Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 21 February 2007

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)

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)