| Revision as of 14:39, 20 December 2006 editIlena (talk | contribs)1,128 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:16, 23 June 2022 edit undoWOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs)Bots158,826 editsm Fix font tag lint errors | ||
| (628 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| | | | | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==Block== | |||
| == Experiences on Misplaced Pages == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I would like to share about my experiences on Misplaced Pages. Click here | |||
| :::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) | |||
| For a great video ... I recommend Ronz and Friends watch this one: | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| For how I feel about defeating all three so called Quackbusters ... and their attempts to silence my voice and to change the history of this case: | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::For the mutt and others attempting to bully me ... Woof Woof Woof ... I don't respond to anonymous dogs. | |||
| :::::Updated ... http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm#Barretry ] 14:39, 20 December 2006 (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) | |||
| == New archive created == | |||
| <small> Cross-posted from User talk:SlimVirgin </small> | |||
| Now you've got your first archive! -- ] 20:33, 19 December 2006 (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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Comment and question== | |||
| I copied this from your archive. Sorry, but I would like to keep this open and give you an opportunity to reply in light of --] 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ilena, you seem to be having some difficulty fitting in with Misplaced Pages. Whether you realize it or not, we consider WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA important. Do you not understand these, not think you are violating them, or not care? I would appreciate a clarification of your position on these. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Responded to above. Bow Wow Wow. In my opinion, saying "please" like Ronz does while erasing all my facts I'm posting is not "civility" but censure ...and I'll have none of it. Bullies are welcome to bully each other ... not me. ] 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for clarifying your position. --] 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My pleasure. BTW ... I love this video ... what about you? | |||
| ::::::: Please and thank you, ] 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In the post linked to, you state "they are facts, albeit ones that you and others would prefer to hide. " This is accusatory. The concern is OR. If the concern is OR, the answer is to find reliable sources which are acceptable, not accuse other editors of "hiding facts". You find that a post which uses the word "please" yet does not support your edits is "bullying" - yet another personal attack. You seem to be focusing on accusing others of bad faith, bullying, "hiding" information - and you are completely ignoring your own hostile, accusatory tone. I'm not sure if you realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you have legitimate concerns about content of an article, you can surely find a way to express those concerns without attacking other editors. You are redirecting focus here; ignoring concerns about '''your''' civility and responding with yet more attacks on other editors. Can you see how that is disruptive and not helping your case? ]<sup>]</sup> 11:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Signature == | |||
| Would you '''please''' remove the link from your signature. Although I don't always agree with ], he is quite correct in removing it ''from your signature'' wherever it appears. — ] | ] 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Attacks outside Misplaced Pages == | |||
| I would like to add that I wasn't trying to get you banned from Misplaced Pages. I was trying to get you to follow the rules, policies, and guidelines (which you're still not doing), and stated that you ''would'' be banned from Misplaced Pages if you didn't follow them. That was not a threat, nor did I say that ''I'' would ban you from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| I did block you for ], and I did say that I thought you had been banned from the articles in question, but my recollection was faulty. I've agreed not to take ''administrative'' action against you in the future. | |||
| ] suggests that both you and Lee (if you've properly identified him, which is not entirely clear) should not edit the articles. I have no direct interest in the article, other then a general interest in eliminating quackery as I see it. | |||
| I request that you edit your blog to remove the misstatements of ''fact''. ] doesn't require that you not attack Wikipedians outside of Misplaced Pages, but it does allow people to determine that your statements ''within'' Misplaced Pages are forbidden attacks if they refer to the statements outside. — ] | ] 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What do you consider a misstatement of "fact" Arthur? Shalom. | |||
| ] 02:40, 20 December 2006 (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)