Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 21 February 2007

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs. A much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the parties' statements and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. The /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

First of all, I would like to say this issue is a very messy one, and it's brought me a great deal of frustration as I have been continually attacked and even threatened with blocking for trying to do my best to resolve a heated dispute on Misplaced Pages.

Fyslee engaged in meatpuppetry using an external website

The inexorable evidence is that Fyslee attempted to disrupt Misplaced Pages by petitioning a place with a known POV to edit Misplaced Pages in a pointed and directed matter. Policy states that this is considered meatpuppetry.

Fyslee self identifies as an "anti-quackery activist"

Fyslee, who is Paul Lee, self identifies as an "anti-quackery activist", which highlights both a potentially disruptive behaviour (wanting to "go down in history as a martyr") and also a very strong potential conflict of interest.

Ilena is a named defendant in a federal case involving Stephen Barrett

Ilena, who is Ilena Rosenthal, is a named party in a Supreme Court case, in which she was a defendant. This highlights an obvious conflict of interest in her editing these articles.

Evidence presented by Ilena

Fyslee attempted to destroy valuable evidence and Privacy Issues

A. One of the most serious accusations against me, behavior that was called egregious, was that I had somehow outed and endangered Fyslee and his family's safety by posting his real world name on Misplaced Pages. In fact, I found evidence that as recently as December, 2006, on Misplaced Pages, he himself was using his own name right next to his Wiki name. On January 30, 2007, as I began searching for the diffs for this Arbitration, I found the archives had been tampered with. After this was exposed and much ado, he then had the 160 revisions of the Wiki records un-revised.

Here is just one of many links to his websites, as well as several of Barrett's on Misplaced Pages, posted by him. Recently on his user page, he admits that he has used his own name and links on Misplaced Pages, but forbids anyone else to do the same. It feels like he is hiding behind a rule he doesn't follow in order to appear to be victimized by me. Despite his accusations, I have never posted one word of personal information about him, the entire brouhaha is regarding his name ... nothing more, which he has profusely used on Misplaced Pages and the rest of the internet. No addresses, no family discussions etc., nothing but his name. I further believe that his unproven and very possibly false claims that "chiropractors" and "promoters of alternative medicine" have given him death threats is a subtle way of continuing his smear_campaign against the same groups he demonizes throughout the internet. I fully believe that much of what he and his friends call attacks against him, are merely pleas for pity, and an attempt for theatrics. In fact, in this Chirotalk post (2 versions since he is altering the posts) you can clearly see his fantasies of being victimized, Anti-Quackery activist crucified by chiropractors. Scroll down to Reply #14 on Dec 29, 2005, 5:36pm

B. After Fyslee posted a link to Chirotalk during discussions of a lawsuit against Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch on January 30, 2007, I followed his link . I found 668 posts by him with his real world name and fyslee together. I found him called, "..., the wikipedian expert" and on this post Re: Life University Misplaced Pages entry Reply #12 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am he was soliciting others from the group to come onto Misplaced Pages and gave precise instructions. When I went back on January 31, 2007, I found that he had removed his own name and administrator status, and replaced it with fys God at 6:06 that morning. On February 1, 2007, it was again revised, this time calling himself Abracadabraarbadacarba and again identifying himself as an administrator, but removing his name which had been there since 2004. Then on, February 15, 2007, he was HerAardvark and today (2/16) he calls himself Cyberstalked from the Jungles. (Update of 2/17/07 ... now he changed the archives yet again, this time to call himself Along the watchtower.)... and again, now to Not The Archives in his attempts to obscure the evidence yet again.

Most importantly, is reviewing his work on Chirotalk (664 posts) and seeing his frequent discussions of Misplaced Pages and urges to join and help him collaborate with him here Change the 10 to 700 and you will get all his posts. (I have a copy if all 668 are not there any longer.)

C. After finding Chirotalk and watching the above happen, I witnessed another case of disappearing evidence. Here are two versions of the same thread that got altered during the first week of February. The removed comment was "This sounds like a job that (Fyslee's real world name) could help spearhead." Here is the archived version and the altered one -- within 24 hours of each other. (As of 2/16/2007 cache has been deleted and evidence destroyed.)

Fyslee functions on Misplaced Pages and several other internet venues as Barrett / Quackwatch / NCAHF Publicist

In the simplest terms, a public relations or media publicist is one who attempts to get as much positive information as possible into ... and keep as much negative information possible out of ... the public eye. Although fyslee has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he is Barrett's publicist, and claims to have never misrepresented anything, that is absolutely not factual. When caught in blatant lies, he has been known to feign surprise and make apologies and retractions, winning him praise for his flexibility.This is a technique to win favor when caught disseminating blatant disinformation.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, Fyslee, on Misplaced Pages, and many other places on the internet (blogs, lists, forums, etc.), clearly functions as one of Barrett's (and his related operations) publicists. During his early Wiki days, he was promoting his and Barrett's Healthfraud List where he remained Barrett's assistant from 2000 through 2006. As here on Wiki, he publicized the same Barrett websites . I believe his denials are perfect examples of doublespeak.

In fact, this quote from him shows undeniably that his behavior is as Barrett's publicist. If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name. Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (I believe that the diff that is meant here is — Paul August ☎ 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

He posts links to his own homepages, blogs and webrings, and openly and repeatedly discusses his years of responsibilities as assistant listmaster for the plaintiffs' Healthfraud List .

As Barrett's Assistant Listmaster for several years (until December, 2006 when he said he resigned but continues posting there) he has solicited members to come to Misplaced Pages to help him collaborate. This is but one example. Please note the list of his affiliations advertised on this link, which he also advertises on Misplaced Pages. Here is a list (if it disappears too, I have the evidence in my files) of his hundreds of posts as Assistant Listmaster. Perusing this list you will see, in addition to his Wiki conversations, and in November, 2006, many posts relating to the lawsuit members of the Healthfraud list lost to me. Any who investigate will easily and clearly see that he continues the Quackwatch / NCAHF agenda here on Misplaced Pages.

Sampling of Disinformation intentionally posted by Fyslee

A. " ...The NCAHF is still registered in California." -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006(UTC) In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This falsity had been discussed (with this link) for over 6 months, yet Fyslee and others working closely with him, managed to keep this verified fact off of the NCAHF page for that period of time, causing much of the edit wars between he and I.

B. Barrett has been libeled repeatedly, and that fact is undeniable. ... Barrett has, because of technicalities, not been able to get a favorable judgment. When I first came back to Misplaced Pages after the Supreme Court decision in my favor, it was because I had been told that the facts of the case were being misrepresented on Wiki, almost identical to this comment, a blatant PR attempt on fyslee's part to change the public's perception of Barrett's many court losses.

C. None of the suits were ever SLAPP suits..." . This is pure and utter propaganda and a blatant attempt to change history. Barrett's loss to me was but one SLAPP suit loss and there have been others. Comments such as these, can only be construed as an attempt to spin Barrett's case into something they wish it to be. These claims are particularly important to counter, as other defendants' cases are on the horizon, and blatant PR is not what Misplaced Pages is all about.

D. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. This is another fine example of his classic doublespeak. Once again, Fyslee is claiming to speak for Barrett, although he also claims he doesn't. In fact, this was covered in full in both of my declarations and after careful consideration, the judge ruled in my favor and against Barrett in a 27 page decision. The industry backed front group The Amercan Council Against Science and Health, for which Barrett is an "advisor" and writer, has spread pro-silicone industry propaganda since the mid 1990's and other writers for them also, have frequently taken pot shots at other breast implant awareness activists. I have been highly critical of his writings on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a complex syndrome from which many women in my support group suffer. Barrett, unlicensed himself, writes about going after the licenses of those scientists working to figure out this complex puzzle. Although the chemical industry funds ACSH, Barrett refuses to offer disclaimers about this. This article in Philanthropy describes Barrett's actions against me perfectly Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say .

Fyslee is a vital part of a Barrett Group ... formed to 'round up net quacks' on the internet

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes (this is an archived copy - the website was up from 2000 (when lawsuits were filed) until December, 2006 when I discussed it on Misplaced Pages).

Fyslee and other members of this group have appropriatedly labeled it satire, another tentacle in this vast legal and public relations campaign, using humor to criticize and denigrate and even dehumanize defendants of their various lawsuits: Dr. Hulda Clark, Dr. Joseph Mercola, myself, Dr. Tedd Koren, to name just a few. There is literally nowhere one can mention any of us on the internet, withot a member of this Posse showing up to put Barrett's viewpoints.

What interests me greatly, is that I am told that it is a WP:COI violation for me to edit anything touching Barrett because he sued me.

Fyslee has had no restrictions whatsoever even though he has been in litigation with Dr. Clark and was a co-defendant with Barrett in a case he edits about frequently on Misplaced Pages. In fact, the article on Dr. Hulda Clark (one of their defendants and plaintiffs) had five links to the Barrett and the other plaintiffs miscellaneous websites (all promoting each other) and are all basically one-sided attack sites. It is extremely clear why Fyslee has attempted to distance himself from Barrett, but their long and interrelated websites and co-promotion belie his attempts at distancing himself in order to skirt the WP:COI .

Concurrent with waging several legal attacks against dozens of us in late, 2000, Barrett and the others in this group (including Fyslee) augmented their smear_campaigns on various fronts: Usenet, Blogs, Webrings (owned by Fyslee), Healthfraud List, and eventually brought here to Misplaced Pages. Fyslee reports that he never interacted with me in Usenet. That is accurate. However, that's not his domain. In fact, there are members of this list who specialize in Usenet, donning many disguises such as "Nanaweedkiller" and "Marla Maples" etc. They have directly targeted me on Usenet for years. Others of this list have blogs (Fyslee included) and they all cross promote each other and attempt to control all sides of debates on: chiropractic, alternative medicine, vaccinations, breast implants, second hand tobacco, amalgams, and who is, and who is not, a quack, to name a few.

These listmembers co-promote the business of what they dub "anti-quackery," selling books, soliciting donations, promoting their viewpoint. These links by the hundreds are promoted as WP:RS and added to articles in multiples by Fyslee and other anonymous posters who seem to work in perfect collaboration to whatever he wants to add or delete.

However, on this page I edited about Sally_Kirkland, this link was hastily removed KIISS , Removed link for this reason: (removed link to institute - turns out that the editor who added it maintains the site, therefore it is WP:COI and linkspam) . Ms. Kirkland's site has no solicitation for donations, she sells nothing. This aspect of her life is very important to her. But this editor claimed that because I am now helping her maintain her website, it must be removed. Why are Barrett's sites not considered "promotion" and yet Ms Kirkland's are?

The same thing happened in the Clayton College article. I have been told I have COI problems with this page but there are no restrictions of what Barrett's people can add, he still in litigation with Dr. Clark mentioned in the article, as has Fyslee been. I have no relation with the article, except that I know many people who have either gone there and loved their education, or who have been treated by graduates.

I had added a link to a well known author and graduate You can see that Fyslee immediately removed it and replaced it with a Quackwatch link and a blatant attack at the school advising "avoiding both the school and its alumni." What encyclopedia would allow this?

I then edited in this link,] showing that indeed Jonny Bowden fit the Wiki definition of notable and of course, Fyslee immediately removed it, citing "promotion."

Why can Fyslee promote Quackwatch and NCAHF and Barrett with link after link after link, each one selling and promoting their products, soliciting donations, but this link is now so removed, I can't even find it, it's buried beneath their POV

These are tiny examples that are repeated throughout Misplaced Pages. Barrett, who calls himself "the media" is just that ... a promoter of his wares which they call "anti-quackery" has his viewpoint pushed by Fyslee and several anonymous editors.

Fyslee and Barrett and the other plaintiffs (all who lost their lawsuits to me) voluntarily remained on this list from 2000 until December 2006, when it was removed from the internet. This is an archived copy (I have copies if this also gets removed).Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes. People on this list with Fyslee have used many names to attack me and other defendants on Usenet for years, including attempting to infiltrate my support group for women harmed by breast implants, hiring private investigators to hunt me down in San Diego and Costa Rica, spreading webpages claiming I was "arrested for selling crack cocaine to minors in Costa Rica" and falsely claiming I was "bankrupt" etc. etc. etc. They are members too, of the Healthfraud List with Fyslee, and have attempted to change the facts of Barrett's failed litigations throughout various medium such as he does on Misplaced Pages. Many of the abundance of claims of attacks by Fyslee were mentions of this, which he calls a satire. I agree with this excellent definition of satire, from Misplaced Pages: Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner.

Attacks by Fyslee Against Me

I will be including just a tiny sampling of the attacks Fyslee has made against me here on Misplaced Pages. Far from pursuing him, as he is claiming, any glance at my earliest edits will show him reverting me, often within seconds. I'd also like to comment that when one administrator unilaterally banned me for a week, it felt to me like I was being held down while she, Fyslee and others took turns beating me up. Attempting to appear as a victim is a public relations strategy Fyslee uses frequently.

A. This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena has driven to suicide.

B. Here he uses, what I consider, aspartame fake "sadness" to baselessly and viciously attack the work I have done and my thousands of relationships with women harmed by breast implants, their families and loved ones. I am also frequently interviewed and quoted in the press, highly critical of the breast implant industry, and I was recently quoted in Wired Magazine , MyDNA, "The Scientist" Corporate Collaborations etc. voicing my opinions. My support group increases daily, and we work harmoniously and lovingly with many other support leaders and groups.

C. I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. (I have to find diff) In fact, I head a large, international support group and receive enormous support and love and accolades for my group. Fyslee's attack is just repeating propaganda put out by my losing plaintiffs and their other publicists. Terry Polevoy, the plaintiff who also posted here on Misplaced Pages, has publicized that I am "the laughing stock of the internet." This is repeated on Usenet on the attack website that Fyslee posted on Misplaced Pages, and others on this list, distributed on other internet medium. These women, coincidentally enough, are also working with a silicone manufacturer who spent years on Usenet attacking me, which ended in legal battles as well as the plaintiffs. If anyone has any doubts that enormous industries like the silicone and breast implant and chemical industries do not attacks activists such as me, I highly recommend, Deforming Consent: The Public Relations Industry's Secret War on ActivistsI further highly recommend this piece on why activists who run tiny non-profits like ours, are targets of SLAPP suits such as Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say In the 27 page opinion against all three plaintiffs in the Superior Court of California, the judge clearly sided with our declarations. (cites to come)

D. Fyslee repeatedly claimed I had "libeled" him ... another unsubstanitated, deprecatory accusation. Even as he refused Mediation, he posted this blatant repetition of propaganda that bears absolutely no resemblance to the decisions made about this case in the Superior, Appeals and even the Supreme Court of California. Fyslee wrote: 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. I have discussed the many reasons I won here . Connected to this, is my frustration that editors on Barrett V Rosenthal decided that the final words of Justice Moreno (page 39) in the Supreme Court decision were not relevant to the article. "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." .

Response to Joshua below

I have no experience with editor, Joshua and am astounded by his comment regarding Barrett's NCAHF loss to King Bio. When I followed the link provided, I see that the page has been archived and I am no longer able to even correct the serious disinformation being posted there, and his inaccurate claim that she made a massive distortion of a court decision involving him.

a. In fact, I misrepresented nothing. Here are both rulings against NCAHF. NCAFH loses to King Bio in Superior Court. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here specifically uses the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility" directly describing both Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson.

b. I have many varied interests and experiences that I bring to my editing on Misplaced Pages and am not a single purpose editor as he claims.

c. I have not been blocked 6 times.

Evidence presented by Fyslee

Comments

1. Missing evidence from Peter M Dodge

I'm still waiting for evidence in the form of diffs to be provided by Peter Dodge, who (as Ilena's mentor and defender) started this RfArb. He has just listed some charges in a very misleading order and fashion, (commented here), and has not provided any evidence at all at this time. Without it it's hard for me to proceed. I expect my involvement to be tried by evidence, not by allegation. I request that he either provide the diffs quickly, or his charges be (temporarily) removed, as search engines pick up these (as yet) unproven allegations. He can always reintroduce his entry when he has the evidence, which I would expect quickly, since it would be rather unusual for the one who raised the charges to not "meet up in court." I will then be able to show what evidence he is ignoring or leaving out, and the misleading nature of the order and nature of the charges. Undocumented charges are simply violations of NPA, even here. If they are accompanied by documentation, then it's a very different matter, since that is a legitimate part of the proceedings here. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Ilena is wasting our time

She is wasting her own and our time by all the talk above about any deletion of evidence. What has been deleted is something I do not hide from this group -- my identity and affiliations. As long as this RfArb is in progress, I will leave the edit history of my user page intact, and anyone can see what I have written, my newbie mistakes, and everything else. It is my user page, and nothing inappropriate was posted there.

I do not deny that I have earlier revealed it, so she has no case by continuing to point out the fact I have earlier revealed it. I admit that. Case closed. I have the right to change my mind, and I am asking her to respect that decision.

She is also getting way off-topic by discussing her Usenet and other battles with many people, of which I have not been a party. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. She has such issues with others, but not Barrett or myself. I am actually sympathetic to her cause, but not her methods. I request that she stay on topic. I am not obligated to respond to such charges and conspiracy theories. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3. A request for evidence

Ilena often makes allegations above which include words such as or similar to "he claims" without providing the precise diffs. I would like to see my own words in their full context, so I request that she provide the diffs when alluding to something I am supposed to have written. I suspect that she is either misquoting me, failing to remember correctly, or has misinterpreted something I may have written. Such mistakes are easy to make, but precision is doubly important here. We need precise quotes and precise charges here. This is not Usenet where anything goes. I do not believe that this matter should be decided on "guilt by allegation." I cannot defend myself if she does not quote me correctly and provide the diffs. If I have written something in an unclear manner, I will be happy to provide an explanation. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Guilt by association?

Ilena is making many allegations about the actions of others, many of whom I do not know. While I question her interpretation of even some of these matters, I should certainly not be judged by the actions of others, even of those I do "know" in the cyber sense. Such matters are not a part of this RfArb. I request that she stay on topic. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

5. "Obscur the evidence yet again" ??

Somehow the irony of this situation seems to not be getting through to Ilena. She keeps wasting her time and ours at Chirotalk with mattters that do not concern us in this RfArb. She is so deeply involved in finding some conspiracy or wrongdoing there, that she fails to note that my repeated changes of my display name there (but no other participation) are an idle attempt to communicate directly to her, since she is obviously looking. She is now so obsessed that she claims that:

• "(... now he changed the archives yet again, this time to call himself Along the watchtower.)" With this edit summary: "adding another alias as Fyslee keeps changing the archives")

Fact: I never changed the archives before, "again", or "yet again." I have no idea how they are maintained, but it's probably something bots do. To communicate that to her, I changed my display name there again (which has nothing to do with direct changes by myself of the archives), but she fails to understand the very message I wrote to her in that name -- the change was "Not The Archives":

• "and again, now to Not The Archives in his attempts to obscure the evidence yet again." With this edit summary: "Fyslee continues to change names and obscure the evidence."

So now it's "obscure the evidence" "yet again." "Evidence" of what? I have nothing to hide (except my real name from search engines, thanks to Ilena). I never changed the archives at all. Period. I never "obscure" any "evidence." Period. End of story. If she really wants to waste time checking my display name there and reporting it here, then I can oblige her, but I'd rather she just ignore something that has nothing to do with this RfArb, or forms a legitimate basis for any charges of "obscuring the evidence." All I did was change the display name, and nothing else. I request she stay on topic, and the topic is matters that have occurred here at Misplaced Pages, not at Chirotalk, nor at Usenet. -- Fyslee's (First law) 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Barrett is not on trial here

Barrett could be the subject of another RfArb, but that is not the subject here, and it is improper for Ilena to be allowed to misuse this RfArb by continuing her improper attacks (COI and BLP anyone?!) here at Misplaced Pages. These are the very types of behavior that got her sued in the first place, and that are creating so much disruption here. The role of Barrett and Quackwatch as RS may well be a legitimate subject for future discussions, but it is far too large an issue to even begin to touch on it here. If and when it happens, Barrett should also be a part of the discussion, as he is an editor here, and Jimbo Wales should also be a part. It's that big an issue, with far reaching consequences.

Barrett's (extremely limited) association with the ACSH (actually a pretty good organization), is now being included in Ilena's "guilt by association" attacks. SourceWatch is now being cited by her, but it is not a RS, since it is a wiki. Anyone can edit it, and it is far less well-controlled for quality than Misplaced Pages, which is not a RS by its own standards.

This RfArb is not about Barrett, content issues, or even the BvR article itself (contrary to the misleading title here), but about specific problems with user attitude and behavior here at Misplaced Pages. Attempts to sidetrack this RfArb from those issues should not be allowed. I request that Ilena stay on topic, and I implore admins to do something to stop her misuse of this RfArb and Misplaced Pages to further her distasteful mission. This is not Usenet, and this misuse of Misplaced Pages in that manner should be very firmly nipped in the bud. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My privacy concerns should be respected

My current attempts to regain my privacy are perfectly legitimate: I just wish to avoid harassment by Ilena and others. Before her arrival here I didn't feel as great a need for privacy.

A few events and warnings leading up to my actively seeking more privacy (also note edit summaries):

• Vandalism and personal attack on my own user page, accompanied with the obligatory vanity spam link to her special website designed to attack Misplaced Pages editors (one of many such attack sites).

• Vicious attack placed at the top of my talk page (accompanied by yet another vanity spamlink to her attack site).

• She repeated it later the same day.

These types of attacks are usually accompanied by false politeness to this day in nearly all per posts. I'd rather she were just honest.

• I notify her not to use my name (done in her vicious and misleading attacks in violation of AGF and NPA), and I delete it.

• Repeats of above.

I finally sought the help of admin Guy to delete the beginning edit history of my User page, where my true name was listed. (He has my email request and may provide it privately to admins here upon request.):

• Deletion log.

• Guy defends my privacy.

As requested by myself, Guy kindly restored the history of my user page.

• Ilena informed of the restoration.

• She unnecessarily counts the use of my name (I never denied having used it).

• Jance (a lawyer) chides Ilena for not respecting my privacy requests.

• I request her to leave me alone.

• Repeated request.

I have never denied my true identity or affiliations and will reaffirm them here as necessary. (I expect specific questions from admins, and I will answer them.) Nothing that has been changed or deleted will change that. I will reaffirm any deleted content as necessary. The deleted post at Chirotalk was not my doing. On the contrary, it is in my own interest to preserve it, as Ilena has previously(diff) used it to make false charges about me. (It was not Botnick, but the poster of the now deleted message who called me an "expert", simply because I was apparently known as a Misplaced Pages editor, and the others figured I knew something about editing here, which I take as a compliment, not a crime.)

There are six admins at Chirotalk and no one has confessed to deleting it, in fact no one is responding at all! I requested that they help me regain my privacy by removing my name anywhere they found it, and to substitute it with "Fyslee". I did not request that anyone delete posts. I only edited posts to eliminate my real name. Fortunately the content of that post has been copied by Ilena and is available for examination, and it contains nothing of an incriminating nature, since I am not responsible for other's comments, only for my own actions. My very limited activities at Chirotalk or elsewhere are none of her business, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena has made personal attacks

The most serious is the "publicist" accusation, which is an example of failure to AGF, (an admin comment), and it should be treated as a personal attack she (and others) have repeatedly made because of my "affiliations" with Barrett (any "affiliations" I have with him are honorable and something of which I am proud.)

Using my interests and affiliations to discredit me is clearly labeled a "personal attack" here at Misplaced Pages:

• "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."NPA

I have repeatedly been the target of such accusations here at Misplaced Pages, even before Ilena came here, and I have repeatedly answered them, so here's a previous explanation:

• Fyslee and Barrett, Sept. 16, 2006

I have since stopped as assistant listmaster, since I didn't participate very often, and had a backlog of over 3,000 unread list mails, so I wasn't following along enough to do my "job" decently. I rarely did anything anyway.

I eagerly await clear evidence of wrongdoing. I am not a member of the NCAHF, on any board, paid by anyone or any pharmaceutical company, or acting at anyone's bidding or obeying instructions (explained to Ilena here). Barrett and I don't even see eye-to-eye all the time! What I do is my hobby because it interests me as a private person, as well as a healthcare professional interested in consumer protection issues. That is not a crime, while some of those who oppose mine and Barrett's efforts actually are criminals, scammers, and deceivers. The rest who support various forms of quackery are just true believers or innocents who do little or no harm. It is not a crime to provide them with consumer protection information.

(A longer list of other types of personal attacks coming later.)

Ilena has serious COI, BLP, and NPOV issues here

COI issues

She has been involved in litigation with Stephen Barrett, as described in Barrett v. Rosenthal. This places her in a conflict of interest regarding anything to do with him or Quackwatch on Misplaced Pages, whether in one of those articles specifically or elsewhere. That is the situation as summed up by admin SlimVirgin, with the following consequences for Ilena:

• "....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 encycylopedia that involve Barrett or his organization." (My emphasis, since I have little hope of that being possible. - Fyslee)

Ilena was unreceptive, so SlimVirgin had to repeat:

• "...you should not be editing articles related to Barrett, or making edits that involve removing his material."

• "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."

I find her advice to be wise, in harmony with Misplaced Pages policies, and if followed would lead to a more peaceful atmosphere here, without 3RR edit warring, personal attacks, blocks, RfM, RfArb, etc.. Her presence here has created a nightmare situation for many editors and admins. This is not Usenet, where anything goes.

BLP issues (as related to her COI issues)

Especially in light of BLP principles (which favor prevention of possibly libelous edits, rather than favoring protection to make such edits), Ilena's demonstrated propensities to attack Barrett, Quackwatch, quackbusters, and anti-quackery efforts in general, make her a liability to the Misplaced Pages experience as a whole, and in an interesting twist places her in direct COI with BLP itself. She has not demonstrated an ability or willingness to refrain from allowing her COI to cause her to be in constant danger of violating BLP as regards the parties and POV of those parties.

• Warned by SlimVirgin for BLP violations.

• She didn't accept the advice, and seemed not to understand the point at all, and why? Because of the next point:

NPOV issues (related to both of the above)

To top it off, she still fails to understand NPOV:

• "Now I'm quite confused. Fyslee claims that "POV suppression is not allowed here." I had understood that Misplaced Pages was not about POV but verifiable facts. The term "quackery" is totally subjective, pejorative, and who is and who is not a "quack" is just one's opinion. I don't believe these non objective quackery discussions belong on Misplaced Pages at all since it's so subjective. So someone please, is Fyslee being correct in his claim? Thank you. Ilena" 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

All of these factors reveal that she is a POV warrior who fails to understand, or is willing to respect, NPOV. Such editors are a constant threat to Misplaced Pages's collaborative spirit and mission, which are governed by the following

Fundamental principles

1. The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Collaborative editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, but such a relationship is rare on controversial subjects.
2. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Misplaced Pages should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

-- Fyslee's (First law) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena falsely claims that BvR is motivated by opposition to her breast implant activism

This is a response to this charge above:

• "D. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. This is another fine example of his classic doublespeak. Once again, Fyslee is claiming to speak for Barrett, although he also claims he doesn't."

(Let's just start by ignoring her obvious admission of lack of understanding of my statements and proceed. An AGF would remove that confusion, but she refuses to AGF.) I speak from what I am currently aware, not "for Barrett". I have made similar statements more than once on my own account, and Ilena has failed to present any evidence that proves the libel suits had anything to do with anything other than attempts to stop specific libelous statements unrelated to breast implant issues. To the best of my knowledge Barrett has not attacked her for her breast implant issues (or even discussed them). If she can present such evidence, then I will stand corrected. I'm open to learning more. I have searched and failed to find him dealing with this issue.

Here are the statements I have made here (that I can find):

"Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism....... -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)" (Emphasis original. The original diffs listed in the next paragraph there no longer function, so that copy will have to do. Their deletion (by an archiving bot?) has also removed them from my own contributions listing (!), which I find to be an unfortunate glitch in the way permanent deletions and automated archiving function.)

We had an exchange on this very point on her user page:

• "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)" (Emphasis (and links) added to show where I clearly express my lack of absolute certainty, willingness to be corrected, and to clarify my meaning about the SLAPP suits.)

• "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."

• Her reponse here, where she repeats her conspiracy theory of being a persecuted breast implant activist. Maybe she is, but the BvR case didn't involve those issues, to the best of my knowledge, and therefore the BvR article should not include such information, as she insists it should: "The fact is it was quackwatch vs breast implant awareness advocate."

She falsely accuses me of attacking her breast implant activism:

• "Fyslee has continually attacked my work with breast implant women here on Misplaced Pages,..."

That makes no sense, since I am sympathetic to the cause of women injured by breast implants! I would like to see proof of that false charge. Lacking such proof, I expect an apology.

Ilena changed my contribution

Here and here she alters my "post header into something inflammatory while she accuses of inappropriate action." (That is a later summary of the whole incident by admin Durova.)

I finally succeeded in getting a restoration of my post header to stick. (Note my edit summary.)

The whole section, with the clear documentation of Ilena's "error" (I'll avoid using the true description here) was later deleted by Peter Dodge. While well-intentioned, these types (there were several more) of deletions have made documenting things much harder, since the deleted evidence can only be found in the edit histories.

Her action led to a well-reasoned final warning (also deleted by Peter Dodge ), that ended in yet another block.

Bad faith accusation of intentionally inflaming Ilena

Levine2112 is making a duplicate posting! What's going on? I have already answered this here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's meatpuppetry accusation from the James Randi list

On the face of it this one looks really bad for me! For once there is something to a charge. My only defense is that I did not know it was against the rules back then, only that other editors would use it against me, and now they are! I have since learned about meatpuppetry, and that it's improper to use it to stack the votes, but I wasn't doing that.

My invitation way back then was a general invitation to a few skeptics (and not to the whole Randi list), as there were (and still are) far more pseudoskeptics and true believers editing at the time, and Levine2112 was one of the chiropractors who constantly violated NPOV (and still does, but he's getting better) by deleting opposing POV, even when well-sourced. He has often gone on deletion rampages to delete any and all references to Quackwatch or Barrett as sources, no matter the context. (His edit history tells the story quite clearly.) Lately he has been doing it again, but occasionally using legitimate arguments, and I have let them slide. He claims above that he is "not in favor of a unscientific POV." Well, there are other POV about that statement among skeptics. His edit history tells a different story. Well, whatever the case may be, and whatever his POV, it is welcome here, just as long as he doesn't deny others their right to have a POV, and as long as he stops suppressing opposing POV (and their editors) when it's well sourced. We all have differences of opinion, but there is hope, and I can see a positive learning curve. I hope that he will begin to AGF about me and will join Dematt and myself in collaborative efforts in the future. Dematt is also a chiropractor, which makes for interesting work, since I'm a chiroskeptic. We work great together. (I might even get him a QBOTI decoder ring and take him to the Vatican to meet JFK some day!) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence by JoshuaZ

Fyslee's involvement

Fyslee called for outside editors to edit Misplaced Pages. Ilena's evidence for this- is incontrovertible. In general, such behavior is not a good thing especially when it occurs in a partisan forum. However, Fyslee did say in the request "Keep in mind that POV (point of view) editing is forbidden, and one must cooperate with other editors, also antagonists. Articles must present all POV, including unfavorable ones. Think carefully before saving edits, since every edit is recorded publically for posterity, so mistakes will haunt you" Given that, it seems that at least in that limited matter Fyslee's behavior was not so bad, since Fyslee seemed to be trying in a good faith way to make sure the editors who joined in understood that they should be neutral.

Ilena

Ilena has been editing a wide variety of alternative medicine related articles, and has been editing them all with a strong POV. This has included most recently her getting blocked for 3RR on Clayton College of Natural Health (this was in fact an NRR for large N, see , her sixth fifthFyslee has pointed out one block was to change duration block over all, and her second for 3RR on a Barret related matter). Some of this may just be her general problems with Barrett spreading to other articles. In this case, her POV about Barrett was so strong that she made a massive distortion of a court decision involving him. . This editor has acknowledged her conflict with Barrett and despite that has continued to attack him and edit articles removing material about Barrett and adding attacks to Barrett in a variety of articles. The conflict of interest is clear and her refusal to back down despite it is also clear. Ilena is a single purpose account with a strong POV and should be treated as such.

JoshuaZ 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Arthur Rubin

Ilena makes off-Wiki personal attacks against specific Misplaced Pages editors

As it's off-Wiki, and most of them have been removed, diffs are problematic. However, is a request that she remove off-Wiki libel. I can't find my request that she remove off-Wiki attacks, but there are still attacks against "Paul Lee", who she claims to be a Misplaced Pages editor, at http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Wikipedia.htm (I would like to note a non-Misplaced Pages-related misstatement of fact. She wrote "The 7 Justices ruled that the re-posting of potentially libelous material on the internet is not actionable." (Emphasis in the original.) The actual ruling more resembles "The 7 Justices rules that the re-posting of defamatory material is not actionable.") Although repeating the defamatory material from her web site here would not be libelous, it might very well be a violation of our "right to privacy" provisions, so I won't do it here.

Ilena spammed her web site in her signature, in violation of WP:SIGNATURE

Sections are generally in chronological order. I didn't feel the need to list a number of "normal" signature links, as most of the links that day were in violation.

1. General warning about linkspam
2. Additions before a formal signature was created include .
3. Normal signature links include:
4. Warnings (by me)
5. Re-editing signature areas to insert the link include January 15 links

It should be noted she has generally stopped adding inappropriate links to her web site, but still ocassionally adds questionable links to it.

Ilena was uncivil and committed personal attacks

References noted on her talk page by Ronz include :

Evidence presented by MastCell

Extension of a real-life dispute

Two people (Stephen Barrett and Ilena Rosenthal) have a real-life conflict going back years, and are essentially professional antagonists. One sues the other for libel, and the case goes all the way to the California State Supreme Court, resulting in what may well be a landmark decision. Then one party in the lawsuit (Ilena) shows up here to edit almost exclusively articles relating to her antagonist (Stephen Barrett) and said lawsuit. This is the definition of a conflict of interest. If Ilena's participation was directed toward identifying and fixing WP:BLP issues, that would be one thing, but she's been disruptive, prone to personal attacks, and an edit warrior. She's continued her battle against Barrett here even while this ArbCom case is ongoing (). Regardless of right or wrong, the importation of a real-life dispute onto the talk and article pages of Misplaced Pages by one of the litigants violates both WP:COI and ...not a battleground. In spite of mentorship from an experienced user, Ilena has not modified her approach to work within Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines - witness the recent block for 3RR.

WP:BLP

Any solution adopted by ArbCom would need a mechanism for Ilena to raise WP:BLP issues, whether directly on talk pages or via email or posts to the BLP noticeboard. By the same token, Ilena's constant repetition of attacks on Barrett and accusations of a smear campaign (e.g. ) are definitely skirting a BLP violation and, in any case, have no place on Misplaced Pages (per ...not a battleground).

Reformability

Fyslee's behavior hasn't been sterling and has crossed the line at times - I'll leave it to Peter Dodge and Ilena to fill in the blanks - but he's had a history of reasonable participation as a good Wikicitizen before all this. It's harder to be optimistic about Ilena becoming a constructive editor - even with this case ongoing, she's been engaged in an edit war at Hulda Clark and Clayton College of Natural Health, and her evidence above is mostly a repetition of the personal attacks and claims of victimization that landed things here in the first place. She's not a newbie and has had the benefit of assistance from experienced editors. Given that neither the carrot nor the stick has been effective in encouraging her to edit within Misplaced Pages's policies, a community ban would be a reasonable option at this point.

MastCell 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ronz

Ilena has attacked multiple Misplaced Pages editors on her own website, and has used links to those attacks as part of her editing here

As Arthur mentions, it is difficult to document this because this is off-wiki and Ilena is blocking the archiving of her website. The most recent google cache contains a December 25 version which says:

After I wrote about Rubin and Lee on my blog, up popped Ronz, who erases every trace of evidence that shows that Barrett's NCAHF has no apparent legal corporate status ... if he was unbiased, there would be no reason for him to erase these facts. He is their perfect distraction shill ... claiming that NCAHF's distraction, or "POV" (point of view.)

The attacks on Arthur are already partially removed in this cache. Attacks against Fyslee are still in the January 18 version, still online as of February 18 .

She's linked directly to the attack on Arthur and me . And linked to a different section of the site as a part of an uncivil response to KillerChihuahua . She continued to link to it after she was aware of and contributed to the AN Dec 26 and was warned on her talk page .

Evidence presented by Addobbi

Ilene blows Chirotalk issue out of proportion

As a member of chirotalk, I couldn't help but notice what was going on here in regards to this dispute between Fyselee and Ilene. It would appear to me that this has gone beyond being a reasonable dialogue and has become personal. From my perspective, given that I wrote some of the posts in the chirotalk threads that she offers as evidence against Fyselee, I can assert that several of the changes that she was giving as evidence were actually changes that I had made, and were not initiated by Fyselee nor were they requested by him. Furthermore, I could be counted as one of those unknown to Fyselee, and am in no way a part of any anti-quackery conspiracy.

Evidence presented by AvB

Incorrect meatpuppetry accusation

Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

Wizardry Dragon has, here on this arbitration page, used selective quoting, portraying Fyslee as a meatpuppeteer who had posted a call for new WP editors on a skeptics' forum. Looking at the post itself, User:JoshuaZ has already explained that it did not violate our rules. After looking at the entire thread on that forum (it's here) I will go further and commend Fyslee for posting what he did. Summary of the thread: Someone (not Fyslee) had flagged up a WP article. A discussion ensued about the possibility to start another article (about the forum in question). Someone did, but was confronted with "pro-chiro" opposition. In post #10 in this thread Fyslee chimed in with some quick start information for those interested or already busy editing Misplaced Pages. A good thing in my opinion. I would have done the same. In fact, Fyslee's post ended the thread, and I presume any subsequent discussion took place on Misplaced Pages talk pages, as it should. Some five months later, two follow-up posts very sensibly discussed the removal of the Misplaced Pages link to the forum. AvB ÷ talk 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

Ilena has also, here and here on the Workshop page of this arbitration case, engaged in selective quoting portraying Fyslee as a meatpuppeteer. I have responded on that page, showing that the four "examples" do not constitute misbehavior of any kind, especially when read in context (i.e. the relevant discussion or "thread"). Copying my response here:

Such examples would not support the point you are trying to make even if they were valid. Your belief that Fyslee is "selling anti-quackery" on Misplaced Pages remains a conflict-of-interest claim without any evidence. As to the examples themselves: This was in May 2005, long before Fyslee started editing Misplaced Pages. Hardly a call to "help him collaborate". This had nothing to do with Fyslee. Here I present evidence against what you are portraying as "call to arms" on Chirotalk re Life University Misplaced Pages entry. That leaves us with "but one example" - healthfraud Misplaced Pages - and that was when Fyslee was still a newbie editor here, slightly over a year ago. AvB ÷ talk 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The last example should also be read in context: it is in response to this post. Once again, Fyslee's response proves totally acceptable and cannot be called meatpuppetry by any stretch of the imagination.

Since Ilena suggested that there are many more examples, and Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge) provided the Chirotalk "example" as his sole evidence of meatpuppetry, I decided to check all of Fyslee's posts to the Chirotalk platform. I limited my check to posts made after January 1, 2006. During that period, Fyslee posted 98 contributions. Five of those posts in four different threads (=discussions) mentioned Misplaced Pages.

The first one (here) reported and denounced Misplaced Pages vandalism from an IP number and asked the perpetrator to stop for several reasons, one of them was giving Chirotalk a bad name. A perfectly valid post dated Jan 14, 2006. The second post, in the same thread, contained references to two Misplaced Pages edits made by Fyslee, one retained, the other one deleted. A neutral post showing Fyslee's respect for the collaborative editing process; dated Jan 15, 2006.

The third post (here) mentioned a slight technical hitch at Misplaced Pages in response to a similar hitch elsewhere on the Internet. Simple, helpful post, dated Feb 6, 2006.

The fourth one (here) quoted some information from Misplaced Pages. Quite unsurprising use of the encyclopedia, dated Apr 14, 2006.

The fifth one has already been discussed by User:JoshuaZ and myself, see above under Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge). It was posted on June 5, 2006, preceding Ilena's first Misplaced Pages edit by more than six months.

In short, I checked over a year's worth of posts to the Chirotalk forum and did not find a shred of evidence of calling up people to start editing per Fyslee's instructions. Finally, what's so bad about advertizing Misplaced Pages? As long as there's no vote-stacking etc involved, there is no problem. See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. Many of us have started their Misplaced Pages "career" this way. AvB ÷ talk 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Levine2112

Fyslee enflamed Ilena from the get-go

I was avoiding voicing myself here as I really haven't edited much (if at all) on Barrett v. Rosenthal. But I read this, I wanted Fyslee to at least be clear here. From Ilena's first day here (coincidentally User:Sbinfo's first day here), Fyslee has been on her case. We are told here to not bite the newbie, but Fyslee's first confrontation with Ilena shows that he was ignoring this basic policy. 19:45, 7 July 2006 This harsh, high-level warning template (template #1 is preferred starting point for a newbie) followed only after a small amount of intitial editing on Ilena's part at Stephen Barrett. So right away, Fyslee was being extremely confrontational. Now my experience with Ilena, though limited to just Misplaced Pages, has shown me that when she is pushed, she pushes back. And following her intial edit, you can be assured that Fyslee stayed on her case and wouldn't give her a moments peace. Note that I am not defending all of Ilena's edits. I agree that placing a vanity link to her own site or adding unreferences speculative info to an article is a bad idea. My issue here is that Fyslee is attempting to say that he was willing to work collaboratively with Ilena, when clearly that wasn't his intention at the start. He set up a defensive relationship with her and continued to push her buttons, knowing that eventually she would react poorly. I would speculate (and I bet I am right) that Fyslee knew exactly who Ilena was right when she showed up at Misplaced Pages. As a memeber of the RagTag Possee of Snake Oil Vigilante's , Fyslee clearly has a preexisting bias against Ilena. Please peruse this immature attack site that dates back to 2000. It is filled with satirical song lyrics lambasting Ilena and trying to enflame her. (Barrett is also a member of the RagTag Posse.) Clearly, Fyslee's intent here right when Ilena arrived was to enflame her more. This is a real-life dispute that has continued onto Misplaced Pages and neither party has acted in good faith. And now that Fyslee is pretending to put on his good-boy hat and say that he wants only to work collaboratively with her... well that's just a ploy not to get what's coming to him. I warn the arbitrators reviewing the evidence not to fall for this. I guess I am asking Fysleeto take a step back and realize that you have been antagonizing Ilena from the start and that you are very much to blame that it has come to this.

Meat-puppetry by Fyslee

Here is another example of Fyslee recruiting to skepics to combat who he calls "loons". In this case, the loon was me. Please see this entry in the forums of Randi.org.Skeptics needed for Misplaced Pages. It is a repost of a mass email which he sent out covertly only to have it - whoops! - posted publicly on this skeptic's forum. There are a couple of troubling statements which Fyslee makes which I would like to point out:

There are plenty of loons out there doing the editing right now, and far too few skeptics to keep them at bay.

Okay, as I said, I guess I am a loon according to Fyslee.

Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Misplaced Pages keeps a very public history of *every* little edit, and you can't get them removed. We don't need any accusations of a conspiracy!

Clearly he was orchestrating a behind-the-scenes effort and (dare I say) conspiring against users like me. He goes on to say that I am an editor who "needs to be watched" as I favor an unscientific POV. (To clarify, I am not in favor of a unscientific POV.)

Another example of Fyslee's meatpuppetry can be found at "Chirotalk" - a dubious discussion forum where they attribute a career in chiropractic as a casue of suicide. Here Fyslee (though he recently changed his user name to protect his identity) tries to round up more likeminded editors to spew their special brand of hatred on Misplaced Pages.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.