Jump to content

User talk:Valjean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter M Dodge (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 21 January 2007 (Reply →‎RFAr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  Some principles governing this talk page  

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fyslee
  Regarding posting of my personal info at Wikipedia  

Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Wikipedia. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including death threats) from chiropractors and other promoters of alternative medicine. While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Wikipedia, where only my "Fyslee" tag should be used. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- Fyslee
Archive
Archives

Request for Mediation

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 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why there is a request for mediation on an article that seems to have stabilized, and is pretty neutral now. I admit that I am mystified.Jance 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article is not a current issue, while the announcement of the RfM was made in the context of discussions about her making of serious charges against myself. That is the relevant issue. -- Fyslee 07:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, Peter is answering questions about the RfM on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal. --Ronz 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Some wise words of advice to Ilena

(Copied from the block warning here.)

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. DurovaCharge 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added here by Fyslee 09:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


She failed to heed the words of advice, and was then blocked for 24 hrs.. -- Fyslee 09:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That blocked has been extended to one week. Ilena's block log -- Fyslee 11:52, 20 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 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 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", 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 of hers 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 (which at Wikipedia are considered attacks against another editor), and thus her obligation to provide evidence still stands. -- Fyslee 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardry Dragon (Peter M. Dodge)

Have you seen the black box on his user page, second from top? It might explain a lot. I suggest holding off on RFC for a bit. Regards, DurovaCharge! 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AN

I suspect you have this discussion bookmarked as you have participated in it, but I wanted to make sure that you read this:

Fyslee, I always have been the first person to admit that Ilena's behaviour is poor, the dfference between me and others, is that I'm trying to fix it instead of sanction her from it. However, you need to realize that your own behaviour is also at fault here. I suggest that either you extend an olive branch to Ilena and offer to forget and/or forgive, or to try to disengage from the situation. It takes two to tango. If you won't feed her bad behaviour, then either she will stop, or she will continue and be blocked. I'm sure as far as you are concerned, either is a desirab;e outcome, so why not try it? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'm in the Danish time zone and hadn't seen it yet after a busy day. I have over 1100 items on my watchlist and am right now working on finding the diffs that have been requested of me, even though Ilena hasn't complied with multiple requests from several editors to do the same. We haven't even gotten close to that situation. She just recycles her accusations without providing any proof. I hope you realize that they are extreme misrepresentations of some slight facts. She twists things so they are hardly recognizable. So far she has refused to accept the olive branch I still offer her on my talk page. I have lost hope of her doing so, and you haven't been effective at getting her to cease all other activities and concentrate on doing that alone. As you should know, an accusation carries less-than-no-weight (as to its possible truthfulness) until precisely documented so all can understand it. Until then it stands as an undocumented charge designed to damage the person attacked, which is quite unethical. I am willing to lay low, but I expect you to then do your duty (as her mentor and what amounts to an Adopt-a-user) by defending me and censoring her. That's your duty. It is not your duty to defend her, except if she is being treated unfairly. She should not be defended when she violates policies and attacks others. She needs you to teach her about proper behavior here. I have only protested and tried to defend myself, primarily by repeatedly demanding evidence. For that you have treated me as an aggressor, which is very unfair. Not being allowed to defend oneself is very unjust. It's all very sad. I still find your intentions regarding mentoring her to be quite honorable. It's probably because you were unfamiliar with her (she's extremely infamous on Usenet and in anti-spam groups) that you even volunteered to try to help her. Good for you. No one else who knows her would have dared to try. -- Fyslee 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may be so bold, it was probably because it had conditions attached, and came off as "I'll back off if you do x y and z" - it wasn't unreasonable, but sure you can see why she refused it. Personally, I believe Taxman had a point. While Ilena's claims were the more damaging, you've also made some disparaging comments towards her as well, and those aren't acceptable either. If you would just leave Ilena well enough alone, I think with a one week block, if you let her be, things might mend themselves with time. An apology for the comments you have made would definitely go a long way to vindicating yourself, if it ever does come to the point of community bans. Strive to be better than her, and you cannot go wrong. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing much

I am just pointing out that your QF site had an article where LP is mentioned as double Nobelist when you are heavily pro-QW, that's all. Sloppy writing in the wee hours. Thought you would appreciate the irony of a free QF link, too.--I'clast 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Pauling was exceptional and contributed greatly to our knowledge base. That fact should never be taken from him. That doesnt' justify his later course of action, both scientifically or personally. -- Fyslee 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My offer to Ilena - 2

Ilena, you have made many serious accusations against me. 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!). I am inviting you to present your case here. It needs to be

1. Very precise and specific accusations

2. One accusation at a time

3. Worded briefly

4. Precise quotes

5. With precise diffs and links

6. Civil in tone

I am more than willing to work with you (as I have stated previously), and help you add information, even when that information does not conform to my own POV. Just ask for my help. I believe in the inclusion of differing POV, as long as they are encyclopedic, are from verifiable, reliable, and good sources, and without any WP:OR. If you doubt my intentions regarding the application of NPOV to opposing POV, just ask User:Dematt, a chiropractor whom I admire very highly. We have had a very good working relationship, and he can vouch for the fact that I allow much content to remain that is not in harmony with my POV, as long as it is added in a collaborative spirit, and is not in violation of any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Fyslee 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I must have missed something, what was your reaosn for rejecting mediation? I think it might have helped. Email me if you prefer. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repost my answer below:

Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

  • I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.
  • If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

  • 1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [1][reply]
  • 2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [2][reply]
  • 3. Do not agree. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [3][reply]
  • 4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.
The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)
The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [4] & [5][reply]
  • 5. Misguided RfM that should be canned
If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Breast implant]]
This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Behavior of User:Ilena]]
This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copied relevant comment from above:
  • This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [6][reply]

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Wikipedia, not the content of the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Wikipedia should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- Fyslee 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above:
Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my reply:
  • Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Peter admits that it's not because "you have refused mediation", but this seems to be going ahead regardless. I've barely even looked at an RfA, so I'm turning to you as someone that appears to have more familiarity. (Please point me to someone more knowledgeable of and/or appropriate for such questions, as well as some documentation if it exists.)

  • First, there doesn't appear to be a discussion page for it, which is why I'm writing here. Am I missing one?
  • Assuming there is none, do you know if and how the scope can be clarified? As I interpret his statement, Peter has defined his perspective to be on what has happened since the Dec 26 AN, and some events immediately prior to it.

--Ronz 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just replied to him. You may want to follow my strategy, otherwise we are tilting at windmills. [8][9] This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena has driven to suicide. I've never had her so in-my-face before since I have always avoided her. Most people I deal with everyday are pretty reasonable, but when such hatred gets forced on me it hits pretty hard. -- Fyslee 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

turn the other cheek

please be careful and remember the golden rule. --Dematt 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dematt. As always you have some wise advice. I know what you mean, but I have another twist on it....;-) I have already been turning the other cheek, both of them. I've been forced to kiss my own a** cheeks by the editor who has raised this ruckus, and been pushed into the mud as if I was guilty, just because I have been accused without evidence of wrongdoing and tried to feebly defend myself. Oh well, that's life. Have you been following the situation closely from the sidelines? If so, I might want to call on your help (off-wiki) as an advisor. It is always better for me to have a critical eye proofread my stuff before submitting it. Otherwise I end up with foot-in-mouth problems. I know that I can trust you to be brutally honest in a very helpful way. That's what I need, not just some yes-man. -- Fyslee 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been watching. This is definitely a tough one, but not insurmountable. Basically, this is Chiropractic on a much larger scale with more personalities and people. It stems from the fact that you both have strong opinions on polar opposites of the same issue. In another life, with another issue, you could well both appreciate each others support and would make strong allies. But, that is not the case, here. This really has nothing to do with either of you, this has to do with Barrett. Remember that he is the controversial one that is being written about, not you. Comments directed at you are because you defend Barrett, it's not really personal. Treat llena the way you would like to be treated and keep turning the other cheek - there is always the other cheek. She is not irrational, she just wants to be heard and if you stop and listen, then maybe she'll listen to you. --Dematt 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr

If it is accepted I will comment but I don't really view myself as an involved party.Geni 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that and I protested the change to no avail. Your version was correct, but others have decided it should be changed. Your title reflected the fact that the main problem involved myself and Ilena, even though other editors played their parts. We'll see how things go. I am eagerly awaiting Ilena's contributions. I want to see her accusations worded and documented in such a precise manner that I can understand them and attempt to rebut them. If I fail to do so, then I can learn from them, reform, and apologize if I have wronged anyone. -- Fyslee 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's no need to get tied up over semantic changes, jpgordon and Kirill are well aware of the underlying issues, so I am sure that a simple name change won't phase them or mislead them. I, too, await Ilena's response, as I think it will more or less set the tone of the Arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean&oldid=102302604"