User talk:Ilena/Archive 3

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  &bull;  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:


 * 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)

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 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. 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:  [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.  &mdash; 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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's one spot to start looking around that's very well-organized []. 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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Userpages. Have fun, and Happy New Year! Nina Odell 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you're going to want to see is 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 Images.Nina Odell 01:51, 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:


 * User:Mets501

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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive165#User:Ilena.27s_persistent_abuse.2C_self-promotion.2C_disruption.2C_etc. 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)

Playing the Nazi card?
So now you're comparing me to Nazis? 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)
 * I guess asking you to be civil and show good faith is too much to ask then? --Ronz 16:50, 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, If you read these, which fyslee posted himself on Wikipedia  [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.  Durova Charge 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. He treats Wikipedia the same as he treats the Healthfraud List where he has been a censor for Barrett for several years.  Fyslee brought his and Barrett's hatred of me to Wikipedia from my first edit here. He is used to being able to censor me and others who he disagrees with. When Barrett lost his suit to me, several of his teammates like fyslee have attempted to change history and one way is by reverting my edits. I will get the diffs where he reverted factual, verified information such as Barrett's NCAHF's suspension, and replaced it with his lies. Thank you very much. Ilena 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (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)


 * (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  &bull;  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)


 * (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.  Durova Charge 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.  He totally treats Wiki like it is Barrett and his  Healthfraud list. Have a lovely nite all. Ilena 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (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  &bull;  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.  Durova Charge 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  &bull;  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.  Durova Charge 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  &bull;  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.  Durova Charge 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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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 serious charges accusations against me all over Wikipedia (in gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA), as well as outside of Wikipedia against Wikipedia editors, are so confusingly blended, filled with hyperbole, imprecise, without clear diffs as documentation, and so filled with her conspiracy theory opinions, that it is impossible to properly defend myself or really answer them, so I've just signalled that the striked out portions are in one way or another incorrect or deceptive. I also know from experience (and mostly observation of her interactions with literally countless others here and on Usenet), that any attempt to defend myself or comment on her behavior will only lead to more charges accusations from her, so I usually refrain. I'd like to see the situation de-escalate, but I can't just ignore repeated policy violations, especially when she has been repeatedly warned, and then does it anyway, in what could be (and has been) interpreted as deliberate provocation that is very disruptive and time-consuming.

It is not so much the content of her edits that I object to, it's her manner of doing it (which nearly always violates policy or is done uncollaboratively) that's the problem. When done properly, I have always allowed the content to stay, regardless of POV (I'm an inclusionist). As an experienced editor here, I have made my newbie mistakes, and I also know that everything here is available for examination and criticism (so lying would be futile and foolish -- if she would AGF she'd interpret it as "misunderstandings" or "mistakes", never as "lies").

My offer: If I have done something wrong, then I'll be happy to examine the diffs and either explain or apologize (it wouldn't be the first time!), but I won't do it with a hodgepodge jumble of confusing and paranoid accusations. It needs to be (1) specific, (2) short, (3) one-at-a-time, (4) with precise diffs, (5) precise quotes, (6) civil in tone, and (7) very precise accusations. I think that is only fair. Ilena can do it on my talk page, and any other editors who are interested are welcome to join in. If she does it in a civil manner, I won't consider it yet another violation of WP:NPA.

I am making this unnecesary and gracious offer in good faith, so if she misuses it and her tone gets nasty, I'll request that the admins above react with an immediate block, especially considering that no other editor to my knowledge, has ever been allowed to get away with so much and gotten away with it for so long. She has now received so many clear warnings and "suspended sentences" that one more violation should result in a very long block. Only then can we get back to peacefully editing here.-- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * Ilena, although the tone of Fyslee's comment is (understandably) rather brusque, I completely support what he says above. The offer is a sound one: if you have issues, you should raise them as he suggests, being specific, short, one-at-a-time, with precise diffs if possible, including precise quotes.  This is always sound advice to anyone engaged in a heated dispute.  If you try to handle too much at once, or your complaint is that "this article sucks", well, that's just unhelpful - much better to detail what precisely needs fixing, and what is should be fixed to.  If you can do this without rudeness and aggression you may get what you want.  If you can't, then it's not unlikely that the community will simply wash its hands of you.  And remember always that your own personal view of events which directly concern you may be out of line with how others perceive the same events; this does not make either view right, but it is unquestionably the case that many editors have great difficulty being objective when they are personally involved in the subjects under discussion.


 * Please read Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich for a more extreme example of how the community views people who appear to be here mainly to advance their own external agenda, and see Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for an example of the relative weight given to mainstream versus non-mainstream theories, and why.


 * Fyslee has extended an olive branch, I suggest you accept it with as much good grace as you can muster and proceed on the basis of issues with articles not with editors. I think I am not the only person who is weary with arm-waving and hyperbole (not that you are anythign like the sole offender). Keep focused on the articles and hopefully you will be able to make progress. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On Fyslee's user page you comment "You were never "attacked" by me as you falsely claim." I beg to differ Ilena.  From an outsiders perspective you are very combative. Obviously "attack" is a strong word, but the cumulative effect of your edits speak for themselves.  As I suggested before, editing pages with which you are not personally involved would be the better strategy for an enjoyable experience in wikipedia (see the Agapetos_angel below).  I might add, editors in wikipedia seem to have been remarkably tolerant of your disruptions, one presumes to allow you to get used to this more collaborative environment.  Unfortunately, you do not seem to be taking the hint. (I retract this part as you are not edit warring like before.)
 * Read what people are saying, if you continue this way I am certain your editing privileges will be reviewed, this has happened time and time again here (gastrich example above is a good example). Please, it is not usenet, and wikipedia is not about the truth, which seems to be the crux of your conflicts. Editing here is primarily reporting "verifiable information" from "reliable sources" that is "notable" and "not original research". If it fails any of these four criteria then you will have an uphill struggle.  Please consider using the talk pages to over come the differences in a collaborative way.  Convince people of why you are correct.  Getting mad just makes your points less convincing. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Note I have edited this a bit since first posting David D. (Talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI: The Gastrich case went to Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich where a one year community ban was endorsed. Subsequent violations resulted in this being extended to an indefinite ban.


 * Antoher case of interest to you was the Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel that resulted in Agapetos_angel being banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. To cut to the chase, review the reason for her ban here and consider how many of those issues also relate to your editing pattern on wikipedia.  David D. (Talk) 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Okay, as everyone here is quickly seeming to "pile on" to suggestion of wrongdoing, I feel compelled to comment further. Talk about blocks, bans,and punishments is not going to bring about the positive changes you want to occur - if they do bring on any positibve change at all, I suspect that change would simply revert if the axe over Ilena's head were ever remocved, and it is unfair for us to expect Ilena to keep contributing in ANY way if she is editing under duress. My suggestion is to try more proactive ways to help her. You are only throwing fuel on the fire and feeding that "persecution complex" by threatening her, and I indeed do see many of the comments here as threatening behaviour. That is not the wiki way, and I would respectfully ask all involved to kindly stop. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't interpret them as threats, that was not the purpose. But we also have to deal with reality and I'm not even sure Ilena is aware of what can, and does, happen on wikipedia. I think it is useful to observe what has happened in the past. We can learn from history. We can't ignore the fact that this is escalating. Note guy's comment above, he is an outsider to this dispute, so it is obviously being noticed outside the sphere of the Barrett related pages. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When a situation is escalating, we should be diffusing it, not aggrivating it further, and threats only aggrivate an already untenable situation. Ilena made mistakes.  We get it.  Harping on them continually is just going to perpetuate the disagreement.  Instead, suggest remedies for the situation.  At this juncture, I do not see blocks as a very tenable remedy, not when there is solid willingness to reform.  What has made this issue go on so long, in my opinion, is the unwillingness of many editors to forget and/or forgive, and move on.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe we have a different definition of threat? What above do you perceive to be a threat from myself? This is the real world and explanations of reality should not be interpreted as a threat. It does not serve Ilena to assume there is a never ending supply of good faith. We all know that is not true. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not yours in particular - it wanders in places and I found it a little hard to follow but I don't really see it as a threat - but Durova and Fyslees responses have been a little more abrasive, at the least. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just tried to simplify what I wrote in the section above, to make it a little more clear. I'm not sure if I have succeeded but it will do for now. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I think you've gone above and beyond here. That said, actions have consequences. If we keep telling Ilena she needs to be civil, stay cool, avoid personal attacks, not compare other editors to Nazi death camp guards, etc and she continues, then what should happen? At some point, we cross over to enabling. If I behaved as Ilena does and proved refractory to all intervention, I'd be blocked. So would you. We're still hearing the "Ronz/Fyslee made me do it" excuse (coupled with personal attacks) from Ilena. She's still inserting self-promotional external links and charging others with censorship when they are removed. Despite her accusations, she has not provided diffs or evidence for the charges she keeps making, despite suggestions on how to go about this from me and others. Perhaps an WP:RfC is in order, to get some outside input and try to resolve the situation - and as always, there will be scrutiny on the actions of others (Ronz, Fyslee, myself, etc) and their roles in the situation as well (i.e. it would not be a venue to "go after" Ilena). MastCell 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell, so often we hear of the RfC from a negative perspective, however, it is a venue for comment only. It should not be for retribution but for constructive discussion. Personally i think it would help a lot to clear the air and cool down all parties. It would also be a venue for Ilena to air her frustration with respect to the Barrett related pages. We need to think about the big picture here and clearly the talk pages are not working. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in no way saying that Ilena has not done wrong, the Nazi diff is something that had me itching to say something - but we all have to ask ourselves before we comment "is this comment going to help the matter, or just make it worse?" Knee-jerk negative reactions are what the majority of this has been, and while mostly the people talking at length such as David, Guy, and Mastcell have avoided it, others haven't.  All I ask is that people remember there are two sides to every story, and Ilena HAS been attacked here.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter, I haven't counted how many RFCs and requests for investigation I've answered, but they probably number in the hundreds. Most Wikipedians who know my history would say I err on the side of WP:AGF.  I was Agapetos Angel's sole defender and I was among the last to come down against Jason Gastrich.  I even stood up for the underdog at Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors while my sysop nomination was active and took some heat for it.  When a user makes strong accusations I ask for evidence.  If I ask for evidence three times and someone refuses to provide it - instead digressing about Nazi death camps and court cases - then the odds of that person developing into a productive Wikipedian are very slim.  I'm not being sarcastic; I've fielded responses that nearly mirror this one.  Volunteer time isn't infinite and at some point every editor has to assume responsibility for his or her behavior here.  That's why the tools exist - I don't get a charge out of using them but they're there for a reason.  I hope Ilena understands that she's very lucky to have this much attention and support: this site has fewer than 1 sysop for every 2700 accounts.  On a cost-benefit basis I'd rather spend my time mediating Talk:Joyce Kilmer where some people are trying to work out a dispute and get a good article featured.  Durova Charge 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I honestly thought I was wasting my time, I wouldn't bother with trying to help Ilena. I find it kind of offensive, really to suggest that it is.  I don't have time to waste, and I'm not getting any younger.  If I did not have faith that Ilena can reform, I would not bother.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is your standard for taking offense then I wish you chose your own words more carefully. You were rather quick to call my block warning punitive when it wasn't.  I seem to be one of the people whose reactions you characterized as knee-jerk and possibly as threats.  You haven't retracted any of those opinions even though I explained the preventative nature of the block warning and outlined my long history for being rather the opposite type of Wikipedian.  What I can't show you are the private e-mails from editors who have been blocked or banned and seek me out because they know I'll give them a fair hearing.  It would be a gesture of good faith to suppose that the very experienced Wikipedians who have weighed in to express doubts about this endeavor may have good cause for our opinions, or at least to impress upon Ilena that we do not do this lightly.  If Ilena develops into a productive editor I'll give you a barnstar because you seem sincere and I'd be happy if you prove me wrong.  Yet I neither hesitate nor apologize about calling this a low percentage situation.  Respectfully,  Durova Charge 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had no reason despite her missteps to question Ilena's overall intentions on Wikipedia, and therefore I assume good faith. It would be refreshing if some more people could start doing that.  As Werdna said on the ProtectionBot RFA, bruised egos are secondary, the encyclopedia comes first, and I sense that some bruised egos in here perpetuating this argument.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all respect, but aren't Guy and Durova expressing an outside opinion? Why would their egos be bruised? David D. (Talk) 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy's response has been quite reasonable. Durova's seems to be saying "I know how these things go, and they don't work out well", which really seems to be assuming bad faith to me.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words into my mouth: that reflects poorly on both of us. If the effort I have exerted building a reputation for fairness and integrity fails to sway you, then consideration for Ilena - who is probably pretty confused by now - ought to have put an end to that.  Good intentions are not a substitute for accountability, nor are we required to continue assuming good faith at this point.  The editor she targeted in the post about Nazi death camps cried foul and she has been unrepentant.  Her other accusations would be damning if she supported them, but she neither did so so nor retracted the claims.  These are insults and character assassination.  Your defense of of those actions has amounted to tu quoque, which - in a typical unblock request - cuts no ice.  It's counterproductive to act as if she were exempt from WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL (and possibly WP:COI as well), then employ logical fallacies as justification for her policy infractions and impugn the motives of thoughtful responses.  When another editor characterized this as enabling I worried that word was too strong.  I'm not so sure now.  Given your reactions to my other statements - and how nothing reflected a perusal of the relevant links - these may be wasted words.  I've really never encountered this from an editor who has your amount of experience before and I'm baffled.  Durova Charge 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction to the above: I'm not a sysop. MastCell 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some honest questions, would appreciate answers
I can honestly say, I have every intention of being a quality editor. I would also like to say, that from my first edits, I have been overwhelmed by fyslee ... someone I have known for years & years & years, and someone who has censored me for years from his and Barrett's Healthfraud List. It is my honest and experienced opinion, that he treats Wikipedia and any criticsm, like Stephen Barrett treats any critics ... threats of lawsuits and immediate censorship. I love the Wiki concept and can certainly play by rules, and feel that I have knowledge and experience that can benefit this encyclopedia.

1) Is it factual that fyslee can remove any comments he desires and claim they are attacks, even when they are not? 2) Is it factual as his talk page states, that he has full control, can censor at will, and that his rules must be followed? 3) If 2) is factual, why does he then fill other talk pages (mine included) with his declarations that he has been "attacked"? This happened from the first day I attempted to edit on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).


 * Ilena, please review the above discussion and the responses you got at WP:AN/I. No, Fyslee is not allowed to do the things you describe, but you need to provide evidence that he is doing them in the form of diffs. If you don't know how, Peter Dodge or someone else will help you. However, if you keep repeating your charges umpteen times without providing any evidence to support them, despite repeated pleas that you do so, then you are attacking Fyslee. It could even appear that you're attempting to "bully", "harass", or "censor" him. Provide evidence. If you need technical assistance, ask for it. Does that make sense? MastCell 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * MastCell, please study the edit history on my talk page regarding what she's claiming. You'll find there is a history behind it. She has made serious charges accusations, but seems to think she has no obligation to document them. That is not true. Her charges accusations are very serious, and are extremely gross violations of WP:NPA, yet no admin blocks her! I have graciously provided a fair forum where she can calmly present evidence of my purported misdeeds, and if done as instructed, I won't even consider a repetition (as instructed) of her accusations as violations of WP:NPA. (If I don't do that, then I can't get to the bottom of this!) I am more than willing to apologize if shown wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. She is refusing to meet her obligation. Please encourage her to cease and desist all other activities at Wikipedia until she has fulfilled them on my talk page. -- Fyslee 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)

Documentation of inaccuracies by Ilena
(Here's a cleaned up version of my documentation that was deleted by Peter. Such documentation should never be deleted!):

Ilena writes above:


 * "Fyslee is now threatening to SLAPP sue me claiming I have 'libeled' him."

Please provide a diff that proves the truth of that statement. I obviously dispute it.

Here is precisely what I wrote:


 * "It's her interpretation of things and the way she frames them in her charges accusations that is the problem. I believe she is grossly misrepresenting things in an obvious effort to injure my reputation (a portion of the definition of libel (1) -- but no threat of a lawsuit here), and I'd like to be able to explain things for her (and whoever cares to listen)."

Where is the threat of a SLAPP suit? I have expressly written that there is "no threat of a lawsuit here." Can that be anymore clearly stated?

Now that I have provided fresh documentation refuting her clear statement above, 'is any admin going to do anything about this? I'm tired of her charges accusations against me which are wasting our time. -- Fyslee 07:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (Original: 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC))


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)

Request for Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll go read up on this. Ilena 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Block warning
Site policies hold you responsible for acting conservatively about allegations against other editors. That means you must be forthcoming with page diffs and other relevant evidence that connects all the dots to your conclusion, and retract what you cannot support. If you read something into a certain piece of evidence and the same meaning wouldn't be clear to a reasonable person, then the burden of proof is on you to supply more evidence that fills those gaps. You say you've won a court case at the California state supreme court so you ought to be more familiar with that basic principle than most of the editors at Wikipedia. As of now I hold you fully responsible for supplying adequate and reasonable evidence. This cannot be unduly burdensome to the successful plaintiff of a prominent lawsuit. I will use my sysop tools up to and including blocks and bans to enforce that expectation. Durova Charge 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen. Ilena, people will give you a fair hearing if you provide evidence. They will lose patience if you repeat charges without providing evidence. If you need technical help, ask for it. MastCell 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Durova. I have been trying to get her to provide diffs on my user page, but she refuses. -- Fyslee 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee Claims he Was "Libeled" ... He can provide Evidence of libel here
Fyslee claimed: Just because she libels me, I am not obligated to sue her. Very interesting supposition ... false, defamatory, but interesting. Now let him list the "libels" as he claims. Have a lovely evening all. Ilena 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * /me sighs. Okay.  This is exactly sympthomatic of this dispute.  Everyone is talking past each other without providing any evidence.  It is all just hot air and bruised egos, and I'd suggest everyone just calmed down and tried to contribute in good faith to the Request for Mediation.  The alternative tends to be messy.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She posted that while I was composing my final warning, so I'll give her a chance to strikethrough that allegation. I'll wait a reasonable interval after her next post to this page and if it isn't retracted she's blocked.  Durova Charge 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While dispute resolution is open I would strongly suggest you didn't. ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Wikipedia dispute resolution creates no shield against user blocks. Editors are fully responsible for their behavior and may be blocked during any phase of it by the same standards that would apply in any other situation.  Blocking is actually rather commonplace during user conduct WP:RFC and arbitration.  The only thing that active dispute resolution typically forestalls is WP:RFAR.  I retracted my first warning when you requested it.  The subsequent ones are very firm.  Durova Charge 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, honestly, I am very disappointed in you. Administrators on Wikipedia are chosen for their good sense, social clue, and ability to handle difficult situations.  If you were a new admin, or one that has not dealt with these kinds of issues before, I would extend the benefit of the doubt.  You have, however, by your own admission above.  Threatening blocks only escalates the situation, and should only be used as a large measure.  Telling someone you will block them if they don't shape up only aggravates the situation further in most cases.  You should be diffusing a situation, not perpetuating an argument.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We've been over the reason for my warnings before. These are routine for the actions Ilena displayed.  Indeed, as a result of your vigorous defense I have been somewhat more conservative than my typical response, which is already rather forgiving as sysops go.  Raise this at WP:AN for review if you really think I've crossed the line.  If a consensus of admins support your assessment I'll revert the block myself.  I'm pretty confident they'll agree this was appropriate.  Durova Charge 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block
Specifically for this post. It is unacceptable to alter another editor's section heading into something inflammatory, then level false accusations of improper behavior. Durova Charge 00:11, 18 January 2007


 * Excuse me, but several of us have had entire posts deleted by fyslee. Now he has made false and inflammatory claims that I "libeled" him and scores of accusations of "attacks" which are not substantiated. Claiming to be "libeled" is a very, very serious accusation. Since fyslee has so far refused to provide evidence of this so called "libel," perhaps you would like to diff them for me. Thank you very much. Ilena 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am very confused. I just read fyslee's talk page and it is so distorted and inaccurate and chopped up, it gives an entirely false picture of what is happening on Wikipedia. Why I would be blocked when he is allowed to distort reality seems very un-encyclopedic to me. I look forward to mediation. Ilena 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to contest your block, you may use the unblock template. I would suggest just taking the day or so off to cool off.  This whole thing is escalating needlessly because people cannot leave well enough alone.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Contact me as necessary for follow-up. Suggested reading to all concerned: Disruptive editing.  Durova Charge 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova Charge 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To Peter: if you read the diff for which I blocked Ilena, it shows clearly that she altered fyslee's heading into something uncivil as she accused him of improper action. There can be no good faith interpretation of that and blocking is the routine administrative response.
 * To Ilena: editors are free to delete posts from their own user talk pages. That, unless you demonstrate otherwise with page diffs, is what WP:AGF requires me to presume Fyslee has done if that happened at all.  Also, I don't like to repeat myself regarding tu quoque.  If you wish to earn goodwill I suggest you take this opportunity to retract unsupportable accusations here at your talk page and supply page diffs for the things you can support.


 * With all due respect, I feel you are being very biased in blocking me and allowing fyslee to continue his accusations which I believe are baseless. He has accused me of "libeling" him, a very, very, very serious accusation. Yet, you seem unconcerned with that and he refuses to provide any evidence of libel whatsoever. Perhaps you would be good enough to have him support his inflammatory claim of "libel." Thank you.


 * He specifically disavowed any actual legal threat so your concerns are largely hypothetical. He also supplied a reference for his definition.  I don't know upon what basis you claim to give an opinion of libel...are you a lawyer?  I happen to have studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum.  So while I'm not qualified to offer legal opinions or advice, I know enough to say that I would not conduct myself in the manner you have chosen because I would not want to expose myself to the risk of a libel allegation.  WP:AGF would object to characterizing my decision as biased, yet if you think it unjust you are welcome to take Peter's advice and request an unblock.  Durova Charge 01:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena, I think it would be in your best interests to just wait the block out. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually no one would hold it against her if she tried a request. I suspect, however, that her time would be better spent verifying and retracting statements she has already made.  That would demonstrate a willingness to accept feedback and adjust to site standards that would weigh favorably in any future decision I might make.  Durova Charge 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My offer to Ilena still stands. She can provide evidence for her charges accusations there. -- Fyslee 07:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * Here's what I experienced. (1)Fyslee has made false and defamatory claims that he was "libeled" by me. (2) He repeatedly deletes what he doesn't want the public to know, making unsubstantiated claims of being "attacked." His claim that he is not going to sue me even though I "libeled" him is, to use Wiki Terms, "weasel." I have asked for evidence of the supposive "libel" and he refuses to provide it. If you would like me to carefully illustrate his years of working closely with Stephen Barrett, including as one of the censors on the Healthfraud List, I will readily do so. Did he claim he would sue me, no. However, he made a much more egregious claim ... he falsely accused me of libeling him as if he had a case against me. As someone who just defeated three members of the Healthfraud List where he has been Assistant Listmaster for several years in a classic SLAPP suit, indeed I take his false accusations seriously.  Your decision to block me and not even question him about his libel claims  seems extremely biased and far from neutral. Thank you and good nite. Ilena 04:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That link gives me a 404 error. A claim that fyslee defamed you means nothing to me unless you support it with specific diffs.  Fyslee has already invited you to provide evidence and has volunteered to retract any problems that you substantiate.  So no administrative intervention is necessary in that area at this time.  Whether or not you do so has no bearing on my block decision here: a choice to ignore my references to tu quoque will not establish that fallacy as a basis for unblocking.  Likewise, repetition of previous arguments I have already rejected is a futile strategy when interacting with me.  Another administrator may judge differently.  If there is any doubt on this point I'll express it plainly: an unblock request is your right at Wikipedia.  You are fully empowered to exercise it.  I suggest you would spend your time better by following my suggestions only because you'd certainly earn my goodwill by supplying diffs and strikethroughs - that would probably earn goodwill from any administrator who visited this page.  It's your choice if you do both, or either, or neither.  Durova Charge! 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova has made some good suggestions ("earn my goodwill by supplying diffs and strikethroughs") above. OTOH, removing evidence will not earn any goodwill. Quite the contrary! I'm also going to use the time constructively by making an attempt to defuse the situation. -- Fyslee 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your claim that fyslee has "volunteered to retract any problems" is misleading, although now he believes in God because of your blocking me. Far from retracting anything, he continually denies that every link that he posts to Quackwatch, Barrett, or the suspended NCAHF is one link away to his Webrings and blogs full of Barrett propaganda against me, and his own defamatory "quack files." One click on any of these pages proves it. He is the Webring Leader that every Barrett website is promoted on. His "Just because she libels me, I am not obligated to sue her" is attack and doublespeak. It's a false hypothesis and a unsubstantiated false claim of libel. For 6 months by this sort of game, he kept the verified fact that his and Barrett's NCAHF was suspended off of Wikipedia. You block me for changing an attack title of his on my page, and reward him for removing every trace of comments that he did not like on his own page. This is the epitome of "disruptive editing." A look at his talk page gives no clue to discussions about him ... only his viewpoint of himself as an innocent victim who has been "libeled" when this is clearly not the case. He has been bullying me on Wikipedia and now he has your support. I feel sick to see that Wikipedia is close to recreating the NCAHF's  horrific "Quack List" of 1999  and fyslee's current "Quack Files" . He and QuackGuru are attempting to recreate these same defamatory, pejorative, subjective lists now on Wikipedia ... everything I thought Wikipedia was not. Ilena 07:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) Thank you for providing a functional link regarding the court case you have been asserting. It demonstrates to my satisfaction that I stated reasonable expectations in the block warning above. Actions that take place outside Wikipedia - at other websites or in other realms of the real world - would not have bearing on administrative decisions here unless very special circumstances applied. I do not close deletion discussions so if that is an issue for you then contact someone else when your block expires, or petition Peter to do so on your behalf if timeliness matters. Other than that you demonstrate very little other than your own intractability. It is pointless to attempt to dictate to me what the epitome of disruptive editing is: I happen to be the editor who wrote the lion's share of that guideline. Durova Charge! 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding fislee's comment above, it doesn't actually remove evidence when Ilena deletes something from her talk page because the posts remain in the page history. It's mildly preferable to retain posts (except blatant things such as profanity) and archive when the page gets oversized.  The only user page deletions I frown upon are removal of valid block warnings.  Durova Charge! 08:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I basically agree, but in the case of such currently contentious issues, her deletion can be interpreted as an attempt to remove documentation of her disputed behavior and the warnings of others. She has done this before on her talk page, so I created archives back then and placed the totally deleted information there. Archiving is better than deleting. -- Fyslee 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, with respect to this comment: "A look at his talk page gives no clue to discussions about him ... only his viewpoint of himself". If you look at the top right of his talk page the archives are there for anyone to puruse. For example User_talk:Fyslee/Archive_4. David D. (Talk) 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the edit history and archives tell it all, and it's only one post that I archived that has repeatedly been reinserted by her that I have deleted. Ilena uses a shotgun approach that only hits with a couple pellets, while most are misleading misses. I am a (former) hunter (16 Greenland reindeer, among others) and prefer the rifle approach. It's specific and easily documentable. Either you hit or you miss. I am asking her to provide specific documentation in the form of diffs for her charges accusations against me. No more endlessly repetitive shotgun blasts of the same charges accusations that hit and miss god knows what. Recycling the same charges accusations is getting nowhere fast. It's impossible to deal with. -- Fyslee 08:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * David, Fyslee: there's no need to examine those assertions or defend against them until or unless she substantiates them. Durova Charge! 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, then I beg to differ. If she doesn't provide documentation of her assertions, then she shouldn't make such serious charges accusations against me in the first place. That type of behavior is bad faith personal attacks, a practice forbidden here at Wikipedia. Such a practice (of making undocumented charges accusations, and then refusing to provide documentation) violates principles of ethics, honesty, accountability, skepticism, etc.. Such serious charges accusations and claims must be documentable and the documentation presented on demand. -- Fyslee 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * And if she continues on her present course, retracting nothing and substantiating nothing while creating more of the type of accusations that prompted the block warnings, then she can anticipate that another and longer userblock will follow rather swiftly after this one. Durova Charge! 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When fyslee set up shop on Wikipedia, he posted links to his webrings, his quack files, and advertised his job as the assistant listmaster to Barrett. When anyone else points those facts out, he screams "ATTACK" and removes them. He treats, now with your help, Wikipedia like the Healthfraud list, and censors anything that doesn't appeal to him. It is fully substantiated that every click on the links to quackwatch.com or ncahf.org links directly to his webrings and blogs, a fact that he denies to this day. You can be very happy to know that team mates of fyslee's are posting on usenet the portions of this discussion that he wants posted. He claims his team mates on the Rag-tag Posse are not team mates, that it is but a "spoof" ... when in fact this is a list of my three losing plaintiffs along with their publicists on usenet, Wikipedia, the healthfraud list, and various blogs, spreading the healthfraud agenda and attacking those who Barrett etc. are suing. I feel very sad that Wikipedia is allowing this identical agenda replicated here. What is and what is not 'quackery' is totally subjective, but any who read this will see that fyslee's bias is clear. Look at his comments on "attack." Ilena It honestly makes me nauseated to see this clear agenda in an encylopedia. Ilena 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena, clearly some wiki editors are more opiniated than others, but I don't see that fyslee is going unchecked. There are plenty of editors that are debating and revising the content he adds.  You could be one of them too, if you treat this as an academic exercise rather than a fight to be won. There are plenty of people i have seen negotiate with fyslee.  i agree it is often a slow battle of attrition to reach a compromise, however, the compromises are reached.  You need to watch these other contributors and see how they work to reach these compromises.  One problem with your editing style, at present, is that you lose potential allies.  This is a bad strategy since allies are critical to reach your favourable consensus. This is not about who can shout the loudest, or even who is right.  It is about presenting an argument so solid and reliable that you can convince people that your preferred version of an article is the best. It is always a slog in these controversial topics and it requires patience and i you don't adjust to that editing environment you will always find it hard to be productive here. Just my two cents... David D. (Talk) 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena, one more post of that nature and I will extend your userblock. I have spelled out the standards that you are expected to follow.  This isn't a game.  Durova Charge! 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, you may want to look at the contributions of User:I'clast and User:Levine2112. They're both prolific editors who are favorably disposed toward alternative medicine and negatively disposed toward Quackwatch/Barrett (in fact, the "Criticism" section of the Quackwatch article has been the longest part of it since before I came on the scene, which hardly argues for censorship). I'clast and Levine hardly shy away from arguing their cases, but they manage to do so in a way that avoids disruption of Wikipedia. If I could offer a constructive suggestion, it would be to look at the contributions of experienced editors who (I think) share some of your viewpoints, and see how they go about editing and commenting. MastCell 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good suggestion. Durova Charge! 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have removed several contentious sections from this talk page. They are available in the history for those that need them. These sections were only fueling debate that needs to end - now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Ilena posts a request for unblock I recommend the reviewer examine the full version. Durova Charge 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This link is probably easier on the sanity of a reviewer. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Defusing the situation
I am going to make an attempt to somewhat defuse this situation by editing some of my later posts (just follow my edit history to see where I do it, and notify me on my talk page if I miss any that should be changed).

My offer to Ilena still stands, but Ilena is refusing to accept my offer for her to provide diffs and evidence for her serious charges accusations against me, and now she has found what she attempts to use as an illegitimate excuse to turn the tables, which is just another attempt to avoid providing proof of her very serious charges accusations against me. No, it's her turn to provide evidence, not my turn.

I am now going to begin removing that illegitimate excuse by editing my posts. She won't like it, but I'm being totally upfront and transparent in my actions, and this is a good faith effort to simplify things. I'm going to replace any of my uses of the words "libel" and "attack" with "charges" "accusations", or something like that, as the situation warrants. Since I have never had, or even hinted at, any intent to sue her, the point of whether a specific charge accusation of her's is "libelous" or not is moot. I regularly get libelled and receive death threats without going to the police or courts, and this situation is no different.

She can't deny that she has been making such charges accusations (which at Wikipedia are considered attacks against another editor), and thus her obligation to provide evidence still stands. -- Fyslee 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * Very good doublespeak. You have claimed you were libeled by me. Please provide the diff. Thank you. Ilena 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wrote that and have retracted it in good faith. You can no longer use it as an excuse to avoid providing the requested documentation of your charges accusations against me. -- Fyslee 09:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * Blows referee whistle &bull; "Charges against me"? No. No.  NO.  That is far enough.  Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is not a courthouse.  Stop treating it like one, if you wish to remain here.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusations might be a better word than charges and Fyslee should insert page diffs to that statement, but there's no call for boldface and capital letters. I've read the retraction and Fyslee's post to that effect is basically sound.  I'll be the referee here.  Durova Charge! 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then let's call them "accusations" (or is that also going to get censored? I am seriously wondering if Peter has even read them at all!). Since when is stating the case in common language, without using pejoratives, expletives, or other objectionable language, is forbidden here? We are adults.


 * Yes, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is not a courthouse, so why is she bringing her off-wiki Usenet battles here and accusing me, thus using Wikipedia as her battleground, and violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and getting defended for doing it? Where is the fairness in that? Why am I, the victim of her accusations, being treated this way by Peter? He should be advising his charge of her duty to not do such things, and that she has incurred a duty to provide documentation, or retract every one of her accusations against me, with a huge public apology on all the pages where she has placed them.


 * She has accused me repeatedly of very serious things, and yet she refuses to document her accusations. I guess I'm now going to have to further censor my perfectly proper use of the word "charges" by substituting it with "accusations." Fine. I'll do it right now. -- Fyslee 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)

A few things to Fyslee: first, diffs are what I like to see - please substitute the links above and the "follow my edit history" with diffs. Upon further consideration Ilena has made a couple of allegations that merit specific attention: If both of these allegations are correct then you have crossed the line regarding WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If they're true then the appropriate way to rectify the situation would be to add a statement declaring the affiliation on your user page and move those links from each of the articles to the article talk pages along with a statement that you work for the organization, you suggest the link would be helpful to readers, and then let other Wikipedians put it back in the article if they agree. Durova Charge! 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) . You are an employee of the person who was on the other side of that court case she was involved in.
 * 2) . You have inserted links to that organization's website into a large number of Wikipedia articles.


 * Durova, this is precisely what I'm trying to get her to document, because i dispute her charges accusations. I have never been an employee of Barrett in any manner. I even stopped my function as assistant listmaster after there had accumulated over three thousand unread mails from the list on my PC! I rarely post and Barrett has even ignored or rebuffed my rare suggestions for changes, that's how "close" our relationship is! I have, just like practically all other editors, followed accepted and expected practice by adding internal embedded references and external links that are specific to the topic at hand, and that as have been V and RS. As long as any link is acceptable by Wikipedia standards (not the standards of some editors on the other side of the POV fence here....;-), then I cannot be clandered for such actions. This includes (among many other sources) occasional links to specific articles at Quackwatch written by various experts on the subjects. Other editors of opposing POV (it's good they are here) have naturally disputed those additions at times, and concensus and collaboration has been followed as is expected. That's how things work here. Since these are controversial subjects, it is only natural and expected that there will be some back-and-forth discussions and disputes between editors of differing POV, and that too is normal and perfectly proper, as long as a collaborative spirit is maintained. Now I just want her to document her charges accusations. It is only the promoters of subjects criticized by Quackwatch that complain, while scientists, universities, librarians, government agencies, Consumer Reports, and consumer advocates all consider Quackwatch a good source of consumer protection information written for the ordinary consumer by some 150 experts in various fields. I don't know how many such links I have added, but it certainly isn't as many as is claimed. I have even removed links to Quackwatch when I have found them to have been added inappropriately or superfluously. I am perfectly willing to discuss her charges accusations once she provides the documentation for them. The ball is in her court. -- Fyslee 20:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here . -- Fyslee)


 * Fair enough: you declare that you used to volunteer for Barrett's website and have ended your affiliation. So unless Ilena presents evidence to the contrary, WP:COI doesn't appear to be the problem she claims.  I still want to see diffs for the assertions higher up at this thread.  And per Peter, a strikethough of charges that changes to assertions would be a good faith gesture - not a big issue in my eyes but a courtesy to those who care.  I don't consider his citation of WP:NOT to be appropriate for that.  Durova Charge! 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova's point of tu quoque becomes relevant here, too. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, this link Ilena provided above: concerns me greatly, as it seems there is a conflict of interest.  She has provided some evidence, I wish people would stop glossing over it and accusing her of not backing up her claims.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter, precisely what is the charge accusation in this case? Are you now adopting her behavior? Please explain and provide the precise wording that is problematic. I'm all ears. I have been -- at your demand -- kissing my own A**, in an exercise of unreasonably long-suffering good faith. Now please provide documentation. -- Fyslee 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance of tu quoque there? If Fyslee doesn't work for Barrett as Ilena has been claiming then WP:COI isn't an obvious call.  So, by default, we assume his insertions of reference links are done in good faith.  Tu quoque refers to the fallacy that actual wrongdoing is negated by the faults of the other party.  Do you see another allegation on this point that he failed to address?  There's no fallacy to answering an allegation and then making counteraccusations.  Durova Charge! 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He is refusing to provide diffs because Ilena won't. It's childish, and is only making things more untenable. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you refusing my request of you (above) to provide an explanation for your repetition of her accusation? -- Fyslee 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it my turn to say "you first?" No, I'll be better than that.  Simply put, her accusations seem to have weight, from my following of links on that site, and you should either disprove them, or avoid editing articles that constitute a conflict of interest.  THat shouldn't be hard - there are 1,500,000 articles on Wikipedia.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it would be a violation of logical thinking and the rules of debate for you to attempt to turn the tables (by saying "you first"), as you have done above. You have repeated Ilena's accusation, and you are now just as obligated as she is to provide the evidence for your accusation against me.


 * You have at least given me an idea of what it is. It's a COI problem. Please document the problem by providing your argumentation. Where is the problem? Word it carefully so I can understand it. -- Fyslee 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding that link, I've already read it. Reading it twice does not change one word of what I've written.  Durova Charge! 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation
Ilena, I think the site's formal mentorship program Adopt-a-user would be a good thing for you. The informal mentorship you've gotten from Peter, although devoted and sincere, hasn't entirely pointed in the right direction. I'm concerned that if you follow his advice and opinions you will continue to encounter problems - problems which would likely lead to much more administrative action than your current 24 hour block. This is not the first time you've been blocked and once things reach a certain threshold they often escalate. I would rather see your dispute resolve itself and see you develop into an established and trusted Wikipedian.

You can join the program during this block by clicking edit, removing the hidden colon from this template, and posting it to this page. Respectfully, Durova Charge! 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Same template, different way of linking: paste the following (without the "tl|": Adoptme. Ilena, I think this is an excellent idea. An adopter is someone who can help you understand and follow Wikipolicy, so you can edit more productively, rather than get into situations where your behavior, rather than your proposed edits, are the focus. That will help you edit far more effectively. As a side note, you can also request adoption by a specific adopter, by posting a note on the talk page of an editor from the list at Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no recollection of being blocked before. Could you please provide me with that information. Thank you. Ilena 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your block log is here: . KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ilena 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, due to how long ago your two previous weeklong block s happened I decided to be lenient. I won't be lenient if I extend this block or block again on the heels of this one because at that point you'd be on your fifth fourth block.  Durova Charge! 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the log, it was the same block, repeated twice in the log. I should speak to a developer about that hiccup, as it's obviously causing confusion.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly amended. Durova Charge! 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Bye for Now
Thank you very much to Wizardy Dragon and others who I believe are neutral and unbiased. For the others, with all due respect, because fyslee may say that all his work on the Webrings that promote Barrett's "anti-quackery" websites, and the years of working as NCAHF's assistant webmaster were all voluntary, does not make it so. There is an "anti-quackery" industry that they promote --- selling books, memberships, including soliciting donations for NCAHF.org. No one has shown it to be a legal entity in any state. In fact, what led to the early block against me was fyslee removing the link to the State of California website that verified it's suspension in May, 2003. You may believe that this is just a hobby of theirs, but, as one who has been a target of this team for 6 years, defeating them all the way to the Supreme Court of California, I disagree. Public relations, or "the media" (as Barrett calls himself) is big business, and pretending otherwise is at best, naive. I've got some traveling to do again, so I will leave Wikipedia for a while. There are those far more patient than I to deal with those like fyslee keeping verifiable facts off of Wikipedia. God bless those that will continue to stand up to this "anti-quackery" network. They have harmed too many with their subjective, perjorative "quack files" and "quack lists." (removed) Off on another adventure. Ilena 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A repetition of such accusations does not make them true. My activities are purely a hobby. I earn nothing but attacks from Ilena and others like her. I have no connections with any in the drug industry, AMA, CDC, FTC, FDA, WHO, etc.. (I'm just an ordinary Illuminatus ....;-) I have seen too many deaths, including in my own family, from following the "advice" of alternative medicine true believers and outright con artists. My own mother and both of my MIL (my FIL remarried, and she too died) died at their hands. I have previously treated patients (as a PA), using quack methods, so I have been a personal user and practitioner of alternative methods, all before I learned better. I have now, as a professional PT, an interest in protecting people from being deceived. I do not demand the banning of all alternative methods, only that they not be promoted using deceptive advertising. I have no sympathy with the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, and consider the use of drugs to often be unnecessary, but I am not fanatically against them. They have their place. Ilena has no real knowledge about my personal beliefs, since she has never asked. She just assumes lots of things, then finds some information of some type about me (the only part of her accusations that has some relation to reality), then spins it through her conspiracy theories, filters it through her hatred of all things scientific and conventionally medical, then shapes it as a weapon against anyone that might have some remote acquaintance or sympathy for the views of medical scientists and Stephen Barrett, and promptly places it in her shotgun and shoots it in the direction of her target, hitting with two pellets and missing with the other 148. Now you know just a little bit about me, and she is wrong about me. -- Fyslee 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the NCAHF antiquackery "industry" of volunteers and websites is somewhat under $25 grand a year, while the infomercial and fake meds industries and scammers they seek to expose make millions. There is no comparison, especially when one considers that one industry exploits and cheats people, while anti-quackery activists seek to warn them, and don't even sell them drugs or other products. -- Fyslee 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I appreciate your situation, but letting Ilena push your buttons and get you wound up like this is counterproductive. Ilena's behavior has drawn community/admin scrutiny. I've been in your situation and I know it's tough, but I'd suggest that you step back and let process take its course. Ilena's behavior is unacceptable, but getting wound up to the point that you cross the line yourself will only compound the problem. MastCell 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. It's pretty hard to just lie down and take it, since I have a highly developed sense of justice and don't take kindly to being falsely accused. As long as there are admins who monitor the situation in a responsible manner (as we have witnessed here), I can relax and let things take their course. Maybe now we can get back to creating an encyclopedia. This has taken all my available time here. Your advice is wise and I'll attempt to follow it in the future. If and when I fail (I'm not perfect), please remind me! -- Fyslee 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee: retract, strikethrough, and be conservative about making adverse assertions again - particularly without the necessary evidence. Although you have been cooperative about retractions and strikethroughs, such statements really shouldn't be made at all.  Please read this essay (which is good reading for all here) and disengage.  Durova Charge! 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that excellent essay. Very interesting and well-written. Some of the principles are useful here, but since the conflict here isn't about editing issues, but about how to deal with being on the butt-end of very serious personal attacks charges  accusations  misrepresentations (is there any truthful word I'm allowed to use here without actually becoming totally inaccurate?), I hope there is a similar essay dealing with that very different issue. I will certainly read it. -- Fyslee 05:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki pages
Ilena, the page you've created and linked (the link has since been removed by Ronz), at [LINK REMOVED], is essentially an off-wiki attack page against Fyslee, whom you repeatedly mention by both Wikipedia username and real-life name. You are undoubtedly familiar by now with WP:NPA, which states both that off-wiki attacks are frowned upon, and also that "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack" is listed under actions that are never acceptable and constitue a personal attack. What you do off-wiki is up to you, but may have repercussions here. MastCell 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an issue from Ilena's Dec 26 AN, and there's even evidence of it left on this page here. It was a major problem on her user page. --Ronz 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1 week block
Your block has been extended to one week for violating WP:NPA and WP:POINT after final warning. Durova Charge! 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also posted a thread to WP:AN regarding your block and surrounding events. If you wish to comment on that thread or offer topical improvements to articles you can post them here and request Peter to repost for you.  However, if you continue to abuse the privilege of editing your talk page during your block period it can be page protected.  Durova Charge! 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Responses at WP:AN lean toward a userban as of this posting. If you wish to comment or take conciliatory steps, now would be the time to do so.  Durova Charge! 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Different Editors ... Different Rules ?
I am told that I may well be banned off of Wikipedia permanently, in part, for posting a link to my webpages.

It appears to me that Wiki rules are subjectively applied.

As Rosenthal, the successful defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, I believe those close to the plaintiffs have serious grudges against me and spend enormous amounts of time attempting to demonize me. I have made edits in good faith, provided verifiable facts and links on several occassions, yet believe I am continually misrepresented as to this fact.

Despite denials, fyslee is closely linked with the plaintiffs. I know he considers this an "attack" yet I consider it factual and verified.

Personal information removed. You know better, Ilena. ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Different rules for him than for me it appears.

Further, each and every link that he has edited into Wikipedia to quackwatch.com or ncahf.org -- every one links to his webrings and all his websites. One click away. Although it was discussed that this might not be proper Wiki Behavior, all talk of that has now been apparently dropped, as I am lead to the Wiki Gallows.

And again ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This quote on this page was made about me: The blocked editor alleges that Fyslee, another editor in her Wikipedia dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.

However, I have never used the term "employee." I had accurately stated that fyslee works with the three plaintiffs I defeated and this is accurate. He is the Webring Master of all their websites, blogs and discussion groups, all neatly linked together. On these blogs and websites linked here on Wiki by him, are many, many, many examples of "Ilena bashing." He just gave up his years of being Assistant Listmaster for the ncahf.org Healthfraud List a couple of weeks ago, which this diff shows he advertised here on Wiki. He is very open about being known by both fyslee and his "real world name" (including having posted these links on Wiki). Yet I am to be severely punished and perhaps banned, in part, for using them.

His friends, the three losing plaintiffs, hate me such deep contempt, and have waged massive smear campaigns to discredit me. The more I beat them, the worse they got. Fyslee has claimed that I have libeled him ... a very serious accusation. After some strike throughs, he backed off, then using weasel comments, basically made these same claims.

I am still of the belief that fairness and neutrality will reign here on Wiki and thank all of you who have been communicating with me about the happenings here. If there are any new readers to this situation, I hope they will read my words and edits ... and not take as true all the accusations made about me.

I'll be checking in occasionally only as I explained earlier. Blessings and healing especially to Wizard Dragon. Ilena 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena, you can't control what Fyslee does, only what you do. Fyslee has come in for criticism, and he'll come in for more if he behaves inappropriately. But using his behavior as an excuse to act out is not going to get you anywhere. MastCell 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena, strive to be better than those that malign you, not the same or worse, or you may end up with the same fate as them. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 21:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Comments being made about me by Fyslee
"The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected."

This is the type of disinformation being circulated by the losing plaintiffs and their public relations (media) people.

1- There were 3 plaintiffs ... one being Stephen Barrett. His case against me was declared a meritless SLAPP ... the Supreme Court Judge Moreno reiterated what the lower courts ruled: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory."

2- Attorney Christopher Grell sued me for libel when I had not even mentioned his name. He refused to dismiss the case up until after being severely chastized by the Judge during oral arguments.

3- Regarding Terry Polevoy ... there was one word only "stalking" -- that was considered to be potentially libelous. One word. Nothing like the posturing described above by fyslee. Should the case against the other defendants be heard in the Superior Court, witnesses such as the woman who claimed she was stalked by him, will have a chance to present her case and her experiences that led to her calling the police for protection from Polevoy.

To correct another claim of fyslee's: She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here,

I travel quite a lot, have business in California and frequently spend time in Costa Rica and Nicaragua and other Latin American countries. Since I got a Wiki account, "Ilena" I have always used it. I have never attempted to hide my identity nor edit surreptitiously, as suggested.

Good nite again. Ilena 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, all of fyslee's comments remain on the AN board ... and I am unable to correct his false accusations. That they mirror those put out by the 3 losing plaintiffs in this case should be able to be noted. I would appreciate any help. Ilena 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I feel very disappointed that fyslee refuses to be mediated. Being blocked, I have not been able to respond to this. I feel very, very strongly feel non-biased mediators could help sort out what has been really going on between fyslee and me. His staunch refusal to be mediated, indicates he may well realize his complaints and accusations about me will not hold up under scrutiny. I believe ::: mediation would also allow the facts to his long relationship with Barrett and all of his quackery groups to be revealed, which he continues to deny.

In my opinion, he has been allowed to continue to make false statements about me, the legal case members of his healthfraud list lost to me, and continue using Wikipedia as his soapbox. Comments above that fyslee too, has punished in any way whatsoever is not accurate in my viewing. I further do not understand why when I supplied the diffs where he promoted his own websites on Wikipedia, those links were removed and I was chastized. I was quoting him advertising his own sites that revealed that it was not me, but he himself, who linked his websites with his real world name with his alias here. I do not understand why my evidence is deleted and me reprimanded as if I "outed" him in some way. He "outed himself" as diffs that were removed clearly indicated.

I strongly request another request for mediation. Please look at what I wrote above that fylsee had claimed regarding Barrett Vs Clark and Barrett Vs Rosenthal. His comments are without foundation, are entirely false as to the facts of the case, yet they have been allowed to remain on the admin board with me being blocked from responding. They are identical to the false claims he posted here under one of his "anonymous" bloggers on his Webring, and throughout other internet media by other members of his so-called "spoof" team.

As I am traveling right now, I can only check here periodically.

Thank you and have a joyous weekend. Ilena 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee has refused to participate, and the willing compliance of all involved is what is required for mediation. If you wish to take the matter further, a Request for Arbitration may be filed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fyslee declined to participate because the Rfm was about the article Barrett vs. Rosenthal, and he felt that did not address the core issues of the strife. (Phrasing mine, I do not claim to speak for Fyslee, I am interpreting and paraphrasing what was written and any errors are mine.) I do not advise an RFAR at this time. I suggest a request for comment as much more appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. The issues around Barrett Vs Rosenthal are extremely significant here. Whatever reason Fyslee gives for refusing to be mediated is actually irrelevant.


 * What is factual, is that his refusal for mediation, comes concurrently with his distributing unfactual, unsupported, and outright disinformation regarding this case. In fact, it is a repetition of the propaganda being put out by the three losing plaintiffs, including previously by fyslee on Wikipedia also.


 * Fylsee's quote: is definitely at issue. "The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected."


 * I addressed above how every aspect of this is unfactual. I could actually devote a whole essay on that piece of propaganda he wrote and how it relates to Barrett Vs Rosenthal.


 * When I am stationary again, I will do what I can to take this to the next level of Wikipedia and will research the options being offered here.


 * I will not, however, after spending six years of defeating the so called "quackbusters" up to the Supreme Court of California, not challenge the actions around the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article on Wikipedia and fyslee's continued role in it. Thank you. Ilena 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ah. In that case, then Wizardry Dragon's suggestion to file a RFARB may indeed be more appropriate. Article Rfcs rarely help with serious issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually; Fylsee's comment is almost correct. The only reason she (you) won against Polevoy was a totally new application of a (relatively) new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. (Italicized text is mine required to make the his statement clearly correct.) The second part is opinion, but it paraphrases parts of the actual opinion and dissent. (It's unclear to me why the opinion applied the immunity provisions of section 230 but not the takedown provisions, but I'm not a lawyer.)
 * I thought the Appealate Court ruling found the accusation of stalking to be "libel per se", so that truth was no longer at issue unless an actual criminal accusation of stalking had been made. If that's correct, then your point 3 objection is incorrect.  In any case, I could see how he could have come to that conclusion, because accusations of criminal conduct are libel per se.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely false and more falsity. I don't have the time now to respond fully, but I consider this, yet another instance of disinformation on Barrett Vs Rosenthal being circulated.


 * Further, Fyslee's total refusal to be mediated, for whatever "reason" given, definitely shines a light on his role in the public relations being put out on both Barrett Vs Rosenthal and Barrett Vs Clark. With his and Rubin's misleading and false comments being circulated about this case, and both of them being editors surrounding it and other articles relating to the plaintiffs, it seems inconceivable to me that this is what Wikipedia is about and that unbiased administrators will allow this to continue without scrutiny. Shalom. Ilena 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
Ilena, it is possible to edit during your block if you follow the advice I'm about to give. Type here exactly what you want reposted to some other page, along with a header requesting where it would be reposted, and let an editor who isn't blocked move it there for you. That way you can contribute to the WP:AN thread and any articles you may wish to edit. No one is actually required to repost for you, but if you use this option well other observers may weigh it in your favor when they evaluate your conduct. Durova Charge! 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova, that may not be wise for the editors that would do it on her block. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that an editor who acts on the behalf of a blocked or banned user may be subject to remedy as if they were that user.  Proxy editing is a prohibited practice, Durova, and you should not be encouraging it.

The arbcom has dealt with proxy editing (editing an article in the place of someone who has been banned from it) previously in one of the Lir cases. We prohibited the practice. Raul654 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, my view on the matter is summated in my own response to the question that elicited Raul's response - Certainly some discretion should be applied when judging the edit. Someone should not be condemned simply by association if they have done nothing questionable, but making edits requested by a banned user in that user's stead is something that will be more looked at with more discrimination, at the very least. - but at the very least it's a dirty pool and you should not be encouraging questionable behaviour. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While Peter's advice is most likely correct, Durova's advice is good for Ilena when she is unblocked. She is prohibited from editing the Barrett v. Rosenthal article because of COI issues, yet has done it anyway without getting blocked for doing so, in spite of being encouraged to do precisely what Durova has suggested. I would be more than willing to work with her (as I have stated previously), and help her add information, even when that information does not conform to my own POV. She can 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. -- Fyslee 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had seen that on an appropriate Wikipedia space page. Rereading WP:BLOCK, that page is silent on the issue.  Hardware problems may prevent me from researching further.  Durova Charge! 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an Arbitration ruling that dealt with proxy editing. As Raul said, they forbid the practice.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs if I am mistaken. I see my last edit on Barrett V Rosenthal was January 3rd, and it was giving verifiable information as to who Mr. Bolen is. It was prior to David D telling me that I alone, could not edit there because of COI. Perhaps fyslee can provide us the diff that shows where I have "done it anyway." It still seems so unbalanced to me that the Barrett side is linked to his webpages, but the defendants are left with no verifiable description as to who we are. I found fyslee's description of Mr. Bolen very condescending and POV, and a repetition of Barrett's publicity on Mr. Bolen. Other than that, I have added insight into the case on the talk page. As far as COI, in my arbitration statement I will discuss fully why I find fyslee and Stephen Barrett to have more than the casual, shared hobby relationship, as has been alleged. Thank you very much. Ilena 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er Ilena, focus on the dispute, not the person. The Arbitration Committee takes a dim view of ad hominen arguments.  To clear one thing up, what Fyslee was suggesting was that if you had something you wanted to add, and could prove it had encyclopedic value, he would add it himself, as a gesture of goodwill.  If it's genuine, and I believe it is, then I say, good for him, with no condensation or sarcasm involved.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

COI
I would like to ask all parties here to read the conflict of interest policy carefully. Nothing specifically prohibits editing pages one is personally involved with. It is a bad idea, for many reasons, and it is recommended that editors confine their comments to the talk page and to disclose their relationship, to avoid problems. Several current and recent arbitration cases deal with conflicts of interest. See especially Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Proposed_decision and Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Proposed decision. 1) Edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See Conflict of interest. 2) There is no hard and fast rule which prohibits those personally invested in a subject from editing the article about it. However such involvement in Wikipedia may be, if not handled with great discretion, extremely disruptive. In such cases a user with a conflict of interest may be banned from editing the affected article. There are many reasons for this policy. For example, there have been cases where negative editing of a biography by personal or business rivals has resulted in great embarassment for the editor. In this case, as in many, the concern typically is that persons involved with a topic are frequently unable to edit with a degree of dispassion about the subject necessary for a good encyclopedia, and may be unable to reconcile their personal experiences with the reliable source and verifiability guidelines. (See Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Proposed decision.) Disruptive editing, incivility and personal attacks are, of course, sometimes blockable offenses, and if being personally connected to a subject results in disruptive editing and other forms of nonadaptive behavior, blocks, bans or arbitration sanctions may result. But the narrow fact of editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest is not, by itself, prohibited. Thatcher131 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up Thatcher. I explained this to Ilena via email and she has since confined her edits to the Barett v Rosenthal page to the discussion page.  If you could indulge us further, Raul mentioned that proxy editing was mentioned in one of the Lir pages.  Which one was it, do you know?  And what was the language of the descision?  Thanks in advance, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never looked it up. However, it is clear from both Raul and Fred's comments here that asking someone to edit for you while blocked is a bad idea.  (Using the article talk page to ask people to make edits is, of course, perfectly fine, as long as you are not blocked at the time.) Thatcher131 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Since Fyslee has refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You access it here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I am now working on my statement. However, since I have been unilaterally blocked, I am unable to post it on that page. What is the proper procedure in this situation? Also, what is the timeframe to get my statement posted? Good evening and Shalom. Ilena 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is extremely unlikely that the case will be closed before your block expires, so you can wait until such a time to post your statement. You may also post it here and I can direct the arbitrators attention to the page.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the procedure is quite clear. You may either use the procedure Durova specified above, or you may E-mail any admin (preferrably a neutral one, if you can find one), with the request that they include it as your statement on the [{WP:RFAr]] page.  (I disagree with Peter as to the timing.  Your statement should be there before arbitrarion opens, and the block may very well not expire before that happens.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Best would be to skip an admin period and email an arbitrator, who can forward the message to the Arbitration mailing list. If you wish to put a statement here, Ilena, I can forward it to a few Arbitrators. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 03:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you so much. I will do my best to get it posted as expediently as possible. Blessings and healing to all. Ilena 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try this one more time. You may wish to make a statement now for the arbitrators to review in considering whether to accept the case or not.  The best procedure is to post it here using your own account, and then e-mail one of the arbitration clerks to copy it to the WP:RFAR page.  I will also watch this page for a statement.  If and when the case is formally opened, there will be an evidence page.  If you are still blocked at that point, you can again post your evidence here, and have it copied by a clerk, or e-mail it to a clerk.  Directly e-mailing the arbitrators is acceptable, of course, but the clerks were created to handle mundane tasks like this, since the arbitrators are often quite busy. Thatcher131 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Was I incorrect in assuming that mailing the arbitrators to forward it to the list would not also alert the clerks? I was under the imperession that it being forwarded to the Arbitration list would also alert the clerks - I apologize if that is an incorrect assumption.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The clerks are not on the arbcom mailing list. Thatcher131 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thanks for clearing that up.  (It occurs to me now that this makes perfect sense since RFCU clerks arent on the checkuser list, but hindsight's always 20/20)  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the Input & A few questions
When I can catch a minute on the internet the last days, I have been doing alot of research on all things Wiki acronyms and also how to better search the archives. Thank you to those who are assisting me in all aspects of Wiki. It's all gotten so wild with talks of "suicide" and such, and many misstatements about me (in my opinion) that I have no time to address. I found one comical comment regarding my "reputation" ... as if his viewpoint and bias was shared by all who know me. Personally, I believe that Jimbo might respect me successfully defending myself against three high profile plaintiffs, as well as appreciate the precedence set in BvR. He may even have been sued in the past (or present) for something he did not write, and my Supreme Court California Ruling might well protect him too. Perhaps those who know can let us know.

I am nearly complete with my Statement, and want to make sure that I am on the right track.

Can anyone please direct me to the Wiki Rules regarding user privacy, and what is said about those who post their own first and last names on Wiki? That would really help.

I was just very concerned when I read the recent comment claiming: '' I have suggested on three different occassions that she should consider avoiding Barrett related articles (early dec, twice in Jan) she is personally involved with him via a lawsuit. She has declined to consider these suggestions. She has declined to consider these suggestions.''

Yikes! This is the third editor who has made this same claim(what feels like an accusation to me and one I'd like to respond to ) and I request that my log be examined if one is to believe this. Thank you.

I will also be covering COI and offering verifiable facts as to why there are those of us who believe that I am not the only one close to BvR and all the related QW HF Barrett articles who may be potentially editing with COI issues. I totally support and believe in neutrality and balance. As one editor correctly noted, "She just wants to be heard."

When I just checked my log, I re-read an important edit I put on the SB talk page ... one of the last.

I was correcting some unfactual information regarding Barrett's appeals on this case. I had let it go for some days hoping that someone else would catch what was probably an honest error. There are few who understand or care about the facts of this case as much as I do.

Had I not interjected on the talk page, I am sure that this false fact could have become a part of the history of this case. Here is the diff The comment I made corrected an error regarding Barret's appeal. In fact, he did appeal to the Supreme Court of California asking them to re-hear his case (lost at both the Superior and the Appeals Court levels). His appeal was denied. Concurrently, mine was granted.

Here's the evidence that I had linked to.

I have seen so many misinterpretations of every level of this court, that I am always happy for the opportunity to counter with the verifiable facts. There is also Case Management Meeting for the next actions in this case coming up, and I've recently seen more and more disinformation being spread about.


 * 11/10/2003 	Appellant's (Barrett) petition for rehearing denied. Respondent's (Rosenthal) petition for rehearing granted.

Could someone tell me please what is the deadline to get my statement posted???

I am learning so much from everyone else's comments and thank them. Ilena 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no particular deadline. The case has enough votes to open, so it will be opened probably sometime today, and you will receive a notification.  There will be a main page for the case, probably Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal, and your opening statement can go there even if it isn't ready before the case opens.  There will also be an evidence page for you to post evidence of bad behavior or whatever else the case is about.  The opening statement should be under 500 words if possible, and the evidence should be under 1000 words and 100 diffs, if possible, since the arbitrators try to read everything.  You can a feel for how things generally work by looking at some of the other currently open cases.  The arbitrators will not begin analyzing the evidence in your case for at least 7 days after open, to allow time to present it, and usually will do the cases ahead of you first, so there should be plenty of time to work on evidence after your block expires. Thatcher131 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you very much. Perhaps you could help me find the Wiki Privacy Rules regarding posting one's own first and last names, (and his links to pages that contain the same). I haven't been able to locate these yet. Shalom and thanks. Ilena 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at. Posting someone else's personal info, including name, is usually seen as harassment, but there is no reason you can't post your own.  Some people (ie. Peter Dodge, Daniel Bryant, Fred Bauder) openly use their real names.  Privacy is a proposed guideline giving some reasons why posting your personal name may not be a good idea, but this policy was originally aimed at informing children why they shouldn't post their phone numbers, addresses, etc. Thatcher131 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Thatcher. I too, am one who uses my real name in my internet activities ... here on Wikipedia, my first name is my User Name. One of the issues in this dispute, and instances where it has been claimed that my behavior was "egregious" was because I re-posted fyslee's real world name. He himself has signed his own Wiki postings with his real world names, linked to his own websites and webrings which also have his real names. He has posted information on Wiki linking the Healthfraud List (where he assisted Stephen Barrett for several years until a couple of weeks ago) ... also that contains his real life name. So when I called him by name here on Wiki, I had no thought that I was exposing anything about him personally that he had not himself repeatedly posted. I can provide these diffs if you would like to see them. So, my question is, if a user posts his own names, is it really harassment if another calls him by what he calls himself?? I am totally open to learning to be amongst the best Wiki editors, and this is stumping me right now. Thank you very much.Ilena 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena I think the confusion lies in the fact that he used to use his name openly here on Wikipedia, but then after something happened (stalking it looks like from what I've read) - he decided to stop using it. It's not improper to use the name of someone who openly identifies themselves, such as I, but when someone has stopped doing it and asks others not to - then it' a matter of respect to honour their wishes.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I understand what you mean. I would hope that those judging me so harshly and calling my behavior egregious might realize that I have posted no one else's name here but his, and it was under very extenuating circumstances. One of the first things I read that he wrote on Wikipedia had his own first and last names on it ... and linked to the Healthfraud List. That's how I found out that he was the same person as Barrett's assistant on that list and the owner of the webrings that promoted all the links to my three defendants webpages. Thanks very much to Thatcher, too. I did read the Privacy and to my reading, there are not hard and fast rules and this certainly had nothing to do with protecting a child's identity. Perhaps this kind of situation might be addressed as the Privacy article is tightened up. You can be assured that this lesson is learned.Ilena 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an (initially disinterested) observation...
I'm new here -- as of yesterday-- and I came across this discussion when trying to learn more about Wikietiquette. Initially, I just read through the exchanges between Peter, Durova, Fylee and Ilena. Then I went back and read as much as I could about Barrett v. Rosenthal and the other entries/links that seem to be at issue. So my point is just based on common sense and my observations of lots and lots of people who've been sued, rather than wikipolicy.

First, being sued is a traumatic experience. It costs money, it takes time and, if you're a private individual, you may be putting everything you own on the line. Second, it's bad enough being sued for something you're expecting, like causing a car accident. Having a process server show up at your door and notify you you're being sued for something you didn't even know was actionable by people who have a great deal more legal expertise and resources than you do is something out of a worst nightmare. Moreover, lawsuits -- even frivolous ones -- don't resolve overnight. It's typically years before something actually happens. So, for those of you who've been so quick to become exasperated with Ilena (note: IRL -- where most of us live -- three weeks is NOT a enough time to be able to predict someone's future behavior), think about how you'd feel living for weeks, months, years not knowing if you'll lose your house, your car, your retirement savings for the unspeakable crime of forwarding an article written by someone else. Or worse, knowing you'll eventually lose those things but just not knowing if you'll lose them by paying attorney's fees to defend yourself or in a judgment. And then afterward, having been through the stress and expense of not only a trial but an appeal, having the court tell you that the plaintiffs had no right to bring the suit in the first place. (Anti-SLAPP legislation doesn't apply to a plaintiff who loses a case, but to losing plaintiffs who have brought suit in bad faith.)

The whole purpose behind anti-SLAPP suits is to prevent the wealthy and influential from using the court system to stifle the free speech of the less advantaged. Regardless of whether a defamation suit has any merit whatsoever (and here, the lower court ruled that ALL of Dr. Barrett's complaints were without merit because Ilena's statements didn't constitute defamation), the simple ability of powerful individuals to bring these lawsuits has a chilling effect on the exercise of every American's First Amendment rights. None of the complaints against Ilena was found to be actionable, either a) because they didn't meet the bare requirements to be defamatory and/or b) because the claims themselves (conspiracy to defame?) are to be characteristic of the kinds of claims brought against individuals to quell free speech.

Against that backdrop, Ilena comes here and begins to post about her case -- which is a significant one for just about every single Wikipedian, given the need for citations here. Immediately, she is threatened by one of the plaintiffs in the suit she just won -- specifically, with a new lawsuit designed to make her stop critizing Dr. Podlosky -- the exact behavior which the anti-SLAPP laws were designed to prevent and that the court in Ilena's case said was unacceptable. The only response to that from the Wikipolice was to remind Dr. P. that it's not ok to threaten people and to tone it down. (Hopefully, Dr. P.'s attorney responded by explaining the short path from losing a defamation suit to paying a defendant's fees in a SLAPP suit to being countersued for malicious prosecution.)

Shortly thereafter, Fylee (an admitted associate of Barrett)shows up and starts changing Ilena's edits, then addresses (a euphemism) her directly with comments very carefully tailored to evoke the idea of litigation but not literally threaten it. Come on, who says "the first element of libel...." "I could sue you but I'm not going to..." and uses legal terms of art in just casual conversation? Maybe lawyers and law students. Certainly not physical therapists.

ANYONE in Ilena's situation would be upset. I agree that she probably needs to take a break, not because her reactions to fylee, et al. are unjustified, but because she's clearly been through a painful experience and needs time to heal. But I also think the Wiki community needs to show her more compassion than quoting a bunch of policies and then offering to help her learn how to use them so she'll stop being upset. She should be able to link to her organization, not because fylee links to his, but because people who are faced with SLAPP suits due to electronic communication might want to read about her experiences. In addition, her organization is a resource for women who've had bad experiences with breast implants. So there are good, objective reasons to allow it as well as the idea of equal application of policies.

As for fylee, he's not just some guy being antagonistic or fanning the fire, he has a clear conflict of interest. He failed to disclose that, for six years -- by his own admission, at least up to the last month or so-- he was webmaster of a website funded by Bennett's organization. If he had, even if his edits were allowed, readers would be able to judge their merits themselves. Ilena was required to provide proof of this allegation -- she offered a link to the actual website where, contrary to fylee's contentions, he appears to still be very active. Fylee's supporters (those wanting to ban Ilena) think a simple contention by fylee is sufficient to refute Ilena's proof. I disagree. Where's the letter from fylee to his website readers, disavowing any further connection with the site? That's the kind of evidence Ilena was required to produce. Moreover, the argument that someone has ceased extensive involvement with a conflicted group in the very recent past (as here) is not as compelling as the argument that someone had minimal involvement with a group and even that involvement ended in the distant past (as, say, some of our recent Supreme Court justices claimed).

More disturbing to me, though, is the fact that Ilena has been through an experience that, for the vast majority of private individuals, is traumatic. She evidences signs that she herself has been traumatized by the experience -- hypervigilance, for example. Fylee's behavior towards her -- not WHAT he says (although I have issues with that) but HOW he says it -- is designed to revisit that particular trauma over and over again and to subtly suggest she's in for it again. When Ilena reacts in a contextually justified manner, SHE gets banned. But fylee just gets told to tone it down. Suppose an associate of member ##### had mugged another member. The victim of the mugging posts on Wikipedia about it (in an otherwise unobjectionable manner) and member ###### started making posts to her talk page ostensibility challenging the validity of her report of the mugging but also deliberately making references to the incident in a way designed to force her to remember it and to frighten her into thinking she'd be mugged again ("You know, you're never really safe." "When you walk from class to your car on Tuesday night, there aren't a lot of people around..."). Would that be ok? The only defense for the putative Wikipolice's failure to act is that "we're an encyclopedia, not a place to mediate disputes between individuals or work out personal issues" and "there are policies and examples to deal with people who act like Ilena but not people who act like fylee." Actually, I think there's an excellent policy to deal with fylee -- WP:Don't be evil and the logical corrollary -- Don't assist others in being evil. Letting fylee torment Ilena -- especially when it does absolutely nothing to add to the quality of Wikipedia -- is a violation of that corrolary. It doesn't just take bad people to cause injustice -- it takes others willing to watch the actions of bad people and do nothing to stop them. Maybe Ilena's analogies to Nazis were more apt than they originally appeared.

If it's not appropriate for me to comment on this, then fine, just be polite when you tell me to butt out. OhSusanne 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena, I am sorry for your ordeal and wish you the very best of luck from here on out. If there is anything I can do to help, just stop by my talk page. --Dematt 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both very much for your comments. I appreciate them very much. Ilena 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely the kind of thing why I stood up and said something. I'm just not in the position to do an awful lot other than say things.  ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cell Phone Dangers
One of my interests is in watching the science of cell phones emerge. When I first started reading in the mid 90's that the same PR firms were claiming to have debunked the dangers of cell phones (made same good news claims about second hand smoke, breast implants, etc.) my "Junk (Industry) Science" red alert starting ringing! Why would the cell phone industry merge their PR millions with those of tobacco, pharma, silicone, oil, etc.... if they were not wanting the facts to be spun? I have been reading many Wiki articles that seem to be lopsided still (tilted toward industry science) with fierce defenders. The cell phone article seemed slanted to me. If there are any reading here who are also interested (I am not allowed to edit currently) ... perhaps including this important new study on the cell phone article could be beneficial to balance out the current edition. Mobile phone use 'linked to tumour' Thank you very much. Ilena 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sudden death, I added a section to the talk page of Mobile phone :) So far no response. --Dematt 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. Here is another very relevant study. Cell Phone Emissions Excite The Brain Cortex. Because it often takes decades for the dangers of something to be statistically and scientifically verified, it is important that these cautionary studies not be dismissed. It took until the late 1990's for there to be an undisputable scientific link to smoking and cigarettes, although the dangers had been recognized for years. In fact, it was tobacco money that first funded junkscience.com. I'll post more studies when I dig them up. Thank you so much. Ilena 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehh... that one looks a little iffy to me. Keep lookng for other ones that have more meat.. or at least a lot of boney ones;) If I'm going to put my life on the line, you have to give me some good ammunition! --Dematt 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Righto. Cell phone science is in its infancy. It takes years to prove links ... but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Here's another one that is concerning. Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes. This one is brand new and discusses even short term cell phone use.
 * hmm, I designed cell phone systems for 15 years (I am an electrical engineer). I recall one Iowan farmer insisting antennas on a 150' tower would kill his pigs.  The RF radiation (power density) decreases exponentially with distance, and is miniscule (not a technical term) at ground, given the power levels of cellular radio transmitters, pattern of antennas and propagation characteristics.  I co-authored an article in a bioengineering journal about these issues, but that was years ago.  The phones themselves are a different issue, but I would be surprised if there is a real danger.  Of course, I have not kept up on the research, so I do not know.  I have my hands full with law, now.Jance 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you're a "fan" of junkscience.com - you should look at the Wikipedia article on Steven Milloy, which I wrote much of. Something we actually agree on? MastCell 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to spend some time there seeing what has been written. Milloy and I have a long history ... he even sent me a free mug of his where he advertises all the issues he claims are debunked! He is definitely one of the best voices industry has bought! Did you see him on the Daily Show a few years ago? Ilena 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No... I wish I had. MastCell 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, MastCell has been stellar on the Milloy article!Jance 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm already working on it. Ilena 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Good to see you out and about! I see there is someone on the cell phone page that is keen on improving the cancer section. It ought to be interesting. Can't wait to see how it turns out! Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. --Dematt 01:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett Vs Rosenthal
Because of my current location, I am being sometimes blocked, and sometimes not so I appreciate that people are reading here for my comments. Thank you.

The case the Supreme Court named BvR was separated from the rest of the Barrett v Clark. It was only about one comment regarding plaintiff Polevoy that I reposted regarding his alleged stalking of a Canadian Talk Show host. Period.

I see that yet another link yesterday was added to Barrett's quackwatch site regarding a small portion of that case. It includes Barrett's accusations that have not been ruled upon and is not a balanced viewpoint of the facts, more another platform for Barrett to restate his case.

I believe that a reader would be confused as to the facts of where BvC now rests. The link to Barrett's site discusses just a narrow aspect of the case that is favorable to him at the moment regarding a cross suit ... not the main BvC. I will dig up the court website on BvC when I catch a minute ... but I wholeheartedly object to the Barrett link being edited into the BvR case as if it represented facts to the rest of the case. Thank you. Ilena 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a look and tend to agree. I deleted that link as I don't think a link to any of your sites would be appropriate either.  I also took out your description as a women's health advocate as I don't think we should describe one side wihtout the other, just to be fair. --Dematt 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also. It should not be there.  Jance 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally included and widened (by wikilinking) the description of her as a women's health advocate, but since that is not, and never has been, at issue here, then it's not relevant to the article, and can only function as a distraction and platform for soapboxing (of a good issue!). None of this was ever about her activism, about breast implant issues, or about industry attempts to suppress her activities. That's a straw man, and should not be allowed to divert the discussion or article.


 * I included the link to the BvC case because it is mentioned and relevant to the history of this case, both before and after. The link is only inflammatory because that's the name of the case. It's a link to the court case. If anyone can find a link directly to the state's copy, then use it instead. That also applies to the link to Bolen's version (with all his inflammatory comments) of the King Bio case. The removal of the Quackwatch link to the court case (Quackwatch is not an attack site, and if there's any question about that, it is certainly not of the type used by Bolen and Ilena...;-) is a gross double standard. The Bolen link and reference description should be deleted/revised, long before the Quackwatch link to the case.


 * To the best of my understanding, BvR all started solely because she started attacking Barrett (without him having attacked her first) by republishing Bolen's "opinion pieces" (his words) newsletter, and also adding her own comments. Nothing ever involved breast implants, so it wasn't a "spat" between them. (Barrett doesn't comment on those issues at all.) It was Barrett's (and Polevoy's) libel suit in an attempt to get her to stop posting what they still consider libelous statements made by Bolen. He is now awaiting trial, since the SLAPP suit was overturned. None of the suits were ever SLAPP suits (as the reversal indicates), and everything is now back on focus as a malicious prosecution and libel suit against the originator(s). I'm not a lawyer, so if my understanding is incorrect, I welcome hard evidence to the contrary. -- Fyslee 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The strike throughs above were made by User:Ilena, not by myself. Fyslee 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC))


 * The best of your understanding is unfactual and inaccurate and sounds like a repeat of Barrett's losing claims again. There are so many false statements I do not have the time to correct them all. To say "none of the suits were SLAPP suits" is pure and utter propaganda and an attempt to change the history of the case. I find your habit of posting disinformation and then requiring me and others to waste hours of time correcting this disinformation another aspect of the concurrent smear campaigns that were launched along with the suit they lost to me.


 * The fact is it was quackwatch vs breast implant awareness advocate. By attempting to SLAPP my mouth shut with meritless lawsuits and a related smear campaign, industry would be silencing one of their very vocal critics. I was quoted in Chemical and Engineering News, Midland Times, Us Magazine, The Scientist, several TV interviews and many radio shows,(to name but a few) exposing industry influence in science and the unfairness of the Dow settlement. Shutting me up would have been an industry coup. Please read this article in Philantrophy about industry suing small foundation heads such as I am. This case is classic. The part that went to the Supreme Court was about one word ... the rest personified what SLAPP suits are all about ... chilling activists such as myself. Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say Threat of costly court battles gives many charities goose bumps This issue was fully discussed during the case and after reading what I wrote, the Judge wrote a 27 page opinion granting the SLAPP suit against all 3 plaintiffs and awarding me court costs. Thank you. Ilena 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is about the links, I don't think either link will make or break the article. As a reader, it is interesting to read what each POV has to say on their respective web sites, but it is not necessary to have either.  In fact, a secondary or tertiary source is probably more appropriate.  We could probably take them all off and still be accurate. --Dematt 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The ABF is duly noted. My clear language:


 * "To the best of my understanding, ..... I'm not a lawyer, so if my understanding is incorrect, I welcome hard evidence to the contrary."

Please explain what is wrong with my statement. You crossed out three portions. Please explain each one so we all can understand your POV on this matter (I'll leave your strike-throughs in place, and provide a bit of the context):


 * 1) "To the best of my understanding, BvR all started solely because she started attacking Barrett (without him having attacked her first)...."
 * 2) "Nothing ever involved breast implants, so it wasn't a "spat" between them. (Barrett doesn't comment on those issues at all.) "
 * 3) " "None of the suits were ever SLAPP suits (as the reversal indicates), and everything is now back on focus as a malicious prosecution and libel suit against the originator(s). I'm not a lawyer, so if my understanding is incorrect, I welcome hard evidence to the contrary."

Please explain, because I'm certainly not interested in continuing in a delusion, or in spreading one. I have just expressed my understanding, without consulting Barrett or Polevoy on their understandings. Unlike myself, they and you are parties to the case, and involved parties will naturally have a colored view of the situation, which is perfectly natural. Observers will also have colored views, so I'd like to get your explanation specifically for each point above.

The "truth" (articles are only about verifiable information) is likely somewhere in the middle of all those opinions (all naturally believed to be "true") and the verifiable information we are allowed to use here. Note that opinions are also allowed in the article, but only if they come from "Verifiable" & "Reliable Sources", otherwise not. -- Fyslee 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will discuss in the Arbitration several of the unfactual points you have posted as facts. It is a public relations ploy to put out enormous amounts of disinformation and then put the onus on the victims of your disinformation to prove otherwise. Be patient. I have alot of your disinformation I am compiling and I thank you for the additional unfactual points just in the last few days. Thank you. Ilena 19:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, Fyslee, there was an anti-Slapp motion to strike. That was granted.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say there was no anti-Slapp at issue.  Secondly, I tried also to find a way to describe Ilena, for the BvR article, and then of course the docs had to have descriptions too, and it was all overpowering the case.  The advocacy of Ilena or the docs are really irrelevant to the issues of the case.  I resorted to "women's health advocate" because it was short and because "breast implants"  had nothing whatsoever to do with the original dispute. I rather gave up on trying.  And it isn't necessary to the article.  But I will look at it again.


 * What I don't understand is why both of you continue this war. It makes no sense.  You are both passionate about your ideals and interests, which is great.  You don't have to agree, to be civil to one another.  Fyslee, that was nothing less than a rant. On Wiki, Ilena, the thing that seems most irritating is when someone just trashes another's edits, without discussion.  A little respectfulness could go a long way.  And then there are just some people you may have to avoid.  I have to avoid  Droliver.  He wasn't content unless the BI article looked like a badly written marketing brochure.  There simply is no rational discussion with him.  So I don't bother anymore.  And if that may ultimately be what you both need to do.  Let it go and move on.


 * But back to the BvR article. If anyone wants to take out the Bolen link to the lower court case, go right ahead.  I referenced the court citation, which is alone sufficient.  I only re-added the Bolen link (I think we are talking about the same thing?) because I did not have a hotlink, and Curtis (remember him?) raised holy hell about it until several people told him a hotlink was not required on wikipedia.  I left it just to stop his yelling.  From what I have read of Bolen (and I have read now quite a bit, including a deposition), I don;'t think he has any credibility whatsoever.  The guy is a huckster, from what I can tell.  The hotlink was not his commentary, but just a link to the court opinion.  Jance 06:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Steth's Comments regarding Fyslee Vs Ilena
I am going to request that no one removes this and/or alters this from my talk page. The comments made by Steth here that mirror my feelings very strongly. For some reason, a few of the comments are separated from the others. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS. Thank you.Ilena 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Steth
I am not a party to this action, but I felt compelled to comment. I have not had any interaction with Ilena, nor made any contributions to the article in question, but I have had some interaction with Fyslee, some of which have been less than productive, for which I take some responsibility as I could have handled it better.

A concern was raised by Jance (maybe others) that Ilena has revealed Real World information about Fyslee. I feel it should be pointed out that it was Fyslee who posted Real World information about himself on his talk page when he set it up. User page He posted his name, occupation and internet interests. It was up for some time before he removed it and is now asking that this information not be used, which he is entitled to do. So, IMO, he poisoned his own well.

Also, Ilena raised the issue that fyslee has posted numerous links at Wikipedia for websites privately owned and operated by an ex-psychiatrist with whom Fyslee has had a long-standing relationship. This relationship appears to be on a personal level as well as Fyslee serving as his assistant listmaster and possibly other direct Internet assistance and responsibilities, as stated on his User page. User page  It was only a few weeks ago that he resigned from his job as Assistant Listmaster to this individual. Although not the issue at hand, these numerous sites, IMO, seem to be severely biased POV almost attacking respected individuals, hardly NPOV nor encyclopedic. There could be easily many dozens of these potential COI links, perhaps over 100 that could be viewed as link-spamming. The exact number would be very revealing, but not likely forthcoming. As indicated by Ilena, Fyslee has also placed links to his personally owned and operated websites in Wikipedia articles. IMO, this is not encyclopedic and is exploiting WP and subverting it’s intent and mission.

Either way, Ilena felt it was a Conflict of Interest for him to do this. I had agreed with Ilena on Fyslee’s talk page about this issue, having found it quite concerning. I had raised this issue myself several times in the past, as have others. I believe the offending links and number should be made known by Fyslee to the Wikipedian community in the interest of allowing Ilena to assist her in presenting her case here and allowing the admins to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence. If found in COI, removal might be considered an appropriate action. Ilena was also concerned, and voiced this in several places, that these numerous links also requested donations, which IMO, is extremely self-serving. I have also raised this issue on several occaisions. After noting this on Fyslee’s talk page, which BTW, he invited other editors to comment, his response to this and the above concerns was to promptly remove my remarks from his talk page, claiming it was an attack by me See:. Comments removed While he is allowed to do this, to me, this action speaks volumes and I don’t feel was justified, not to mention that it is suppressive behaviour and destroys the enjoyment of community participation in Wikipedia.

So while Ilena is not without issues herself, and these two certainly seem to have a long history and dysfunctional relationship, I believe that there are POV, neutrality, COI, behavioural issues on Fyslee’s part as well and this must be considered and addressed. I feel that Ilena’s concerns must be given the proper attention, regardless of her past history. Thank you. Steth 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Evidence from Archives relevant to Arbitration
It appears that fyslee has had the archives altered to remove evidence that could be damaging to him on our Arbitration case. I note these diffs reveal this. Since part of the vast amount of "attacks" fyslee claims I made against him was his claim that it was I revealing his personal identity, seeing to it that his own revelations of his personal identity were removed on January 26, 2007, seems relevant to be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Thank you. Ilena 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be preparing evidence for the evidence page of the case. You can note your concerns in your evidence section or on the evidence talk page. Thatcher131 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I am.


 * As recently as December 2, 2006, fyslee was using his own 'real world name' with his Wiki name. I would like this on record before anything else is permanently deleted from the archives. Thank you.


 * I don't see that diff having anything to do with Fyslee's real name. If you think he has used his real name somewhere that has since been deleted, you can make a request on the workshop page "motions and requests from the parties" to have someone look into the deleted history or the oversight logs for you. Thatcher131 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I just looked again. Here is what it reads: : Indeed! Welcome. Your debut has provided some excellent content with good sources. Looking forward to seeing more of your work and hope to hear from you. -- (name removed by Fyslee 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) - yes, it was there!) Fyslee 09:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is as recent as December 2, 2006, I believe it may be enough to show his pattern of using his own name as recently as last month. Thanks for the suggestion as far as retrieving deleted archive evidence. Ilena 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have answered this on my talk page, and on User:JzG's talk page as well. Nice to see AGF in action (not!). -- Fyslee 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Death threats since December 2, 2006??? OMG!!! Really???? Do you make a police report? Please let us help protect you by posting evidence of these threats. Since you KNOW they are chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine, they gave you their real names apparently??? This is a very serious accusation and one which I feel certain no one with integrity would make without clear evidence. Extremely serious. We await the evidence of these threats. We want to help you. Ilena 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to be snide. Unless he accuses you of making or facilitating the threats, it's not part of the case, and any editor may decide to reveal more or less personal information about himself for any reason. Thatcher131 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on my talk page. -- Fyslee 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your skating on thin ice if you are removing or refactoring comments in your archives, fyslee. ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read my explanations and assume good faith. -- Fyslee 17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Everybody cool it. Fyslee is entitled to ask for personal information about himself that he previously revealed to be deleted.  If he has asked that his name no longer be used on Wikipedia, then that should be respected, and deliberately revealing it after that date could be seen as harassment.  If an accusation is made in the case that you have harassed him by revealing his name after he asked that it be kept private, and you believe that there is deleted evidence to the contrary, ask the arbitrators or clerks to check the deleted edits and confirm the date.  It would be better not to engage each other directly. Thatcher131 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand my frustration. I have been rebuked and reprimanded that my behavior was egregious for using his real world name here, although it was only days after he, himself had posted it on Wiki. Making accusations of death threats from chiropractors with no substantiating evidence, while concurrently evidence is being deleted from the archives (making it more work for everyone just to obtain it) feels very, very questionable to me. I am working on my statement and evidence for the Arbitration right now, and just found yet another instance where he is changing the evidence, deleting the very information that backs my claims. Luckily, I made a copy of one of the webpages before he deleted the revealing evidence. I would very much appreciate not having to engage him directly, yet as recently as last week, he was making unwanted and intrusive changes on my User page. Is it possible or even probable there were no death threats from chiropractors as he claims, and this was just another subtle attack against them with no evidence to back it? I was also concerned when I read your comment above that this diff from December 2, 2006, did not contain his real world name and his Wiki name as they are clearly there together.  Dealing with deleted evidence quaduples my work ... diffs I was using are erased now as of January 26th. I hope you can understand how troubling and time consuming this is. Thank you. Ilena 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just didn't see the use of his name, you're right it is there. If he decided after Dec 2 to no longer use his real name, you're not expected to be clairvoyant, but once he has told you, you should be willing to respect that.  So far he has not presented any evidence at all.  If he makes a specific accusation against you that you think you need deleted evidence to see, it will be looked in to. Thatcher131 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is some more evidence of my devious removal of my personal information. Notice the edit summary. -- Fyslee 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The arbitration case is thisaways: Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Peter... tell it to the judge. Since Fyslee initially used his real name, no one will fault you for using Fyslee's name unless it's shown that you used it after he'd made clear to you that he wanted it private. MastCell 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Don't post any personal info about me anywhere at Wikipedia
I don't recall ever warning Ilena not to post my personal info. Lots of others were warning her not to do so, and even deleting it (nice of them to do so) for me, so I didn't figure it was necessary, since quoted policy should have been enough. Maybe I should have done it anyway.

Just to make sure she understands my position on the matter, here's what's in the box on my talk page right now:


 * Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia
 * DON'T DO IT!!


 * 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 occasional death threats). 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

I hope that notice is clear enough. Any future versions on my talk page will always be the ones that count at any time in the future. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. -- Fyslee 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Making potentially false claims that chiropractors have issued death threats to you with no substantiating evidence, is, in my experienced opinion, another one of your underhanded attacks at the profession and an attempt to make yourself appear like a victim, worthy of sympathy. I worked for years with women who were indeed stalked and received real death threats, people whose privacy was in real need of protecting. These women did not post their own names on the internet and on Wikipedia as recently as last month. To compare yourself with true victims claiming privacy issues when a one second google shows your advertisements of yourself throughout the internet with your real name advertised for years and years, makes your death threat claims with no corroborating evidence fall short of any veracity. I am frustrated indeed, with going through my notes and realizing that you are tampering with evidence close to this Arbitration Case, forcing more work on me and on others. Ilena 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Use this time to work on your ArbCom statement. MastCell 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I'm doing! I just found yet another instance of him altering evidence, while filling my page with his giant notice appealing for sympathy yet again. It's very, very frustrating. Ilena 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

History is now restored
As requested by myself,  User:JzG has kindly restored the history of my user page.


 * "I really do want to have the deletion undone. Ilena should not be able to use my good faith attempts to protect my privacy as another excuse to exercise bad faith and accuse me of wrongdoing. -- Fyslee 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

Ilena, are you satisfied now? -- Fyslee 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still confused. You claimed you it wasn't your idea to change the archives, and Guy claimed he did it on request, so who requested the archives be changed if not you? Curious in the Jungles Ilena 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on my talk page. You are indeed confused. Now start presenting all your evidence in the RfA. -- Fyslee 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies. I read the first part of the diff. that read: "I didn't know it had actually been done." I just counted 381 instances of your real name and fyslee on the WWW, so I believe those will forgive me for having doubts that privacy is such an enormous issue with you as you claim. Since you were posting them together as recently as last month on Wikipedia, that also makes one doubt your veracity. That your alleged claims of death threats include chiropractors, who you regularly attack and label with pejorative, demeaning terms, and promoters of alternative medicine, another of your targets, it feels to me that those are subtle attacks on these people, with not a shred of evidence to back your claims. I have worked with women whose lives were in danger and had true privacy issues, and your "privacy concern" rings hollow to me, sorry. That you did your virtual shredding smack in the middle of this Arbitration, where evidence was going to be presented ... well, we'll let the Arbitrators decide. Ilena 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on my talk page. -- Fyslee 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deadline for my Statement and for the Evidence on Arbitration??
Thank you to whoever can give me the dates. Ilena 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough Already
Ilena and Fyslee, have either of you gone back and read some of what you have argued about? Netiher of you give up. Ever. I am convinced you both must be even more obsessive than I am. Seriously, there is something wierd about this. Regarding Fyslee's real name-- ok, he has used it on the past on the internet. Maybe he advertises on the internet. Even if you have the 'right' to spread it all over WIkipedia, it is rude and offensive - and mean. I respect others' wishes for privacy and hope they would respect mine. It is a matter of decency.

Fyslee, courts have repeatedly ruled that 99% of what she republished was non-defamatory opinion. And she did file a successful anti-slapp motion. It might help if you stop baiting Ilena, as well.

That said, both of you go at each other, and are equally unwilling to give an inch. What exactly do either of you hope to gain? I like you both, but this is too much. Ilena, you have long been an advocate for women, and I know you have helped many women, with information and the wealth of resources that you have developed over the years. That is admirable - but it is admirable despite your public internet warring, which is incredibly destructive. It undermines your credibility, as well as the credbility of the causes you seek to champion. You have not listened to me when I told you what I thought about it, and that is your choice. My choice is not to participate. I have gone out of my way to avoid your disputes. Most of it is not discussion about ideas, but about individuals. That is always destructive, and distracts from the very goals you hope to achieve. I know I am being harsh, but damn, I wish you would see what you are doing. Jance 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jance makes a lot of good points here. As an outsider I can say she is correct in saying that your credibility is undermined by some of your behaviour here.
 * I also agree that both of you (Ilena and Fyslee) have to discuss the facts. Both of you have to try and be objective and polite. You can continue with the hysterics but that will just marginilize you both from any serious debate. David D. (Talk) 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As outsider number two, I'd just like to say that I agree completely with Jance's comments here. Ilena and Fyslee, please think about what you're doing here because you will end up with very short Wiki-lifespans if you continue. Sarah 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. It's my birthday and I'm celebrating. After spending yesterday morning finding out about fyslee's cybershredding of evidence smack dab in the middle of this Arbitration, which was undermining the work I had already done on it, I found his continual assertions about "chiropractors" making death threats on the same line as Susan Smith claiming that a "black man" had "carjacked" her . There was no "black man." I did, however, very much appreciate fyslee linking to the Chiro-bashing site where he is an administrator,which linked to his 667 posts, all with his name on it. Many such as this one, promoting quackwatch and Barrett and Polevoy. Thanks for the link Fyslee. . I learned alot about Allen Botnick, the moderator of the forum he administers, who appears to be a co-defendant with Barrett and quackwatch, thanks to fyslee's linking there. I found posts where he was telling people to sign up for Wikipedia such as this one: I am very happy I took copies last nite, since he changed his name to fys god at 6:06a.m. this morning. Humility reigns. .Have a lovely day all. Ilena 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jance, what you said was almost exactly true: "Fyslee, you have written things that simply are not true, about Ilena committing defamation etc. Courts have repeatedly ruled that 99% of what she republished was non-defamatory opinion." Actually, to be precise, there was only one word ONLY -- "stalking" -- that was arguably defamatory. Despite this, my evidence diffs will show, fyslee has publicly repeatedly and deliberately made false claims about this suit, repeating the comments of Barrett almost verbatim, that the courts have ruled against. I can't help but wonder how anyone else would feel, after soundly defeating 3 high profile plaintiffs, to see their publicist (or publicist in denial) parroting their false claims on various parts of the internet, including Wikipedia and blogs. Celebrating in the Jungles Ilena 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena, please stop. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to editorialise about Fyslee. If you can't understand that, you are going to be blocked again very quickly. Also, please stop trying to dig up dirt on Fyslee. Some of those posts are more than two years old! This is ridiculous. Please knock it off. If you continue posting commentaries about fyslee or any other editor, I will block you myself without any further warnings. Please just stop it and try to be constructive when you're on this site. Sarah 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the two of you, Ilene and Fyslee, to start avoiding each other's talk pages (and any other non-essential interaction between you)? It's become apparent that there is not going to be any healthy communication between you in the near term, which is unfortunate, but the dialog on your respective talk pages isn't helping anything. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would be very happy to have him take off his giant notices on my talk page and stop posting false information about legal matters relating to Barrett's loss to me on this page. I'm sorry ...after defending myself successfully for 6 years in various California courts, having him fill Wikipedia with disinformation about this case is very disturbing. Can you please tell me the deadlines for my statement and the evidence to be posted on our Arbitration? I got lost yesterday in the details after discovering his nuking some of the evidence I had gathered. I assure you, if you can help get him off my page and I will have no need to have to defend myself on his. Thank you very much. Ilena 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no strict deadlines in the arbitration process, and there are a couple of cases ahead of yours for consideration. I suggest you get your evidence presented within the next few days, but there is no exact deadline. I'm sorry I can't be more precise but the arbitrators have a large number of matters before them right now. Newyorkbrad 17:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Hopefully there will be no more tampering with evidence. I will be putting up my statement probably today or tomorrow. If there are any deadlines that I must make, I would sincerely appreciate being sure I know about them. Thank you for your help. Ilena 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Could we kindly try not to use inflammatory language such as "tampering with evidence." Set forth the facts and let them speak for themselves. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Ah, to be 21 again! Happy B-day. That makes you a pisces aquarius doesn't it? I have a couple of pisces aquarians (see how good I am at astrology:) in my family... they definitely keep things exciting:)  enjoy your day! --Dematt 15:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm totally Aquarian and have always been known as the free spirit in my family! Ilena 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday, Ilena!Jance 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Test and still celebrating. Ilena 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: your arbitration evidence
Have you discussed the allegation of evidence tampering with Peter? You might have misunderstood Wikipedia procedure on that point. This type of removal from the history file isn't unusual where privacy concerns are an issue. For example, we would do something like that if a child revealed their home address on the site.

Although regular editors wouldn't be able to view that type of deleted edit, they remain in the system and sysops can view them. So it should be possible to refer to these edits if you find that necessary, although any sensitive information should go through private channels rather than the arbitration page. I suggest you e-mail one of the arbitration clerks. Respectfully, Durova Charge! 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your comments. I see things quite, quite differently. I will be addressing the so-called privacy issue during this Arbitration. Perhaps there's a different explanation of why 160 of his edits were removed a week into this Arbitration. Have you ever read about False Victimization Syndrome? This occurs when an individual attempts to convince others that he or she is being stalked through the invention of claims made to re-establish a failing relationship and/or gain attention (Zona, Palarea, and Lane, 1998). I feel like Fyslee's use of huge boxes on his page (and mine this week), claiming his family's security was at risk, smack in the middle of this Arbitration, very possibly could be construed as an attempt to gain attention and to portray himself as a victim. I appreciate your viewpoints though. Ilena 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a licensed psychologist and I doubt I would speculate in that manner if I were. It is, however, a standard practice at Wikipedia to remove personally identifiable information upon request if the information has not been disclosed on this site by the editor in question.  The purpose of my post was to inform you that this information remains in existence, that you may refer to it as necessary, and to advise you of the usual procedure for doing so.  Please confer with an arbitration clerk regarding the details.  Although I play no formal role in arbitration I have submitted evidence in several cases and in my experience the committee tends to look favorably upon editors who are moderate in their allegations and proceed in a cooperational spirit rather than a confrontational one.  Ask other editors if you wish: my words were meant as friendly advice.  Durova Charge! 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You said, "It is, however, a standard practice at Wikipedia to remove personally identifiable information upon request if the information has not been disclosed on this site by the editor in question." Just so we understand each other, are you now claiming that I put personal information on Wikipedia about fyslee that he had never disclosed about himself? Thank you. 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) I think we went through this sufficiently during the discussion of your one week block. If you are unclear about that precedent ask an arbitration clerk. Again, Wikipedia is structured to discourage the type of confrontational engagement that succeeds at Usenet or in a court of law. I meant the suggestions cooperatively and in good faith. If they do not appear to be received in that light I will cease offering them and cease replying to your questions. Durova Charge! 01:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but what you are saying is making no sense to me whatsoever, and it feels like you are accusing me of things I haven't done once again. I have a wonderful group of advisors working with me here at Wikipedia now, so perhaps your efforts would be best spent with other editors. Thank you so much. Ilena 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quackery
I made some changes on the stuff you brought into the quackery article mostly to try and make it flow. Take a look and make sure it still says what you wanted it to. Feel free to change anything you like! -- Dēmatt (chat)  17:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... it's looking much much better. We still need to work on the reasons ... they are too POV in my opinion. Ilena 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, see ya there. -- Dēmatt (chat)  02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks
Hey Ilena, I just noticed that you recently reverted some vandalism from my userpage and I just wanted to thank you very much for doing that. I really appreciate it.

By the way, I've noticed that your talk page is often really long...have you thought about having Wernabot archive it? If you ever want to try it and need a hand setting it up, just give me a yell. Thanks again for reverting my page. Cheers, Sarah
 * My pleasure to help. I would like to assistance in archiving pages ... don't know about Wernabot and am open to the best means.Ilena discuss
 * I set up Werdnabot for you. It will automatically archive sections that haven't been edited for seven days to archive three. You can adjust the parameters if you wish to make it longer or shorter than seven days. If you decide you don't like it, just remove the template at the top of the page and it will stop. Cheers, Sarah 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated. 	Ilena  discuss

Signature
Cool signature! I noticed that you had an extra < in it that is probably making it hard to change colors.

This is the way it is now:  Ilena <  (chat)

If you take out the extra "<" it looks like this: Ilena (chat)

Then you can use these numbers to change colors!

Thanks ... I'm still having trouble making the talk link hot. Ilena 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have realized it already, but the talk link won't work on your own talk page. I checked yours and it works from elsewhere.  Loooking goooood - pink for breast cancer;) -- Dēmatt  (chat)  03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Ilena, I noticed that the time is not being posted with your name.. are you using (4) tildes (-- Dēmatt (chat)  03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)) or 3?  4 should give the time, too. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena - If you haven't done this already, copy this code <b style="color:#999900; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Ilena</b> discuss  and paste it under you nickname in my preferences (see the top of this page next to MyTalk).  After you do that, click on RAW Signature to put a checkmark in it, then save your settings.  Then you can just use the 4~'s to make your signature anywhere. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Let's see if it is working now. I tried several times and couldn't get it right.  Ilena  discuss  02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Take the and  out and do the same thing again - go to my preferences and paste it into the Signature box and click on Raw signature and save your changes. Then it should work. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Ilena, we have to get that signature working:) Did it not let you save it right? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU!!! I'm so frustrated. I put it under "signature" and tried it exactly ... then took out the ...several ways and can't figure it out! Very humbling. I'll be very grateful to all of you helping me figure this out. <b style="color:#999900;"> Ilena <</b> (chat)

If this is the color you want, click "edit" and copy this code:

<b style="color:#999900; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Ilena</b> discuss

and put it is the signature box, then click on Raw signature, then save. Then let me know what happens. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Still stymied. Also, it said, "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." This is what I put in exactly:

<b style="color:#999900; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Ilena</b> discuss

and got this & the "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags" comment.

&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;999900 face=&quot;times new roman,times,serif&quot;&quot;&gt;Ilena&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;#FF66CC&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;discuss&lt;/font&gt; &lt;b&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;999900 face=&quot;times new roman,times,serif&quot;&quot;&gt;Ilena&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;#FF66CC&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;discuss&lt;/font&gt; 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you put a check mark in "Raw signature"? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. It looks right from the article page ... but still doesn't work. Stymied in the jungles.

I think I got it! There is an extra " in it. I'll take it out and try it again..

<b style="color:#999900; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Ilena</b> discuss

One more try. &lt;font color=&amp;quot;999900 face=&amp;quot;times new roman,times,serif&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#91;&#91;User:Ilena&#124;Ilena&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF66CC&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Ilena&#124;discuss]]]] 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that looks all messed up:) Something went wrong. Make sure the box is empty when you past the new stuff in.  Did you put the code below in and check the Raw Signature box?:

<span style="color:#999900;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Ilena  discuss

Hey this is it!

--  Ilena  (discuss)

Clayton College
Please assume good faith and be more civil in your edit summary comments when making reversions. Thank you. --Ronz 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making assertions that assume bad faith such as "Barrett's promoters here on Wikipedia are attempting to use Wiki as yet another weapon to attack this college and Dr. Clark." Thank you. --Ronz 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making mass reversions of edits that you personally dont like solely because you assert some editors are "Barrett's promoters". I've spent a great deal of time finding sources independent of Quackwatch that support the Clayton College article. Your removing them with the claim that they come from "Barrett's promoters" is uncivil, assumes bad faith, and is a point-of-view push on your part. Please stop. --Ronz 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ronz. I again disagree with you entirely. Barrett is not a RS, you are others are promoting him. I'm sorry if you disagree with the facts. and you are continuing to use Wikipedia to further their concurrent smear campaign. No other article (except QW related ones) list what the subjects of articles are not. You are attempting, with others who promoteBarrett throughout the internet, to make the CC article a repeat of QW's attacks. Ilena 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should find moderation here, since you are accusing me of bad faith and using unreliable sources, and using these accusations to be uncivil and engage in disruptive editing. --Ronz 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. --Ronz 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena? QW and Barrett are involved in litiation related to CC, what do you mean by "related to". If they are involved with litigation, it might be a problem to have his opinion on the page. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP
Ilena, regarding some of your posts about Stephen Barrett, it might be a good idea to tone down your criticism a little. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as to articles, and some of your posts arguably violate the policy, particularly accusing him of mounting a smear campaign. If you stick to what reliable, published sources have said about him, you won't go far wrong. Many thanks, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I sure am not Slim nor a Virgin! Please understand, there is a classic legal and smear campaign waged since 2000 by Barrett. The Wiki Clayton article is now an extension of it. I'm sorry that it is't kind, nor is it made up. The article is so biased it is painful to read. I am being as polite as possible, that I thought that Wiki was not to be used to further legal battles, such as Barrett Vs Dr. Hulda Clark and advertise nor was it to advertise his "anti-quackery" business such as being done. This is totally factual, I'm sorry it isn't kind, but it's all verifiable. <b style="color:#999900;"> Ilena <</b> (chat)


 * Please verify it, or at least stop your disruptive editing until you do so. --Ronz 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you want verified? Ilena 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Wiki Clayton article is now an extension of it (Barrett's smear campaign)" --Ronz 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy. Read it. It quotes an attack by Barrett (totally non RS) ues his linkspam, although he has long been in lititation with Dr. Clark. Ilena 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that any link to Quackwatch is verification of a smear campaign by Barrett here on Wikipedia? --Ronz 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are inaccurate again. Ilena 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So can you explain? Only some links to Quackwatch are verification of a smear campaign?  Are there things other than links too? --Ronz 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of QW's links are attacks ... the one linkspammed in this article for certain. The quote from Barrett, totally an unreliable source and a litigant against Dr. Clark, is a continuation of the attacks on that link being brought to Wikipedia in a quote totally inappropriate for an encylopedia. Ilena 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're saying because of Barrett's conflicts with Clark (and his other articles on Clark), the Quackwatch link in the Clayton article is verification of a Barrett smear campaign here on Wikipedia? --Ronz 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Conflicts???? He has been suing her and everyone close to her for over 6 years. He runs a concurrent smear campaign via his webites, healthfraud list, webring etc. What I said was this: Most of QW's links are attacks ... the one linkspammed in this article for certain. The quote from Barrett, totally an unreliable source and a litigant against Dr. Clark, is a continuation of the attacks on that link being brought to Wikipedia in a quote totally inappropriate for an encylopedia.Ilena 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<-- OH, that is a good point, Barrett and Clark are in a lawsuit and we have inserted a link with Barrett making comments about Clark. That is probably not a good idea, and potentially libelous I assume. That means we need to at least get rid of the link. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also don't agree with using Quackwatch as a source, because it appears to be a self-published single-purpose attack site. That aside, we definitely shouldn't use Barrett as a source against anyone he's in litigation with, unless what he says is published by a third-party reliable source i.e. not self-published by Barrett. Contentious material about living persons must use the best possible sources. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Libellous information needs oversighted ASAP. ✎  Peter M Dodge  ( Talk to Me ) 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't see any (libelous statements -- information cannot be libelous in the United States) in Quackwatch. Most of that is either opinion or documented.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to email the Office about the BLP concerns and let them deal with it. ✎  Peter M Dodge  ( Talk to Me ) 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. This naturopathic college is not claiming to be anything but what it is and the article is being used to repeat the QW attacks. Ilena 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The libelous statements are Ilena's, claiming that there is a "smear campaign" by Barrett here on Wikipedia. Her verification of this "smear campaign" is the existance of links to Quackwatch. --Ronz 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ron. I have said nothing libelous. You appear to know as little about [libel] as you do about [Public_relations] and [Smear_campaign]s as you do about state corporate licensing boards. Virtually nothing. Quackwatch is part of the operations of self-named "the [media]" Stephen Barrett, whose product he markets is "anti-quackery" propaganda via his Healthfraud List, blogs, Chirotalk, webrings and the books he peddles. He solicits donations to this day for a suspended non-profit. Study a bit about [SLAPP] suits too. Ignorance of topics is no excuse. And I mean that in the most [AGF] possible with you. &lt;font color=&amp;quot;999900 face=&amp;quot;times new roman,times,serif&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#91;&#91;User:Ilena&#124;Ilena&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF66CC&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Ilena&#124;discuss]]]] 02:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is this link that was in the Clayton College article, but at the bottom it references Hulda Clark and links to a critical article on her (currently in a libel lawsuit I think). I took it out, better safe than sorry. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health
Please be careful of 3RR. Also, please stop removing sourced, cited information. It might be one thing to take out the Barret source. Removing the other sources is completely unacceptable. JoshuaZ 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The information I removed is not relevant to CC. It is not claiming to be other than what it is. Do we name every state Barrett is no longer licensed in? No. This article is being used to attack Clayton, not be an encylopedia for what it is. It isn't accredited in many things ... nor does it claim to be. I'm sorry, I have spent several months studying articles on Wikipedia and this one is just an extension of the attacks Barrett is making against naturopathy and Dr. Clark in the courtroom and on other medium ... now including Wikipedia. Perhaps we should take this article to AN.


 * Can you help get some positive stuff intot he article about CC. I have to run in and out, but I think you can get it in and then we can work with it.  Thanks!! -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do what I can. Ilena 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Please be careful of WP:3RR on Clayton College of Natural Health. JoshuaZ 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR block
Ilena, you've been reported for 3RR at Clayton College of Natural Health and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please take the time to review the 3RR policy so you don't violate it in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I just noticed that you were involved in litigation with Stephen Barrett, as described in Barrett v. Rosenthal. I'm thinking that this places you in a conflict of interest regarding anything to do with him or Quackwatch on Wikipedia, whether in one of those articles specifically or elsewhere. I think your input would be welcome on the talk pages, so long as you don't post anything contentious, but I don't think you should continue to make edits to the encyclopedia that involve Barrett or his organization. I'd welcome your views on that. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely know alot about his operations ... I defeated him in a classic SLAPP suit, and when I read about it on Wiki, it was upside down and backwards. I am in arbitration with fyslee at the moment and will devote some time to showing how QW has a product called "anti-quackery" which they promote on blogs, lists, "quack files" Chirotalk, and also here on Wikpedia, which I believe is against Wikipedia rules. Thanks. User:Ilena&#124;Ilena User_talk:Ilena&#124;discuss]] 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ilena, regardless of the ArbCom situation with you and Fyslee, I'm thinking you should not be editing articles related to Barrett, or making edits that involve removing his material. Can you let me know your thoughts on that, please? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did ask Ilena to help me find some positive stuff for the Clayton College article because it only had negative information.  While I was aware that Ilena might have a conflict of interest on Barrett articles, I never thought that she would not be able to edit "any" article that Barrett has a link.... wouldn't that be 100's of articles?  If we decide to delete the link can Ilena edit there again?  -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Ilena should stay away from articles directly related to Barrett, and should refrain from adding or deleting material about him from any other article. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's reasonable, thanks for clearing that up! Sorry Ilena if I got you in any trouble. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  04:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 Ilena  (chat)  15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks BETTER! -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

She is currently in Arbitration regarding conduct in these articles. It would be grossly unwise for her to be editing them during the Arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  ( Talk to Me ) 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry
You claim on the evidence page that you were not blocked 6 times. May I inquire what I am missing when I look at your block log here?JoshuaZ 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude, but it looks like Ilena has only been blocked 5 times - the first block, by Geni, is listed twice in the block log for some reason (the date, time, and block rationale are identical). MastCell 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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&#39;clast 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume this is the deletion in question . 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)

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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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&#39;clast 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume this is the deletion in question . 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)

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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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 <sup style="color:purple;">(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&#39;clast 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume this is the deletion in question . 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)

Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)