User talk:Ilena
,
 Archives |
|---|
Block
Ilena, I warned you before about using Wikipedia as a platform for your personal campaigns. I see you today created an attack page devoted to outing another editor you're in dispute with in real life, assuming your identification is accurate. I've therefore blocked this account indefinitely. I don't know what the status of your ArbCom case is, and whether you still need to post there. If you do, let me know, and if you think this block is unfair, you're welcome either to post here about it, so long as you don't name people, or e-mail me. Either way, I would need an assurance from you that you'll stop editing in this area and will stop behaving in a way that appears to constitute harassment of other editors. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I indeed strongly object to your block. I believe that evidence will indeed show that it is I being harassed by ... Ronz and Fyslee, collaborating together. Blocking me during this Arb is clearly unfair and unjust. The fact that ... has put up a vanity commercial website for himself and another for his wife is definitely relevant to facts about this Arbitration, very accurately called Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Ilena (chat) 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I will look at the state of the case to see whether you still need to post there. Please understand this one point: this is an encyclopedia. It's not a website for you to wage war on regarding events in your personal life. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, by all means show me diffs of behavior you feel warrants admin attention, but regardless of whether Ilena was responding to provocation elsewhere or not, her own behavior has been unacceptable for some time. That she created an attack page on another editor even as the ArbCom was voting to ban her for similar behavior doesn't exactly inspire confidence. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I might suggest reverting the article to last weekend and cleaning up from there. What is legitimate descriptive may need careful, superior editing, also see my request to SV.--I'clast 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I assume this is the deletion in question [1]. In response to Ilena and Alan, if a user's conduct is clearly unacceptable (I am not making any judgement in this case as I have not seen the evidence) then they can still be blocked even with an ongoing ArbCom against them. It has nothing to do with justice or fairness, it has everything to do with protecting the content and integrity of our Wikipedia. Again I stress that just because you (and others) think that you are being harassed does not give you the right or justification to be uncivil, aggressive or even attack back. Cheers Lethaniol 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ilena appears to be correct about harassment by Ronz and Fyslee. And for the record, SlimVirgin, let there be no mistake: this IS a website on which many parties -- not least Ilena's detractors -- are waging war: continuous, relentless, vicious war. You might like to think it is just a cool-headed, facts-only encyclopedia, but the reality behind many articles (and generally behind the scenes) is quite otherwise. Before you jump on Ilena's case you need, and need badly, to investigate the totality of the situation and its context. Much of what she says is merely a reaction to provocations from elsewhere, and in those cases the problem is with the provacateurs, not her. In other words: get your act together, gal! Cheers! -- Alan2012 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posted from User talk:SlimVirgin
- Just popping in to fully support this indefblock. "Outing" is indefblockable, regardless of whatever else was going on - and face it, there was a lot else going on. Ilena has shown no interest in learning about Wikipeida at all - her whole attitude has been "I am here on a mission and anyone who tries to get me to be polite or follow policy is the ENEMY and I will insult and be nasty to them!!!" IMO there has always been almost zero chance she would become a positive contributor, and now she has simplified things for us by yet again ignoring a rule she was warned about - basically pissing in our faces. I'm all done with trying to help her. She doesn't want to be helped. She wants to crusade. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Before I am hung as well as tarred and feathered by Stephen Barrett family & teammates ... hiding their own WP:COI behind multiple user names and aliases ... while attacking me, please consider this:
Request by User:Ilena to look at broader picture ... Am I the only "advocate" here? (repost)
Some burning questions and explanations of my experience here. Barrett has, as recently as January, 2007, edited here himself, despite several comments to the contrary. It has been said that I brought this "conflict" to Wikipedia. In fact, I attempted to correct verified false information being posted by Barrett himself (immediately followed by Fyslee and other anonymous posters on various pages) regarding the case he lost to me. I carefully sourced my edits with links to the court decisions. Please consider that are probably several of the anonymous editors, with undisclosed large WP:COI, who delete criticism and post PRO-Barrett commercial links throughout Wikipedia, while keeping their identities hidden. Please note the first diff below where Barrett was editing and adding link after link to his commerical sites. He then became invisible and Fyslee immediately appeared and made sure that his vanity links remained, as well as adding more. Please consider that indeed, this is a role of a publicist. Despite accusations, I have never denied that I edited before I created my account, nor denied any edit I have made, nor posted anonymously nor attempted to be anything or anyone but who I am: a woman's health activist and advocate. Because I have been open about my identity, I feel I am now being punished and perhaps banned. Is Fyslee not an advocate for those he claims are harmed by quackery and chiropractors? Is Barrett not an advocate for the same, with his vast empire of "anti-quackery" books and lectures and courses and non-profits soliciting donations and people harmed by what he calls quackery? Please further consider that Barrett's many commerical websites that are linked throughout Wikipedia are inappropriate as WP:RS. They are websites self published by Barrett, which sell books for a company, for which he, himself is the "medical editor." [2]. Every day, I watch Fyslee and others with a pro-Barrett POV removing links to those they criticize claiming that they are "commercial" or "promotional" while adding link after link after link to Barrett's sites, selling their "anti-quackery" viewpoints. How is this neutral or fair and balanced? Is this really the Wiki way? Barrett was described in a losing court decision as being a "zealous advocate" for NCAHF NCAHF loses to King Bio]. He is given hundreds of links on Wikipedia, and I not allowed even one. In my winning Supreme Court decision article Barrett_v._Rosenthal, his editors have not allowed even a comment of who I am. Is this neutral or fair? Could the anonymous pro-Barrett editors not be his own family members and team [3] with a decided, but unverifiable WP:COI since they are hiding behind aliases? Barrett's edits --- then he left and Fyslee continued Before Barrett had an account Stephen Barrett posting anonymously as recently as January, 2007 Barrett posting very skewed and biased information about his Appeals Court loss to me I respectfully request that the fact is carefully considered that Barrett described himself in Time Magazine, "today, I am the media." Is media not about public_relations and propaganda? I believe that the Wiki definition fits precisely: [an industry communicating through different media] There are various anonymous single_purpose_posters on Wiki such as [GigiButterfly whose only edits were to erase negative links and post PRO-Barrett POV and links. A few have posted false and misleading information as to the NCAHF and their suspended status and laws regarding non profit status. The archives clearly show the amount of distraction and attempts at creating reasonable doubt about this topic, that they collectively managed to keep off of Wikipedia for over 6 months. I do apologize for any uncivil behavior on my part during these heated discussions. You could understand, however, the enormous amount of disinformation I corrected and sourced time after time after time to be told I was "attacking" and it was all POV and not relevant nor notable. For a self named "consumer advocate" and one who scrutinizes and criticizes other non profits to the degree NCAHF, Inc. does, it is certainly a relevant notable fact if they are operating with no state license. Fyslee promised repeatedly to prove their legal status, and instead repeated this serious disinformation as recently as December: [...The NCAHF is still registered in California. -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006] In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This has been discussed (with this link) [4] for over 6 months. One anonymous editor made several totally false and unverified statements about state licensure. [[you ignore the fact that you don't need to be incorporated to claim non-profit status.] He also claimed:Since NCAHF can legally operate and collect donations and advertising without a "legal corporate status", this implies that in fact it is no longer notable. Unless of course, there is a new legal fiction invented to make it notable. Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC) [[[5]] I have never seen any evidence that these are true statements and believe them to not be true. If so, banning me and allowing him free editing seems unbalanced and unfair. I was blocked once for changing a subject header. He is welcomed, however, after editing in intentional disinformation, I believe evidence shows. This editor, also, seems to be practically single purpose, with a huge amount of Barrett and Quackwatch related edits. Single purpose? What if this was an assistant of Barrett's with a large, but buried,WP:COI? Or even a relative? Who knows who is hiding behind that alias and "just passing through" without any scrutiny whatsoever?[[6]] [[7]][[8]] I too feel that I was never given a chance on Wikipedia. From the day (July 7, 2006) I began editing facts and correcting falsities against Barrett himself (unbeknownst to me), Fyslee and Arthur Rubin immediately proved that WP:AGF was not even an option as you can see from my talk page and their prominent immediate warnings and threats. [[9]]. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)