User talk:Ilena: Difference between revisions

(Strike through of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. -- Fyslee 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agree with Durova. Stop making accusations and provide diffs. If you don't know how, please ask for technical assistance. The only "other article" you've edited, as best I can tell, was Sally Kirkland, and your edits there consist primarily of the repeated insertion of an external link to a site which you apparently maintain, and which links to your own promotional site. You will find you're cut more slack if you appear to be here to build a better encyclopedia, rather than looking for spots to insert self-promotional links. As you are familiar enough now with Wikipedia policies to accuse others of violating them, please re-read conflict of interest. As you consider your personal assertion that "Her breast implant advocacy is very important to Sally. Leave this in." to be adequate grounds for including the link, please re-read the verifiability policy, or Ronz's perfectly civil suggestions on the article talk page. Please believe when I say you've been cut an extraordinary amount of slack - it's incredible that your actions haven't gotten you blocked yet. Meaning, there's still time to demonstrate that you care about Wikipedia and its policies, and are not here solely to make a point. MastCell 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to be offensive, but it wouldn't hurt if you assumed some good faith yourself Ronz. And Ilena - I cannot emphasise this enough - please remember everyone here is a valued and respected contributor. Yes even these "Barret" folks. We would not be an impartial encyclopedia if we picked and chose who we let edit. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena, this is not the way Wikipedians conduct a dispute. Several editors have advised you how to support your complaint with meaningful evidence or get help in doing so. If you continue to disregard all feedback and respond with inflammatory and uncivil statements I will block you for disruption. So far you have presented no evidence that anyone else has violated a single policy, but you have crossed the line regarding WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:POINT. Durova^Charge 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Punative blocks aren' really all that helpful, Durova. As long as the discourse here is somewhat civil and still ongoing, I don't really see any basis for calls of disruption. Ilena's behaviour is improving, so instead of chastising her for the things she is still does wrong, it may be better to guide her further. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive? She referred to a court case immediately after I cautioned her to hold off on that and contact the foundation. She's skating on the thin edge of a really swift siteban and I don't think she realizes it. Good judgements seldom follow in the heat of the moment after a conversation descends to comparisons to Nazi death camps. She could still post an adopt-a-user request to her talk page to get some guidance. I'd rather hand out twelve hours today or tomorrow - or at least remind her that I could do it, than hand out an indef. This is a very clear case for a preventative block. I'd rather talk about it and not do it than use the tools, but I stand by the warning. Durova^Charge 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment as "follow my suggestions or be blocked". Perhaps that was not your intention, but it is what it came off as. I do feel compelled to mention that I may not have formally "adopted" Ilena (I disagree with the needless bureaucracy of these programs), I am more or less trying to mentor her. Her behaviour has greatly improved since her first edits - I think anyone that posted to the first ANI post would say so, so as long as we can at least control the negative behaviour, I think it's beneficial to let her try to contribute positively. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: you have more history than I have on this case. If you've seen her show some responsiveness to feedback then I'll trust your call - it hasn't been apparent to me from this thread. Has she shown understanding for how we handle legal threats? If so, then consider the warning revoked. Durova^Charge 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If she makes any further legal threats against Wikipedia users or the Foundation itself, I will be the first to support her blocking. Otherwise, there's no good reason not to keep working to improve her contributions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I am unclear where I made any legal (or otherwise) threat against any user or the Wiki foundation. I believe that is a misunderstanding. In fact, the precedence set by my successful defense in Barrett Vs Rosenthal would protect Wiki against meritless lawsuits because of the words of others posted on this site. Ilena 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ilena, it would help you on Wikipedia if, for the time being, you could "let go" of the court case and focus on something else for the time being. I gave you a couple articles you can try editing. Perhaps, to put it a little differently - try getting experience editing smaller pages such as the two I linked, before moving on to bigger ones. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of strike throughs (and probably missed a few) of deceptive statements and outright lies above by Ilena. (I call them "lies" because she has been informed and corrected, yet repeats them.) Her repeated personal attacks all over Wikipedia (in gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA), as well as outside of Wikipedia against Wikipedia editors, are so confusingly blended, filled with hyperbole, imprecise, without clear diffs as documentation, and so filled with her conspiracy theory opinions, that it is impossible to properly defend myself or really answer them, so I've just signalled that the striked out portions are in one way or another incorrect or deceptive. I also know from experience (and mostly observation of her interactions with literally countless others here and on Usenet), that any attempt to defend myself or comment on her behavior will only lead to more attacks from her, so I usually refrain. I'd like to see the situation de-escalate, but I can't just ignore repeated policy violations, especially when she has been repeatedly warned, and then does it anyway, in what could be (and has been) interpreted as deliberate provocation that is very disruptive and time-consuming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On Fyslee's user page you comment "You were never "attacked" by me as you falsely claim." I beg to differ Ilena. From an outsiders perspective you are very combative. Obviously "attack" is a strong word, but the cumulative effect of your edits speak for themselves. As I suggested before, editing pages with which you are not personally involved would be the better strategy for an enjoyable experience in wikipedia (see the Agapetos_angel below). I might add, editors in wikipedia seem to have been remarkably tolerant of your disruptions, one presumes to allow you to get used to this more collaborative environment. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be taking the hint. (I retract this part as you are not edit warring like before.)

Read what people are saying, if you continue this way I am certain your editing privileges will be reviewed, this has happened time and time again here (gastrich example above is a good example). Please, it is not usenet, and wikipedia is not about the truth, which seems to be the crux of your conflicts. Editing here is primarily reporting "verifiable information" from "reliable sources" that is "notable" and "not original research". If it fails any of these four criteria then you will have an uphill struggle. Please consider using the talk pages to over come the differences in a collaborative way. Convince people of why you are correct. Getting mad just makes your points less convincing. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Note I have edited this a bit since first posting David D. (Talk) 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter, I think you've gone above and beyond here. That said, actions have consequences. If we keep telling Ilena she needs to be civil, stay cool, avoid personal attacks, not compare other editors to Nazi death camp guards, etc and she continues, then what should happen? At some point, we cross over to enabling. If I behaved as Ilena does and proved refractory to all intervention, I'd be blocked. So would you. We're still hearing the "Ronz/Fyslee made me do it" excuse (coupled with personal attacks) from Ilena. She's still inserting self-promotional external links and charging others with censorship when they are removed. Despite her accusations, she has not provided diffs or evidence for the charges she keeps making, despite suggestions on how to go about this from me and others. Perhaps an WP:RfC is in order, to get some outside input and try to resolve the situation - and as always, there will be scrutiny on the actions of others (Ronz, Fyslee, myself, etc) and their roles in the situation as well (i.e. it would not be a venue to "go after" Ilena). MastCell 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell, so often we hear of the RfC from a negative perspective, however, it is a venue for comment only. It should not be for retribution but for constructive discussion. Personally i think it would help a lot to clear the air and cool down all parties. It would also be a venue for Ilena to air her frustration with respect to the Barrett related pages. We need to think about the big picture here and clearly the talk pages are not working. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way saying that Ilena has not done wrong, the Nazi diff is something that had me itching to say something - but we all have to ask ourselves before we comment "is this comment going to help the matter, or just make it worse?" Knee-jerk negative reactions are what the majority of this has been, and while mostly the people talking at length such as David, Guy, and Mastcell have avoided it, others haven't. All I ask is that people remember there are two sides to every story, and Ilena HAS been attacked here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I haven't counted how many RFCs and requests for investigation I've answered, but they probably number in the hundreds. Most Wikipedians who know my history would say I err on the side of WP:AGF. I was Agapetos Angel's sole defender and I was among the last to come down against Jason Gastrich. I even stood up for the underdog at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors while my sysop nomination was active and took some heat for it. When a user makes strong accusations I ask for evidence. If I ask for evidence three times and someone refuses to provide it - instead digressing about Nazi death camps and court cases - then the odds of that person developing into a productive Wikipedian are very slim. I'm not being sarcastic; I've fielded responses that nearly mirror this one. Volunteer time isn't infinite and at some point every editor has to assume responsibility for his or her behavior here. That's why the tools exist - I don't get a charge out of using them but they're there for a reason. I hope Ilena understands that she's very lucky to have this much attention and support: this site has fewer than 1 sysop for every 2700 accounts. On a cost-benefit basis I'd rather spend my time mediating Talk:Joyce Kilmer where some people are trying to work out a dispute and get a good article featured. Durova^Charge 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I honestly thought I was wasting my time, I wouldn't bother with trying to help Ilena. I find it kind of offensive, really to suggest that it is. I don't have time to waste, and I'm not getting any younger. If I did not have faith that Ilena can reform, I would not bother. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your standard for taking offense then I wish you chose your own words more carefully. You were rather quick to call my block warning punitive when it wasn't. I seem to be one of the people whose reactions you characterized as knee-jerk and possibly as threats. You haven't retracted any of those opinions even though I explained the preventative nature of the block warning and outlined my long history for being rather the opposite type of Wikipedian. What I can't show you are the private e-mails from editors who have been blocked or banned and seek me out because they know I'll give them a fair hearing. It would be a gesture of good faith to suppose that the very experienced Wikipedians who have weighed in to express doubts about this endeavor may have good cause for our opinions, or at least to impress upon Ilena that we do not do this lightly. If Ilena develops into a productive editor I'll give you a barnstar because you seem sincere and I'd be happy if you prove me wrong. Yet I neither hesitate nor apologize about calling this a low percentage situation. Respectfully, Durova^Charge 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no reason despite her missteps to question Ilena's overall intentions on Wikipedia, and therefore I assume good faith. It would be refreshing if some more people could start doing that. As Werdna said on the ProtectionBot RFA, bruised egos are secondary, the encyclopedia comes first, and I sense that some bruised egos in here perpetuating this argument. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, but aren't Guy and Durova expressing an outside opinion? Why would their egos be bruised? David D. (Talk) 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy's response has been quite reasonable. Durova's seems to be saying "I know how these things go, and they don't work out well", which really seems to be assuming bad faith to me. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words into my mouth: that reflects poorly on both of us. If the effort I have exerted building a reputation for fairness and integrity fails to sway you, then consideration for Ilena - who is probably pretty confused by now - ought to have put an end to that. Good intentions are not a substitute for accountability, nor are we required to continue assuming good faith at this point. The editor she targeted in the post about Nazi death camps cried foul and she has been unrepentant. Her other accusations would be damning if she supported them, but she neither did so so nor retracted the claims. These are insults and character assassination. Your defense of of those actions has amounted to tu quoque, which - in a typical unblock request - cuts no ice. It's counterproductive to act as if she were exempt from WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL (and possibly WP:COI as well), then employ logical fallacies as justification for her policy infractions and impugn the motives of thoughtful responses. When another sysop characterized this as enabling I worried that word was too strong. I'm not so sure now. Given your reactions to my other statements - and how nothing reflected a perusal of the relevant links - these may be wasted words. I've really never encountered this from an editor who has your amount of experience before and I'm baffled. Durova^Charge 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I recently responded on his talkpage. Fyslee is now threatening to SLAPP sue me claiming I have 'libeled' him. I recently defeated 3 members of the Healthfraud List where he was "assistant listmaster" for several years who also claimed they were "libeled." Here is what I wrote, and then below, is a comment from someone I don't know, which fyslee claims "attacked" him and removed. Concurrently, other members of the Healthfraud List are posting on Usenet his claims against me, but as you see, he censors all of the supportive comments. What he calls an "attack" appears just to be repeating things he himself posted on Wikipedia about his close relationship to Stephen Barrett as Webring Owner where all of Barrett's site are linked, as well as Barrett's "assistant listmaster for the Healthfraud List" ... a position he filled for several years (until two weeks ago.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

Whom are you addressing? Fyslee? Steth, if you have concerns about the use of Barrett's website in article space, please discuss them on the relevant article pages. If you have a problem with Fyslee, go to his talk page or try dispute resolution. Ilena, please see my comment above - provide diffs. Ask for help if you don't know how to do this. No one is permitted to make legal threats, and if you have evidence (again, in the form of diffs) that Fyslee is threatening you with legal action, he'll likely be punished severely - but you need to provide the evidence. Continuing to make charges while refusing to supply evidence for them is going to be interpreted as an attack. Does that make sense? MastCell 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell i just added some context. That quote in the box above is what Seth posted to Fyslee's talk page. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks, I had gotten a little confused there. Ilena, I believe perhaps this is the diff you're looking for? It contains what I would characterize as borderline legal threats from Fyslee toward you. If you want to pursue it, take it to WP:AN/I. If you do so, present your case briefly, include the diff, and let it speak for itself - i.e. don't try to spin it. You may want to ask Peter, or another experienced editor whom you trust, for assistance with presenting or picking out additional diffs. Alternately, I think more involved forms of dispute resolution, such as a request for comment from the wider community, might be warranted in the dispute between you and Fyslee. MastCell 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that diff, MastCell. I hope people go there and read it. It shows clearly how fyslee eliminates everything he doesn't want from his talk page ... and leaves only his biased, one sided version. What is very interesting to me, is how one of fyslee's list members is taking HIS REDACTED VERSIONS of Wikipedia (his rants and accusations) and removes any opposing comments. It feels like the Healthfraud List redux. Thank you and have a lovely evening. Ilena 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, please take a careful look at that diff again. You will see there is absolutely no threat at all, quite the opposite. Just because something is possible (I could sue her, but won't) doesn't mean it will happen. I'm used to such behavior from her and others, so I'm pretty hardened, and as an experienced editor here, I know we don't threaten each other with lawsuits, which is basically what I say there. Please revise your statement above. -- Fyslee 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I believe anyone who looks at the history will see that from my first edits, fyslee has been the aggressor against me. I am looking for his false claims that I have "libeled" him. He has a strong propensity to delete from any pages he desires things he doesn't want, so it will take me some time. You might check his talk page where he is claiming he makes the rules, can delete whatever he wants, and then makes demands of me as if I I owed him anything. This is identical behavior I experienced from his when his hat was "assistant listmaster" for Stephen Barrett. Thank you for your input. Ilena 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena. Come on. Save the accusations and provide a diff. MastCell 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is fyslee's subtle threat,[12] along with several impotent demands ... implying that he has a "case" against me. fysleespeak: "If you screw up this attempt, then I will take the initiative and demand proof for your charges, and I'll do the picking. The only reasons I haven't already sued you for libel are that we don't do that here, and I'm so used to receiving insults, death threats, spam, and other stuff from radical chiropractors and other alternative medicine types that I'm pretty hardened." Even after his partner in the Healthfraud List for several years lost to me in court at several levels, on Wikipedia it was being written that he lost just on a "technicality" and one editor claimed I had been found guilty of libel. This is utter disinformation. For fyslee to now begin the same thing, implying that he has a valid libel claim against me, is just the same stuff, stirred up again. I'd appreciate anyone looking at his talkpage. It bears no resemblance to what has been written there. He has removed all comments he claims are "attacks." Ilena 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a comment is removed, a diff can be obtained from the page history. If you have time to keep repeating these charges, then you have the time (and obligation) to dig up the diffs to support them. As I said, I don't think even an implied threat of libel litigation is appropriate, but I've already explained how you can address that if you see fit. MastCell 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reasons I haven't already sued you for libel implies to me that he believes he has a winning libel case against me. SLAPP's often begin with veiled threats. I find fyslee extremely aggressive yet claims to be "attacked" when his ties to Barrett are documented and entered into the equation. I look forward to mediation as it will introduce what I feel is more important here, the Quackery Agenda being made a part of Wikipedia. Thanks very much. Ilena 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a foul, Ilena. You've proven you have the technical skill to create a page diff. What you've done here instead is supplied a page link and cherry picked statements that omit his explicit disavowal of any legal threat. That's known as contextomy. It's unethical. This is your final warning. Durova^Charge 23:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section immediately after this one clearly documents an even more gross and deceptive example. She even dares to change the heading to disguise the real content. -- Fyslee 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Now she's really lost it! She writes above (among other falsities):

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

Please provide a diff that proves that obvious lie. No, I'll go on the offensive and do it myself! Here is precisely what I wrote:

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

Where is the threat of a SLAPP suit? I have expressly written that there is "no threat of a lawsuit here." Can that be anymore clearly stated? Just because she libels me, I am not obligated to sue her.

Now that I have provided fresh documentation that she is lying (in a way she repeatedly does), 'is any admin going to do anything about this? I'm tired of her attacks, her wasting our time, and her use of Wikipedia to carry on her Usenet battles. -- Fyslee 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you could take it to WP:AN/I, but it's probably a sufficiently complex situation that it will be hard to get someone to take it on. Consider an RfC. MastCell 23:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too much trouble. I'm hoping an admin will simply enforce policy and block her for her repeated violations of multiple policies. Why is she exempt from WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:COI? -- Fyslee 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be careful what I wished for. You've done a nice job on AGF, NPA, and POINT too. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque would not be a defense even if the infractions were comparable, which they aren't. Durova^Charge 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, I removed this for a reason. I don't care if you veil it in civility or not, a personal attack is a personal attack. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then read before deleting and be consistent by deleting nearly everything Ilena writes here! Her personal attacks are much worse. I was just providing a diff as evidence of a fresh deceptive statement. If I can't follow policy and practice by providing a diff as evidence, then you are allowing her to make gross personal attacks, and denying me my right to defend myself. I'm only asking for fairness here. -- Fyslee 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples of "gross personal attacks" and I will happily defend them. Thank you. Ilena 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Fyslee claimed: Just because she libels me, I am not obligated to sue her. Very interesting supposition ... false, defamatory, but interesting. Now let him list the "libels" as he claims. Have a lovely evening all. Ilena 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• /me sighs. Okay. This is exactly sympthomatic of this dispute. Everyone is talking past each other without providing any evidence. It is all just hot air and bruised egos, and I'd suggest everyone just calmed down and tried to contribute in good faith to the Request for Mediation. The alternative tends to be messy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She posted that while I was composing my final warning, so I'll give her a chance to strikethrough that allegation. I'll wait a reasonable interval after her next post to this page and if it isn't retracted she's blocked. Durova^Charge 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While dispute resolution is open I would strongly suggest you didn't. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Wikipedia dispute resolution creates no shield against user blocks. Editors are fully responsible for their behavior and may be blocked during any phase of it by the same standards that would apply in any other situation. Blocking is actually rather commonplace during user conduct WP:RFC and arbitration. The only thing that active dispute resolution typically forestalls is WP:RFAR. I retracted my first warning when you requested it. The subsequent ones are very firm. Durova^Charge 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for this post.[13] It is unacceptable to alter another editor's section heading into something inflammatory, then level false accusations of improper behavior. Durova^Charge 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]