him than for me it appears.
Further, each and every link that he has edited into Wikipedia to quackwatch.com or ncahf.org -- every one links to his webrings and all his websites. One click away. Although it was discussed that this might not be proper Wiki Behavior, all talk of that has now been apparently dropped, as I am lead to the Wiki Gallows.
And again ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This quote on this page was made about me: The blocked editor alleges that Fyslee, another editor in her Wikipedia dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
However, I have never used the term "employee." I had accurately stated that fyslee works with the three plaintiffs I defeated and this is accurate. He is the Webring Master of all their websites, blogs and discussion groups, all neatly linked together. On these blogs and websites linked here on Wiki by him, are many, many, many examples of "Ilena bashing." He just gave up his years of being Assistant Listmaster for the ncahf.org Healthfraud List a couple of weeks ago, which this diff shows he advertised here on Wiki. He is very open about being known by both fyslee and his "real world name" (including having posted these links on Wiki). Yet I am to be severely punished and perhaps banned, in part, for using them.
His friends, the three losing plaintiffs, hate me such deep contempt, and have waged massive smear campaigns to discredit me. The more I beat them, the worse they got. Fyslee has claimed that I have libeled him ... a very serious accusation. After some strike throughs, he backed off, then using weasel comments, basically made these same claims.
I am still of the belief that fairness and neutrality will reign here on Wiki and thank all of you who have been communicating with me about the happenings here. If there are any new readers to this situation, I hope they will read my words and edits ... and not take as true all the accusations made about me.
I'll be checking in occasionally only as I explained earlier. Blessings and healing especially to Wizard Dragon. Ilena 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ilena, you can't control what Fyslee does, only what you do. Fyslee has come in for criticism, and he'll come in for more if he behaves inappropriately. But using his behavior as an excuse to act out is not going to get you anywhere. MastCell 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Inaccurate Comments being made about me by Fyslee~~
"The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected."
This is the type of disinformation being circulated by the losing plaintiffs and their public relations (media) people.
1- There were 3 plaintiffs ... one being Stephen Barrett. His case against me was declared a meritless SLAPP ... the Supreme Court Judge Moreno reiterated what the lower courts ruled: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." [33]
2- Attorney Christopher Grell sued me for libel when I had not even mentioned his name. He refused to dismiss the case up until after being severely chastized by the Judge during oral arguments.
3- Regarding Terry Polevoy ... there was one word only "stalking" -- that was considered to be potentially libelous. One word. Nothing like the posturing described above by fyslee. Should the case against the other defendants be heard in the Superior Court, witnesses such as the woman who claimed she was stalked by him, will have a chance to present her case and her experiences that led to her calling the police for protection from Polevoy.
To correct another claim of fyslee's: She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here,
I travel quite a lot, have business in California and frequently spend time in Costa Rica and Nicaragua and other Latin American countries. Since I got a Wiki account, "Ilena" I have always used it. I have never attempted to hide my identity nor edit surreptitiously, as suggested.
Good nite again. Ilena 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 533: / Line 533: @@
 I'll be checking in occasionally only as I explained earlier. Blessings and healing especially to Wizard Dragon. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
+:Ilena, you can't control what Fyslee does, only what you do. Fyslee has come in for criticism, and he'll come in for more if he behaves inappropriately. But using his behavior as an excuse to act out is not going to get you anywhere. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 == Inaccurate Comments being made about me by Fyslee ==