| Revision as of 15:34, 17 February 2007 editWerdnabot (talk | contribs)60,702 editsm Automated archival of 1 sections to User talk:Ilena/Archive 3← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:16, 23 June 2022 edit undoWOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs)Bots158,695 editsm Fix font tag lint errors | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Ilena/Archive 3--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->, | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="300px" | {| class="infobox" width="300px" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 16: | Line 11: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==Block== | |||
| Ilena, I warned you before about using Misplaced Pages 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, ] ] 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. <b>]</b> ] 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==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: <b><font color="999900">]<</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> | |||
| If you take out the extra "<" it looks like this: | |||
| <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> | |||
| Then you can use numbers to change colors! | |||
| Thanks ... I'm still having trouble making the talk link hot. ] 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;) -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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 (-- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)) or 3? 4 should give the time, too. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ilena - If you haven't done this already, copy this code <nowiki> <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> </nowiki>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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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. <nowiki> <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> </nowiki> 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Take the <nowiki><nowiki> and </nowiki></nowiki> 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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK Ilena, we have to get that signature working:) Did it not let you save it right? -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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><font color="999900">]<</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> | |||
| If this is the color you want, click "edit" and copy this code: | |||
| <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
| and put it is the signature box, then click on Raw signature, then save. Then let me know what happens. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
| and got this & the "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags" comment. | |||
| <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Did you put a check mark in "Raw signature"? -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
| One more try. ]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;#FF66CC&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Ilena|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?: | |||
| <b><font color="999900" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
| Hey this is it! | |||
| -- <b><font color="000099">]</font></b> <font color="FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
| == Many thanks == | |||
| Hey Ilena, I just noticed that you recently some vandalism from my userpage and I just wanted to thank you very much for doing that. I really appreciate it.<br /> | |||
| 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, ''']''' | |||
| :::My pleasure to help. I would like to assistance in archiving pages ... don't know about Wernabot and am open to the best means.<b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="3">]</font> | |||
| ::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, ''']''' 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very much appreciated. <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
| ==Clayton College== | |||
| Please assume good faith and be more civil in your edit summary comments when making reversions. Thank you . --] 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop making assertions that assume bad faith such as "Barrett's promoters here on Misplaced Pages are attempting to use Wiki as yet another weapon to attack this college and Dr. Clark." Thank you. --] 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Clayton College of Natural Health|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please read ]. {{{2|}}}<!-- {{uw-3rr}} --> --] 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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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. ] 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, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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><font color="999900">]<</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> | |||
| :: Please verify it, or at least stop your ] until you do so. --] 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)" --] 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 Misplaced Pages? --] 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? --] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? --] 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 Misplaced Pages 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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Libellous information needs oversighted ASAP. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree, but I don't see any (libelous <u>statements</u> -- information cannot be libelous in the United States) in Quackwatch. Most of ''that'' is either opinion or documented. — ] | ] 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I'm going to email the Office about the BLP concerns and let them deal with it. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 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 Misplaced Pages. Her verification of this "smear campaign" is the existance of links to Quackwatch. --] 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry Ron. I have said nothing libelous. You appear to know as little about as you do about and s as you do about state corporate licensing boards. Virtually nothing. Quackwatch is part of the operations of self-named "the " 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 suits too. Ignorance of topics is no excuse. And I mean that in the most possible with you. ]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;#FF66CC&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Ilena|discuss]]]] 02:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The question is link that was in the , 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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'll do what I can. Ilena 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| Please be careful of ] on ]. ] 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==3RR block== | |||
| Ilena, you've been reported for 3RR at ] and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please take the time to review the ] so you don't violate it in future. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:40, 15 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. ] ] 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi again, I just noticed that you were involved in litigation with Stephen Barrett, as described in ]. I'm thinking that this places you in a ] regarding anything to do with him or Quackwatch on Misplaced Pages, 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:56, 15 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. ] ] 02:40, 27 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 Misplaced Pages rules. Thanks. ]]] 03:06, 15 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 to SV.--] 03:14, 27 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? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:09, 15 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ] 12:46, 27 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><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:53, 15 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! -- ] 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, that's reasonable, thanks for clearing that up! Sorry Ilena if I got you in any trouble. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 04:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <small> Cross-posted from User talk:SlimVirgin </small> | |||
| <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="2">]</font> 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That looks BETTER! -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 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, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. {{user|Ilena}} is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. {{user|Fyslee}} 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, ] 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:16, 23 June 2022
 Archives |
|---|
Block
Ilena, I warned you before about using Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I might suggest reverting the article to last weekend and cleaning up from there. What is legitimate descriptive may need careful, superior editing, also see my request to SV.--I'clast 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I assume this is the deletion in question . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) 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)