Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilena (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 23 February 2007 (Durova and privacy issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Waiting for Wizardry Dragon

I concur with Fyslee that it's difficult to present evidence when you don't know what is intended by the proposer, Wizardry Dragon. I understand that Peter is going through difficult times, but I'm not entirely sure what he has in mind.

Publicist allegation

Ilena has stated that Fyslee has acted as Barrett's publicist, but has not provided any actual evidence. Neither has Alan2102, actually. One might deduce a failure of AGF on their part. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

None so blind, as he who will not see. Thanks Arthur, for giving me a chance to re-organize the many, many ways Fyslee (and other masked editors here) precisely fit the definition.

One question first, what is your opinion of Fyslee promoting his new law and such on these pages, doesn't it seem out of place and distraction to you, or is it just me? Do you think that it belongs in this Arbitration?

Anyway, We'll start with the Wiki definition: A publicist is a person whose job is to generate and manage publicity for a public figure, especially a celebrity, or for a work such as a book or film.

There is no question that Barrett is a public figure, center peg of various Barrett Quackwatch and Healthfraud commercial operations, which include: promoting and selling books, lectures, and courses, soliciting donations, etc. It's all surrounding their POV of what is, and what is not quackery and who is, and who is not, a quack. As you have so kindly pointed out previously, the Superior Court Opinion, which first granted my anti-SLAPP motion against all three plaintiffs (Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and Christopher Grell) and awarded me fees (btw, which are being disputed fyi, as I type) made a ruling, that a "quack" is a subjective opinion. It is one of the reasons I strongly objected to the creation of various lists here (could someone provide those?) which were a repeat of the NCAFH's and Fyslee's so called "anti-quackery" . Here is a highlighted cached copy, showing Fyslee advertising Barrett.

I'm going to go round up the websites and blogs promoting Barrett by Fyslee and put them orderly for those getting bleary reading through Barrett vs Rosethal redux. Here's a good one to start with. I want to thank those sending me new information regarding the vastness of what I now know to call, Fyslee's his doublespeak denials aside. I have copies of it if it disappears.

To claim that this email appeal he made, that was then circulated further on : an account ... created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues.

I would like to invite webmasters and site owners to begin editing Misplaced Pages and SkepticWiki. There are many subjects for skeptics to get involved with, and we really need help. ... 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!

My User page at Misplaced Pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fyslee

(does anyone know how to put this in a box so it can be read easier, please?)

One last point ... as far as WP:AGF, I believe you and Fyslee ganging up on me here was anything but. I didn't have a clue who you were and had to look you up on usenet. You were indeed giving the silicone industry's viewpoint on the lawsuits and the science. Here is something that felt anything but WP:AGF Back soon. Ilena (chat) 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Paul or whatever-his-name-is (Fyslee) before Misplaced Pages (although it's possible I saw his name before) and I don't think it's accurate to say we were "ganging up" on you.

I don't think much of his "law", although it's a plausible interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy, it's not quite correct, and is (in this context) self-serving. However, if it were correct, however, it would be appropriate for him to post it, so I'd have to put that down to a mistaken interpretation, rather than to malice.

As for Skeptics needed for Misplaced Pages, that would be damning if he actually sent the E-mail. As it's doubly anonymous (we don't know who "MattusMaximus" is, nor who sent him the E-mail), it strongly suggests either that he was engaging in meat-puppetry or that he's being framed. Considering the activity of other editors whose point of view is to praise Alternative Medicine here and in RL (and I'm not accusing you, Ilena), the possibility of his being framed cannot be denied. (On the other hand, the possibility that he would actually do something that stupid cannot be denied, either, as it was about two months after his first Misplaced Pages edit, and just about a year ago.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As a target of that email, I can assure you that Fyslee did send this email. It is posted on Randi.org and I can only imagine how many other people he sent it to. I had to deal with a lot of attacks lodged at me after that email was sent and subsequently posted on Randi.org. -- Levine2112 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Struck out framing accusation, as I don't believe Levine2112 would lie about this. However, it was almost a year ago, and was only two months after he (Fyslee) started editing. Is there any evidence he's done it lately?

FWIW, I don't find Ilena's cache convincing that Paul was acting as a publicist — perhaps, just a fellow traveller. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Assuming your assumption is right, it's still much too long ago. You are flogging a dead horse: the newbie editor Fyslee was at the time. Your point would be stronger if you provided recent evidence instead of allegations about an old e-mail message. I for one can clearly see that Fyslee has learnt a lot since then. That newbie editor no longer exists. Also note that he was not criticized at the time, and that no meat puppets were detected. AvB ÷ talk 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that his intention in that email was for it to remain covert so no one who scream conspiracy (rightfully). Perhaps what Fyslee has learned is how to keep his cabal emails more private now. Then again, maybe you're right. We just don't know for sure. I will say this, there are a lot of compadres of Fyslee's showing up as "newbie" editors, but who demonstrate a Wiki know-how as though they were coached on how to edit here. -- Levine2112 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"newbie" editors who demonstrate a Wiki know-how? You seem to be redefining the word "newbie" as used in this context: a reason to forgive mistakes due to inexperience. When a new user account demonstrates Wiki know-how, we don't say it's a newbie editor. We assume that the person has (wisely) studied the system before starting to contribute, or has experience under a different name. No big deal unless vote stacking or other irregularities ensue. Anyway, I'm wondering if you could tell us more about those "compadres of Fyslee's"? AvB ÷ talk 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is wonderful if an editor takes the time to learn so much about editing before making his/her first edit. However, there are so many intricacies to editing and Misplaced Pages rules and special codes (as we all know) that it is unlikely that a new user will be able to just show up and start a new article with proper linking and header formats as their very first edit. Though unlikely, I will admit it is possible for a newbie to possess such a know-how by thoroughly researching Misplaced Pages and learing the ins-and-outs. I don't want to use this discussion to implicate any editors, so I will limit this to one editor who has already come under much scrutiny, User:QuackGuru (QG). here is QG's first edit. Rather sophisticated for a newbie, don't you think? QG not only started a new page with perfect coding of links and headers, but also managed to do so under the umbrella of a WikiProject. It seems atypical of newbie to even know what a WikiProject is, much less choose that grounds as their entry point in Misplaced Pages. Next, I want to point you to QG's second edit. It is a message to his friend, Fyslee, alerting him that he started a new "stub" (good command over Wiki terminology) and states that starting the stub was in fact his first contribution. Either we are dealing with a brilliant editor who took the time to thoroughly research Misplaced Pages before making this first contribution and who coincidentally contacted Fyslee as his second edit or we are dealing with someone who was invited and trained to edit by Fyslee. There are other possibilities of course... perhaps this editor is a sock-puppet of an editor long ago exiled, etc. Either way, the editors campaign began and lead to a POV push so great that it involved not one, not two, but three AfDs and a big headache in Wikiland. So you wanted to know about Fyslee's compadres... there's just one example. -- Levine2112 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is how you prove meatpuppetry? I expected a host of newbies who had entered the fray regarding Ilena or other disputes in which Fyslee has been involved. What happened isn't even remotely connected with this ArbCom case. If Fyslee has trained this editor, he has instructed him well enough to refrain from vote stacking and other meat puppet behavior. "Sock puppet" and "exiled user": yet more unrelated negatives mentioned in this ArbCom case. This alternative would accuse QuakGuru of something we don't allow here, and has AGF issues. Either way, it doesn't reflect on Fyslee. AvB ÷ talk 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it speaks volumes about Fyslee. However, I digress. My point is made and I agree with you that this is off subject from the ArbCom case at hand. -- Levine2112 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did write that message (which was automatically sent to webmasters in the rings). I have never denied it. How it got at Randi's list I don't know, and it was obviously not intended. I was not soliciting for improper actions, no vote stacking, or other improper actions. It was a long time ago and violated no rules here, because of its general nature. I only feared the reactions of Levine2112, who has always attacked me at the drop of a hat. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Attack you?! Umm, who did you call a loon in an email that you irresponsibly sent out to your entire ring only to have it reposted to for so many eyes to see? It is so petty that you are trying to turn this against me. I'd respect you more it you took some responsibility in that matter and this one. I stand by my assessment that you created this mess with Ilena. -- Levine2112 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I shoudn't have called you a loon, and I do apologize. We have had our many differences and a lot of unkind things have been said, especially back then. I'm sorry about that. I'd sure like to see us working together more. I thought things were going better until you jumped into this fray. Maybe I should have apologized to you sooner. I wasn't aware that that mail had been seen by you, as it was never intended to be public. Whatever the case, it was wrong of me. Can you forgive me? -- Fyslee (collaborate) 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder how many other emails you have have sent to recruit more editors (and to warn them about loons like me) that also weren't intended to be public. Look, it doesn't bother me that you called me a loon. There are people who if they called me a loon or whatever, it would bother me. But not you. So do I forgive you? Sure. You called me a name and tried to rally people up to fight me. It's like the scorpion and the frog. It's just in your nature to do so. (Great, now I'm a frog! I'd rather be a loon.) -- Levine2112 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting incredibly out of hand. Do we need intervention in ArbCom proceedings? --Ronz 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what we are doing here? ;-) Anyhow, I think this issue is wrapped up. It has been presented as evidence (the email in question) and now it is in the hands of ArbCom. Let's sit back and see how it unfolds, unless there is more to say here now. I have nothing to add. -- Levine2112 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If these proceedings have taught us anything, they've clearly demonstrated that allowing problems to go uncorrected only causes more and worsening problems later. --Ronz 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What problem? -- Levine2112 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple problems. Incivility, assuming bad faith, personal attacks, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --Ronz 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that happening here, but I agree that those are problems. Let's all try to avoids them. -- Levine2112 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's another problem that's caused these proceedings to take place - ignoring and denying these specific types of problems. --Ronz 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was editors trying to enflame other editors by creating issues where there are none. -- Levine2112 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But that of course assumes bad faith in both motive (claiming an editor is intentionally trying to enflame another) and interpretation of guidelines (claiming and editor doesnt actually think there are guideline violations but is accusing someone of them anyways). --Ronz 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You got it! :-) -- Levine2112 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is disruptive to make a big fuss over a small thing. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) The Committee has the power to impose temporary injunctions while a case is ongoing. Any editor may request a temporary injunction at the workshop. In my observation the odds of such a proposal being enacted are best when the proposal is offered by tangentially involved editors rather than by the primary parties - probably because a little distance helps to measure when and how an injunction would be appropriate.

On a somewhat related point, in my experience all assertions and evidence by Ilena need to be examined with rigorous skepticism: as Fyslee's evidence demonstrates, her persistent use of contextomy and logical fallacies carried to the point where I told her she was being unethical. She would have fared much better when she requested my investigative assistance if she had merely stated the dry facts with adequate evidence without trying to spin the issues. Durova 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I (as respectfully as possible), strongly disagree with almost every word of Durova's anonymous, subjective, and unilaterally punitive assessment of the situation. I admit a prejudice against masked people falsely accusing me of things and censoring me for minor crimes, and had attempted to distance myself. I will respond though, to her accusations, unfounded for the most part.

My experience is that she has chosen to been blind to the disruptive, aggressive, bullying and threatening behaviors of Fyslee.

She started a total fabrication that I made legal threats: Has she shown understanding for how we handle legal threats? If so, then consider the warning revoked. DurovaCharge 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What legal threats??????? She just made it up, and it feels like she did it to attempt to help frame me.

She, to my dismay, had made up her mind about me from her first appearance and turned the situation upside down.

It was not I, but Fyslee (and Arthur Rubin) continually claiming that I was "libeling" them. (Of interest, and why this arbitration is accurately called Barrett V Rosenthal, is because Barrett has been making this same claim and lost to me at every court level.) Fyslee continues with the false libel accusations here.

Fylsee, with Durova's help, has put false information about this case on Misplaced Pages, not I. To this day, they have provided not one word of potential libel that I have written about them. Here are just a few of the many examples of Fyslee's false libel claims against me. This archive has the whole obscene situation. Achive 3

I'm tired of her deceptive and libelous statements here at Misplaced Pages and on her websites, so now's the time to settle this

The only reasons I haven't already sued you for libel are that we don't do that here ...Fyslee

From the moment she showed up until her edit above, she has attempted to make Fyslee appear as my victim. She backed his whole Misplaced Pages:Privacy privacy fallacious arguments.

Her assessment that Fyslee's sudden and irrational demands for Misplaced Pages:Privacy was in any way possible analogous to this For example, we would do something like that if a child revealed their home address on the site. DurovaCharge! 21:36, 2 February 2007 is ludicrous, at minimum.

Fyslee, using his real name, has been promoting himself and promoting Barrett's "anti-quackery" agenda. He operates commercial websites, blogs, and webrings for years in in his own name and oft with Fyslee together. On Chirotalk, Fyslee and his real name were linked until the middle of this arbitraton. To compare my calling him by his name here, to exposing an innocent child's home address for the first time on Misplaced Pages, is illustrative of many of her subjective decisions.

I hope that the other Arbitrators will get a clue as to what is truly happening here. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Alan2012 removed by Fyslee

Fylsee found an excuse to remove Alan2012's Alan's deleted edit totally from this page. Why he couldn't put it in another place instead of deleting it entirely seems extremely aggressive, especially towards a newbie. Then, I found out that he posted on Alan's page, what seems to be a very heavy handed, and not so subtle threat. This is but a snippet: You are more than welcome to make comments there. Keep in mind that your own conflict of interest will then be used against you, so think twice about what you write. If you treat me nice and assume good faith, I will do the same. I don't want to out you, since we need people of your stature and knowledge here. I realize that Fyslee will deny forever the fact that he too, has WP;COI issues as one of Barrett's publicists for years. He also conveniently failed to respond to any of Alan2012's questions which I will reinstate below.

To clarify, I hope: There is nothing of AGF failure in the statement that you function as a publicist for Barrett or QW. There's no "bad faith" in that; either you do, or you don't. There would only be bad faith if it were true, and you denied it. She presented quite a bit of evidence for what she said. Do you deny that what she is saying is true? You say that any affiliations you have with Barrett "are honorable". Fine. No one suggested dishonorability of your affiliations; what was stated was that you HAD THEM. Do you deny them? -- Alan2012 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always found accusations without evidence to be in bad faith. See Fallacy_of_many_questions --Ronz 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The message was removed with an explanation of where to put it. "Just follow the instructions..." (or something like that). If he had done it, I would have replied. I have answered those charges here at the RFARB so many times now that I see no point in doing it anymore. It's a dead horse that hasn't a calorie in it to light a candle. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify a statement by I'clast?

Since he hasn't been editing much recently, I thought it best to see if others could shed light on the following:

I did not realize Ronz too, as an IP, went that far back until Levine's note above

I think he's saying Fyslee was editing as that ip, but the obvious interpretation is that the ip belongs to me, Ronz. I think he's referring to my point that Ilena has been editing under ip addresses, in response to Levine2112's statement about when Ilena started editing. It certainly doesn't read that way though. --Ronz 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he was saying that the IP which followed Ilena's IP edit was yours. I didn't imply that, though perhaps he interpretted that somehow. I don't know. In any case, I'clast removed the comment so it is moot now. -- Levine2112 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. You both began making accusations that I was involved as an editor with the articles in question when Ilena began editing them. For the record, I made no edits to any of these articles prior to this in August '06: . --Ronz 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally. Again, this was my bad. I apologize once again. -- Levine2112 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of Edit Summaries

May I suggest that we do not use edit summaries to make a point. They should be used to explain the edits made only please.

See Ilena's edits here: and .

Cheers Lethaniol 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. There is so much distraction, I fear the facts are getting swallowed up. Ilena (chat) 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is how you feel then using the edit summaries in such a way is the last thing you should do. The Arbitrators will be making the decisions here, and they will likely not be reading every edit and edit summary you make. Please try and put any comments/evidence you may have in the appropraite place. Cheers Lethaniol 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)