User talk:Ilena: Difference between revisions
Strike throughs of misleading statements |
|||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
Ilena - As this does not require immediate adminstrator action, please try [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
Ilena - As this does not require immediate adminstrator action, please try [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
=== WikiStalked by Ronz and fyslee (who works with Stephen Barrett) === |
=== WikiStalked by Ronz and fyslee <s>(who works with Stephen Barrett)<s><!--- Strike through lies. --> === |
||
⚫ | Please help me. These editors are <s>a team to bully me and others off of Wikipedia.<s> 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 <s>where he is assistant listmaster to Stephen Barrett and they censor anyone who won't march to their drummer.<s> When fyslee first set up his QuackFiles on Wikipedia, he posted links showing that it was his <s>'responsibility' to post on Wikipedia, as well as run the Skeptic and Quack Webrings.<s> Here is the link where he writes about this, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyslee/Archive_1#First_archive_page] If you read these, which fyslee posted himself on Wikipedia [http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2004/11/osteopathy-and-chiropractic-little.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/SCAM}, you will see Wikipeida <s>is just one of the hats he wears while working with the Barrett empire.<s> As the woman who just beat <s>his partner,<s> Barrett in the Supreme Court of California, I have years of experience with their ways. fyslee <s>cyberstalks me here too,<s> and <s>attempts to undo all my edits here,<s> just like he has <s>censored me on Barrett's Healthfraud List.<s> <s>Together with<s> Ronz, they <s>continually lied<s> 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 <s>attacks<s> and they are the same here on Wikipedia as on the blogs he hosts and his webrings <s>filled with Barrett's viewpoints.<s> Their bullying kept facts about the Barrett operations off of Wikipedia for 8 months because every edit is a fight and <s>fyslee treats this as his job or "responsibility."<s> Because of who they are, they project their bad faith editing onto me. Thank you and have a lovely evening. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
⚫ | 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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyslee/Archive_1#First_archive_page] If you read these, which fyslee posted himself on Wikipedia [http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2004/11/osteopathy-and-chiropractic-little.html] [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. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
: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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
: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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Pardon me. Here is the exact link where fyslee advertises his responsibilities on Wikipedia and on the Healthfraud List. [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/User:Fyslee] 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. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::Pardon me. Here is the exact link where fyslee <s>advertises his responsibilities on Wikipedia and on the Healthfraud List.<s> [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/User:Fyslee] He treats Wikipedia the same as he treats the Healthfraud List where he has been a <s>censor for Barrett for several years.<s> <s>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.<s> When Barrett lost his suit to me, several of <s>his teammates<s> like fyslee have <s>attempted to change history<s> 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 <s>replaced it with his lies.<s> Thank you very much. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::: (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive172#User:Ilena_revisited AN Jan 5] for some history. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive172#User:Ilena_revisited AN Jan 5] for some history. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive165#User:Ilena.27s_persistent_abuse.2C_self-promotion.2C_disruption.2C_etc. 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. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive165#User:Ilena.27s_persistent_abuse.2C_self-promotion.2C_disruption.2C_etc. 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. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | :::''(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. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | :::''(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. <s>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.<s> <s>fyslee is the ringmaster for all of Barrett's websites and everyone is linked to him and his vanity sites..<s> 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. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::: (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::Ilena, you still attack people for nothing more than not agreeing with you. You still attack people for following wiki policy of [[User_talk:Ilena#Verifiability_vs_Truth|verifiability, not truth]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::Ilena, you still attack people for nothing more than not agreeing with you. You still attack people for following wiki policy of [[User_talk:Ilena#Verifiability_vs_Truth|verifiability, not truth]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::''(Removed)'' [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::''(Removed)'' [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::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 [[WP:AMA|an impartial advocate]] to help you. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
::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 [[WP:AMA|an impartial advocate]] to help you. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I was editing other articles, and every time, fyslee and ronz were there reverting my edits.[[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::I was editing other articles, and <s>every time,<s> fyslee and ronz were there reverting my edits.[[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::: (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::Then present page diffs to demonstrate that accusation. Another thing that would help is the [[WP:ADOPT|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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::Then present page diffs to demonstrate that accusation. Another thing that would help is the [[WP:ADOPT|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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::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. [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/User:Fyslee] He totally treats Wiki like it is Barrett and his Healthfraud list. Have a lovely nite all. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::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 <s>fyslee is used to censoring me and other critics. He comes after me ... not vice versa.<s> fyslee's blogs and webring are <s>filled with my losing plaintiff' rants and lies against me.<s> <s>He brings them here.<s> Any need only see his <s>various responsibilities<s> listed here. [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/User:Fyslee] <s>He totally treats Wiki like it is Barrett and his Healthfraud list.<s> Have a lovely nite all. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::: (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
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 [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. As you consider your personal assertion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kirkland&diff=100236243&oldid=100067776 "Her breast implant advocacy is very important to Sally. Leave this in."] to be adequate grounds for including the link, please re-read [[WP:V|the verifiability policy]], or Ronz's perfectly civil suggestions on the [[Talk:Sally Kirkland|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 [[WP:POINT|make a point]]. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
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 [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. As you consider your personal assertion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kirkland&diff=100236243&oldid=100067776 "Her breast implant advocacy is very important to Sally. Leave this in."] to be adequate grounds for including the link, please re-read [[WP:V|the verifiability policy]], or Ronz's perfectly civil suggestions on the [[Talk:Sally Kirkland|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 [[WP:POINT|make a point]]. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Not to be offensive, but it wouldn't hurt if you [[WP:AGF|assumed some good faith]] yourself Ronz. And Ilena - I cannot emphasise this enough - please [[WP:AGF|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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
*Not to be offensive, but it wouldn't hurt if you [[WP:AGF|assumed some good faith]] yourself Ronz. And Ilena - I cannot emphasise this enough - please [[WP:AGF|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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
: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]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
: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]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
::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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
::::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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::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. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::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. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::*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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] • [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
== 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 personal attacks 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 attacks 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 personal attack in 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 be get back to peacefully editing here.-- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:19, 16 January 2007
![]() Archives |
---|
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)
- 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)
- I left you a message on your page. Thank you very much. Ilena 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ilena 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
3RR Warning
Please note you're close to violating WP:3RR with your edits to Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. Whoever is removing my links is in the wrong. Pure and utter censorship. Ilena 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Another Wiki World. Thanks so much for the tip!Ilena 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thanks ... I'm figuring things out with your help. Ilena 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Love it ... thanks so much! Ilena 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Could someone help me do that. Not sure how and am on the run. Ilena 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Could someone help me do that. Not sure how and am on the run. Ilena 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
-
Happy New Year!
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)
- 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)
- Also check out Wikipedia:Images.Nina Odell 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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:
Just leave a request on his user talk page.
Regards,
Fyslee 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Linkspam in your signature
I thought you were past this too. Some might think you're doing it purposely to provoke: [5] [6] . Again, you should probably discuss this with an editor you trust. --Ronz 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UT
- I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Have a lovely nite.Ilena 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Playing the Nazi card?
So now you're comparing me to Nazis? [7] I'm appalled and deeply offended. Please remove it as a show of good faith. Thank you. --Ronz 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do it myself. --Ronz 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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, [8] If you read these, which fyslee posted himself on Wikipedia [9] [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)
- (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
- 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. DurovaCharge 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon me. Here is the exact link where fyslee
advertises his responsibilities on Wikipedia and on the Healthfraud List.[10] He treats Wikipedia the same as he treats the Healthfraud List where he has been acensor 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 ofhis teammateslike fyslee haveattempted to change historyand 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, andreplaced it with his lies.Thank you very much. Ilena 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon me. Here is the exact link where fyslee
- (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
- See AN Jan 5 for some history. --Ronz 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- (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)
- (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.
- (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
- 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)
- (Removed) Ilena 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I was editing other articles, and
every time,fyslee and ronz were there reverting my edits.Ilena 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was editing other articles, and
- (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
- 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. DurovaCharge 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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 arefilled with my losing plaintiff' rants and lies against me.He brings them here.Any need only see hisvarious responsibilitieslisted here. [11]He totally treats Wiki like it is Barrett and his Healthfraud list.Have a lovely nite all. Ilena 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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
- (Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
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)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 personal attacks 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 attacks 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 personal attack in 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 be get back to peacefully editing here.-- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)