Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 21 March 2007

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs. A much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the parties' statements and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. The /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

First of all, I would like to say this issue is a very messy one, and it's brought me a great deal of frustration as I have been continually attacked and even threatened with blocking for trying to do my best to resolve a heated dispute on Misplaced Pages.

Fyslee engaged in meatpuppetry using an external website

The inexorable evidence is that Fyslee attempted to disrupt Misplaced Pages by petitioning a place with a known POV to edit Misplaced Pages in a pointed and directed matter. Policy states that this is considered meatpuppetry.

Fyslee self identifies as an "anti-quackery activist"

Fyslee, who is Paul Lee, self identifies as an "anti-quackery activist", which highlights both a potentially disruptive behaviour (wanting to "go down in history as a martyr") and also a very strong potential conflict of interest.

Ilena is a named defendant in a federal case involving Stephen Barrett

Ilena, who is Ilena Rosenthal, is a named party in a Supreme Court case, in which she was a defendant. This highlights an obvious conflict of interest in her editing these articles.

Evidence presented by Ilena

Fyslee attempted to destroy valuable evidence and Privacy Issues

A. One of the most serious accusations against me, behavior that was called egregious, was that I had somehow outed and endangered Fyslee and his family's safety by posting his real world name on Misplaced Pages. In fact, I found evidence that as recently as December, 2006, on Misplaced Pages, he himself was using his own name right next to his Wiki name. On January 30, 2007, as I began searching for the diffs for this Arbitration, I found the archives had been tampered with. After this was exposed and much ado, he then had the 160 revisions of the Wiki records un-revised.

Here is just one of many links to his websites, as well as several of Barrett's on Misplaced Pages, posted by him. Recently on his user page, he admits that he has used his own name and links on Misplaced Pages, but forbids anyone else to do the same. It feels like he is hiding behind a rule he doesn't follow in order to appear to be victimized by me. Despite his accusations, I have never posted one word of personal information about him, the entire brouhaha is regarding his name ... nothing more, which he has profusely used on Misplaced Pages and the rest of the internet. No addresses, no family discussions etc., nothing but his name. I further believe that his unproven and very possibly false claims that "chiropractors" and "promoters of alternative medicine" have given him death threats is a subtle way of continuing his smear_campaign against the same groups he demonizes throughout the internet. I fully believe that much of what he and his friends call attacks against him, are merely pleas for pity, and an attempt for theatrics. In fact, in this Chirotalk post (2 versions since he is altering the posts) you can clearly see his fantasies of being victimized, Anti-Quackery activist crucified by chiropractors. Scroll down to Reply #14 on Dec 29, 2005, 5:36pm

B. After Fyslee posted a link to Chirotalk during discussions of a lawsuit against Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch on January 30, 2007, I followed his link . I found 668 posts by him with his real world name and fyslee together. I found him called, "..., the wikipedian expert" and on this post Re: Life University Misplaced Pages entry Reply #12 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am he was soliciting others from the group to come onto Misplaced Pages and gave precise instructions. When I went back on January 31, 2007, I found that he had removed his own name and administrator status, and replaced it with fys God at 6:06 that morning. On February 1, 2007, it was again revised, this time calling himself Abracadabraarbadacarba and again identifying himself as an administrator, but removing his name which had been there since 2004. Then on, February 15, 2007, he was HerAardvark and today (2/16) he calls himself Cyberstalked from the Jungles. (Update of 2/17/07 ... now he changed the archives yet again, this time to call himself Along the watchtower.)... and again, now to Not The Archives in his attempts to obscure the evidence yet again.

Most importantly, is reviewing his work on Chirotalk (664 posts) and seeing his frequent discussions of Misplaced Pages and urges to join and help him collaborate with him here Change the 10 to 700 and you will get all his posts. (I have a copy if all 668 are not there any longer.)

C. After finding Chirotalk and watching the above happen, I witnessed another case of disappearing evidence. Here are two versions of the same thread that got altered during the first week of February. The removed comment was "This sounds like a job that (Fyslee's real world name) could help spearhead." Here is the archived version and the altered one -- within 24 hours of each other. (As of 2/16/2007 cache has been deleted and evidence destroyed.)

Fyslee functions on Misplaced Pages and several other internet venues as Barrett / Quackwatch / NCAHF Publicist

In the simplest terms, a public relations or media publicist is one who attempts to get as much positive information as possible into ... and keep as much negative information possible out of ... the public eye. Although fyslee has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he is Barrett's publicist, and claims to have never misrepresented anything, that is absolutely not factual. When caught in blatant lies, he has been known to feign surprise and make apologies and retractions, winning him praise for his flexibility.This is a technique to win favor when caught disseminating blatant disinformation.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, Fyslee, on Misplaced Pages, and many other places on the internet (blogs, lists, forums, etc.), clearly functions as one of Barrett's (and his related operations) publicists. During his early Wiki days, he was promoting his and Barrett's Healthfraud List where he remained Barrett's assistant from 2000 through 2006. As here on Wiki, he publicized the same Barrett websites . I believe his denials are perfect examples of doublespeak.

In fact, this quote from him shows undeniably that his behavior is as Barrett's publicist. If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name. Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (I believe that the diff that is meant here is — Paul August ☎ 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

He posts links to his own homepages, blogs and webrings, and openly and repeatedly discusses his years of responsibilities as assistant listmaster for the plaintiffs' Healthfraud List .

As Barrett's Assistant Listmaster for several years (until December, 2006 when he said he resigned but continues posting there) he has solicited members to come to Misplaced Pages to help him collaborate. This is but one example. Please note the list of his affiliations advertised on this link, which he also advertises on Misplaced Pages. Here is a list (if it disappears too, I have the evidence in my files) of his hundreds of posts as Assistant Listmaster. Perusing this list you will see, in addition to his Wiki conversations, and in November, 2006, many posts relating to the lawsuit members of the Healthfraud list lost to me. Any who investigate will easily and clearly see that he continues the Quackwatch / NCAHF agenda here on Misplaced Pages.

Sampling of Disinformation intentionally posted by Fyslee

A. " ...The NCAHF is still registered in California." -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006(UTC) In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This falsity had been discussed (with this link) for over 6 months, yet Fyslee and others working closely with him, managed to keep this verified fact off of the NCAHF page for that period of time, causing much of the edit wars between he and I.

B. Barrett has been libeled repeatedly, and that fact is undeniable. ... Barrett has, because of technicalities, not been able to get a favorable judgment. When I first came back to Misplaced Pages after the Supreme Court decision in my favor, it was because I had been told that the facts of the case were being misrepresented on Wiki, almost identical to this comment, a blatant PR attempt on fyslee's part to change the public's perception of Barrett's many court losses.

C. None of the suits were ever SLAPP suits..." . This is pure and utter propaganda and a blatant attempt to change history. Barrett's loss to me was but one SLAPP suit loss and there have been others. Comments such as these, can only be construed as an attempt to spin Barrett's case into something they wish it to be. These claims are particularly important to counter, as other defendants' cases are on the horizon, and blatant PR is not what Misplaced Pages is all about.

D. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. This is another fine example of his classic doublespeak. Once again, Fyslee is claiming to speak for Barrett, although he also claims he doesn't. In fact, this was covered in full in both of my declarations and after careful consideration, the judge ruled in my favor and against Barrett in a 27 page decision. The industry backed front group The Amercan Council Against Science and Health, for which Barrett is an "advisor" and writer, has spread pro-silicone industry propaganda since the mid 1990's and other writers for them also, have frequently taken pot shots at other breast implant awareness activists. I have been highly critical of his writings on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a complex syndrome from which many women in my support group suffer. Barrett, unlicensed himself, writes about going after the licenses of those scientists working to figure out this complex puzzle. Although the chemical industry funds ACSH, Barrett refuses to offer disclaimers about this. This article in Philanthropy describes Barrett's actions against me perfectly Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say .

Fyslee is a vital part of a Barrett Group ... formed to 'round up net quacks' on the internet

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes (this is an archived copy - the website was up from 2000 (when lawsuits were filed) until December, 2006 when I discussed it on Misplaced Pages).

Fyslee and other members of this group have appropriatedly labeled it satire, another tentacle in this vast legal and public relations campaign, using humor to criticize and denigrate and even dehumanize defendants of their various lawsuits: Dr. Hulda Clark, Dr. Joseph Mercola, myself, Dr. Tedd Koren, to name just a few. There is literally nowhere one can mention any of us on the internet, withot a member of this Posse showing up to put Barrett's viewpoints.

What interests me greatly, is that I am told that it is a WP:COI violation for me to edit anything touching Barrett because he sued me.

Fyslee has had no restrictions whatsoever even though he has been in litigation with Dr. Clark and was a co-defendant with Barrett in a case he edits about frequently on Misplaced Pages. In fact, the article on Dr. Hulda Clark (one of their defendants and plaintiffs) had five links to the Barrett and the other plaintiffs miscellaneous websites (all promoting each other) and are all basically one-sided attack sites. It is extremely clear why Fyslee has attempted to distance himself from Barrett, but their long and interrelated websites and co-promotion belie his attempts at distancing himself in order to skirt the WP:COI .

Concurrent with waging several legal attacks against dozens of us in late, 2000, Barrett and the others in this group (including Fyslee) augmented their smear_campaigns on various fronts: Usenet, Blogs, Webrings (owned by Fyslee), Healthfraud List, and eventually brought here to Misplaced Pages. Fyslee reports that he never interacted with me in Usenet. That is accurate. However, that's not his domain. In fact, there are members of this list who specialize in Usenet, donning many disguises such as "Nanaweedkiller" and "Marla Maples" etc. They have directly targeted me on Usenet for years. Others of this list have blogs (Fyslee included) and they all cross promote each other and attempt to control all sides of debates on: chiropractic, alternative medicine, vaccinations, breast implants, second hand tobacco, amalgams, and who is, and who is not, a quack, to name a few.

These listmembers co-promote the business of what they dub "anti-quackery," selling books, soliciting donations, promoting their viewpoint. These links by the hundreds are promoted as WP:RS and added to articles in multiples by Fyslee and other anonymous posters who seem to work in perfect collaboration to whatever he wants to add or delete.

However, on this page I edited about Sally_Kirkland, this link was hastily removed KIISS , Removed link for this reason: (removed link to institute - turns out that the editor who added it maintains the site, therefore it is WP:COI and linkspam) . Ms. Kirkland's site has no solicitation for donations, she sells nothing. This aspect of her life is very important to her. But this editor claimed that because I am now helping her maintain her website, it must be removed. Why are Barrett's sites not considered "promotion" and yet Ms Kirkland's are?

The same thing happened in the Clayton College article. I have been told I have COI problems with this page but there are no restrictions of what Barrett's people can add, he still in litigation with Dr. Clark mentioned in the article, as has Fyslee been. I have no relation with the article, except that I know many people who have either gone there and loved their education, or who have been treated by graduates.

I had added a link to a well known author and graduate You can see that Fyslee immediately removed it and replaced it with a Quackwatch link and a blatant attack at the school advising "avoiding both the school and its alumni." What encyclopedia would allow this?

I then edited in this link,] showing that indeed Jonny Bowden fit the Wiki definition of notable and of course, Fyslee immediately removed it, citing "promotion."

Why can Fyslee promote Quackwatch and NCAHF and Barrett with link after link after link, each one selling and promoting their products, soliciting donations, but this link is now so removed, I can't even find it, it's buried beneath their POV

These are tiny examples that are repeated throughout Misplaced Pages. Barrett, who calls himself "the media" is just that ... a promoter of his wares which they call "anti-quackery" has his viewpoint pushed by Fyslee and several anonymous editors.

Fyslee and Barrett and the other plaintiffs (all who lost their lawsuits to me) voluntarily remained on this list from 2000 until December 2006, when it was removed from the internet. This is an archived copy (I have copies if this also gets removed).Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes. People on this list with Fyslee have used many names to attack me and other defendants on Usenet for years, including attempting to infiltrate my support group for women harmed by breast implants, hiring private investigators to hunt me down in San Diego and Costa Rica, spreading webpages claiming I was "arrested for selling crack cocaine to minors in Costa Rica" and falsely claiming I was "bankrupt" etc. etc. etc. They are members too, of the Healthfraud List with Fyslee, and have attempted to change the facts of Barrett's failed litigations throughout various medium such as he does on Misplaced Pages. Many of the abundance of claims of attacks by Fyslee were mentions of this, which he calls a satire. I agree with this excellent definition of satire, from Misplaced Pages: Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner.

Attacks by Fyslee Against Me

I will be including just a tiny sampling of the attacks Fyslee has made against me here on Misplaced Pages. Far from pursuing him, as he is claiming, any glance at my earliest edits will show him reverting me, often within seconds. I'd also like to comment that when one administrator unilaterally banned me for a week, it felt to me like I was being held down while she, Fyslee and others took turns beating me up. Attempting to appear as a victim is a public relations strategy Fyslee uses frequently.

A. This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena has driven to suicide.

B. Here he uses, what I consider, aspartame fake "sadness" to baselessly and viciously attack the work I have done and my thousands of relationships with women harmed by breast implants, their families and loved ones. I am also frequently interviewed and quoted in the press, highly critical of the breast implant industry, and I was recently quoted in Wired Magazine , MyDNA, "The Scientist" Corporate Collaborations etc. voicing my opinions. My support group increases daily, and we work harmoniously and lovingly with many other support leaders and groups.

C. I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. (I have to find diff) In fact, I head a large, international support group and receive enormous support and love and accolades for my group. Fyslee's attack is just repeating propaganda put out by my losing plaintiffs and their other publicists. Terry Polevoy, the plaintiff who also posted here on Misplaced Pages, has publicized that I am "the laughing stock of the internet." This is repeated on Usenet on the attack website that Fyslee posted on Misplaced Pages, and others on this list, distributed on other internet medium. These women, coincidentally enough, are also working with a silicone manufacturer who spent years on Usenet attacking me, which ended in legal battles as well as the plaintiffs. If anyone has any doubts that enormous industries like the silicone and breast implant and chemical industries do not attacks activists such as me, I highly recommend, Deforming Consent: The Public Relations Industry's Secret War on ActivistsI further highly recommend this piece on why activists who run tiny non-profits like ours, are targets of SLAPP suits such as Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Legal Tactic Chills Debate, Activists Say In the 27 page opinion against all three plaintiffs in the Superior Court of California, the judge clearly sided with our declarations. (cites to come)

D. Fyslee repeatedly claimed I had "libeled" him ... another unsubstanitated, deprecatory accusation. Even as he refused Mediation, he posted this blatant repetition of propaganda that bears absolutely no resemblance to the decisions made about this case in the Superior, Appeals and even the Supreme Court of California. Fyslee wrote: The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. I have discussed the many reasons I won here . Connected to this, is my frustration that editors on Barrett V Rosenthal decided that the final words of Justice Moreno (page 39) in the Supreme Court decision were not relevant to the article. "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." .

Response to Joshua below

I have no experience with editor, Joshua and am astounded by his comment regarding Barrett's NCAHF loss to King Bio. When I followed the link provided, I see that the page has been archived and I am no longer able to even correct the serious disinformation being posted there, and his inaccurate claim that she made a massive distortion of a court decision involving him.

a. In fact, I misrepresented nothing. Here are both rulings against NCAHF. NCAFH loses to King Bio in Superior Court. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here specifically uses the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility" directly describing both Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson.

b. I have many varied interests and experiences that I bring to my editing on Misplaced Pages and am not a single purpose editor as he claims.

c. I have not been blocked 6 times.

GigiButterfly is a Misplaced Pages:Single_purpose_account that posts propaganda for Barrett

I find that although my one WP:COI of being the winning defendant against Stephen Barret etc. is being used against me, the WP:COI of several anonymous posters is not even given a glance. Who is behind these aliases? This editor had one purpose: eliminate criticism and add links to Barrett's commercial sites, as illustrated below. Does this not qualify as being a Barrett advocate? Does this not quality as posting (anonymous, Pro-Barrett) propaganda on various articles of his?

.

Is this not suspicious to anyone but me? If Barrett himself was posting, he could not have done a better job erasing criticism and adding his commercial links. Thank you for considering my diffs.

Evidence presented by Fyslee

Comments

1. Missing evidence from Peter M Dodge

I'm still waiting for evidence in the form of diffs to be provided by Peter Dodge, who (as Ilena's mentor and defender) started this RfArb. He has just listed some charges in a very misleading order and fashion, (commented here), and has not provided any evidence at all at this time. Without it it's hard for me to proceed. I expect my involvement to be tried by evidence, not by allegation. I request that he either provide the diffs quickly, or his charges be (temporarily) removed, as search engines pick up these (as yet) unproven allegations. He can always reintroduce his entry when he has the evidence, which I would expect quickly, since it would be rather unusual for the one who raised the charges to not "meet up in court." I will then be able to show what evidence he is ignoring or leaving out, and the misleading nature of the order and nature of the charges. Undocumented charges are simply violations of NPA, even here. If they are accompanied by documentation, then it's a very different matter, since that is a legitimate part of the proceedings here. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Ilena is wasting our time

She is wasting her own and our time by all the talk above about any deletion of evidence. What has been deleted is something I do not hide from this group -- my identity and affiliations. As long as this RfArb is in progress, I will leave the edit history of my user page intact, and anyone can see what I have written, my newbie mistakes, and everything else. It is my user page, and nothing inappropriate was posted there.

I do not deny that I have earlier revealed it, so she has no case by continuing to point out the fact I have earlier revealed it. I admit that. Case closed. I have the right to change my mind, and I am asking her to respect that decision.

She is also getting way off-topic by discussing her Usenet and other battles with many people, of which I have not been a party. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. She has such issues with others, but not Barrett or myself. I am actually sympathetic to her cause, but not her methods. I request that she stay on topic. I am not obligated to respond to such charges and conspiracy theories. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3. A request for evidence

Ilena often makes allegations above which include words such as or similar to "he claims" without providing the precise diffs. I would like to see my own words in their full context, so I request that she provide the diffs when alluding to something I am supposed to have written. I suspect that she is either misquoting me, failing to remember correctly, or has misinterpreted something I may have written. Such mistakes are easy to make, but precision is doubly important here. We need precise quotes and precise charges here. This is not Usenet where anything goes. I do not believe that this matter should be decided on "guilt by allegation." I cannot defend myself if she does not quote me correctly and provide the diffs. If I have written something in an unclear manner, I will be happy to provide an explanation. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Guilt by association?

Ilena is making many allegations about the actions of others, many of whom I do not know. While I question her interpretation of even some of these matters, I should certainly not be judged by the actions of others, even of those I do "know" in the cyber sense. Such matters are not a part of this RfArb. I request that she stay on topic. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

5. "Obscur the evidence yet again" ??

Somehow the irony of this situation seems to not be getting through to Ilena. She keeps wasting her time and ours at Chirotalk with mattters that do not concern us in this RfArb. She is so deeply involved in finding some conspiracy or wrongdoing there, that she fails to note that my repeated changes of my display name there (but no other participation) are an idle attempt to communicate directly to her, since she is obviously looking. She is now so obsessed that she claims that:

• "(... now he changed the archives yet again, this time to call himself Along the watchtower.)" With this edit summary: "adding another alias as Fyslee keeps changing the archives")

Fact: I never changed the archives before, "again", or "yet again." I have no idea how they are maintained, but it's probably something bots do. To communicate that to her, I changed my display name there again (which has nothing to do with direct changes by myself of the archives), but she fails to understand the very message I wrote to her in that name -- the change was "Not The Archives":

• "and again, now to Not The Archives in his attempts to obscure the evidence yet again." With this edit summary: "Fyslee continues to change names and obscure the evidence."

So now it's "obscure the evidence" "yet again." "Evidence" of what? I have nothing to hide (except my real name from search engines, thanks to Ilena). I never changed the archives at all. Period. I never "obscure" any "evidence." Period. End of story. If she really wants to waste time checking my display name there and reporting it here, then I can oblige her, but I'd rather she just ignore something that has nothing to do with this RfArb, or forms a legitimate basis for any charges of "obscuring the evidence." All I did was change the display name, and nothing else. I request she stay on topic, and the topic is matters that have occurred here at Misplaced Pages, not at Chirotalk, nor at Usenet. -- Fyslee's (First law) 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Barrett is not on trial here

Barrett could be the subject of another RfArb, but that is not the subject here, and it is improper for Ilena to be allowed to misuse this RfArb by continuing her improper attacks (COI and BLP anyone?!) here at Misplaced Pages. These are the very types of behavior that got her sued in the first place, and that are creating so much disruption here. The role of Barrett and Quackwatch as RS may well be a legitimate subject for future discussions, but it is far too large an issue to even begin to touch on it here. If and when it happens, Barrett should also be a part of the discussion, as he is an editor here, and Jimbo Wales should also be a part. It's that big an issue, with far reaching consequences.

Barrett's (extremely limited) association with the ACSH (actually a pretty good organization), is now being included in Ilena's "guilt by association" attacks. SourceWatch is now being cited by her, but it is not a RS, since it is a wiki. Anyone can edit it, and it is far less well-controlled for quality than Misplaced Pages, which is not a RS by its own standards.

This RfArb is not about Barrett, content issues, or even the BvR article itself (contrary to the misleading title here), but about specific problems with user attitude and behavior here at Misplaced Pages. Attempts to sidetrack this RfArb from those issues should not be allowed. I request that Ilena stay on topic, and I implore admins to do something to stop her misuse of this RfArb and Misplaced Pages to further her distasteful mission. This is not Usenet, and this misuse of Misplaced Pages in that manner should be very firmly nipped in the bud. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My privacy concerns should be respected

My current attempts to regain my privacy are perfectly legitimate: I just wish to avoid harassment by Ilena and others. Before her arrival here I didn't feel as great a need for privacy.

A few events and warnings leading up to my actively seeking more privacy (also note edit summaries):

• Vandalism and personal attack on my own user page, accompanied with the obligatory vanity spam link to her special website designed to attack Misplaced Pages editors (one of many such attack sites).

• Vicious attack placed at the top of my talk page (accompanied by yet another vanity spamlink to her attack site).

• She repeated it later the same day.

These types of attacks are usually accompanied by false politeness to this day in nearly all per posts. I'd rather she were just honest.

• I notify her not to use my name (done in her vicious and misleading attacks in violation of AGF and NPA), and I delete it.

• Repeats of above.

I finally sought the help of admin Guy to delete the beginning edit history of my User page, where my true name was listed. (He has my email request and may provide it privately to admins here upon request.):

• Deletion log.

• Guy defends my privacy.

As requested by myself, Guy kindly restored the history of my user page.

• Ilena informed of the restoration.

• She unnecessarily counts the use of my name (I never denied having used it).

• Jance (a lawyer) chides Ilena for not respecting my privacy requests.

• I request her to leave me alone.

• Repeated request.

I have never denied my true identity or affiliations and will reaffirm them here as necessary. (I expect specific questions from admins, and I will answer them.) Nothing that has been changed or deleted will change that. I will reaffirm any deleted content as necessary. The deleted post at Chirotalk was not my doing. On the contrary, it is in my own interest to preserve it, as Ilena has previously(diff) used it to make false charges about me. (It was not Botnick, but the poster of the now deleted message who called me an "expert", simply because I was apparently known as a Misplaced Pages editor, and the others figured I knew something about editing here, which I take as a compliment, not a crime.)

There are six admins at Chirotalk and no one has confessed to deleting it, in fact no one is responding at all! I requested that they help me regain my privacy by removing my name anywhere they found it, and to substitute it with "Fyslee". I did not request that anyone delete posts. I only edited posts to eliminate my real name. Fortunately the content of that post has been copied by Ilena and is available for examination, and it contains nothing of an incriminating nature, since I am not responsible for other's comments, only for my own actions. My very limited activities at Chirotalk or elsewhere are none of her business, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena has made personal attacks

The most serious is the "publicist" accusation, which is an example of failure to AGF, (an admin comment), and it should be treated as a personal attack she (and others) have repeatedly made because of my "affiliations" with Barrett (any "affiliations" I have with him are honorable and something of which I am proud.)

Using my interests and affiliations to discredit me is clearly labeled a "personal attack" here at Misplaced Pages:

• "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."NPA

I have repeatedly been the target of such accusations here at Misplaced Pages, even before Ilena came here, and I have repeatedly answered them, so here's a previous explanation:

• Fyslee and Barrett, Sept. 16, 2006

I have since stopped as assistant listmaster, since I didn't participate very often, and had a backlog of over 3,000 unread list mails, so I wasn't following along enough to do my "job" decently. I rarely did anything anyway.

I eagerly await clear evidence of wrongdoing. I am not a member of the NCAHF, on any board, paid by anyone or any pharmaceutical company, or acting at anyone's bidding or obeying instructions (explained to Ilena here). Barrett and I don't even see eye-to-eye all the time! What I do is my hobby because it interests me as a private person, as well as a healthcare professional interested in consumer protection issues. That is not a crime, while some of those who oppose mine and Barrett's efforts actually are criminals, scammers, and deceivers. The rest who support various forms of quackery are just true believers or innocents who do little or no harm. It is not a crime to provide them with consumer protection information.

Ilena has serious COI, BLP, and NPOV issues here

COI issues

She has been involved in litigation with Stephen Barrett, as described in Barrett v. Rosenthal. This places her in a conflict of interest regarding anything to do with him or Quackwatch on Misplaced Pages, whether in one of those articles specifically or elsewhere. That is the situation as summed up by admin SlimVirgin, with the following consequences for Ilena:

• "....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 encycylopedia that involve Barrett or his organization." (My emphasis, since I have little hope of that being possible. - Fyslee)

Ilena was unreceptive, so SlimVirgin had to repeat:

• "...you should not be editing articles related to Barrett, or making edits that involve removing his material."

• "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."

I find her advice to be wise, in harmony with Misplaced Pages policies, and if followed would lead to a more peaceful atmosphere here, without 3RR edit warring, personal attacks, blocks, RfM, RfArb, etc.. Her presence here has created a nightmare situation for many editors and admins. This is not Usenet, where anything goes.

BLP issues (as related to her COI issues)

Especially in light of BLP principles (which favor prevention of possibly libelous edits, rather than favoring protection to make such edits), Ilena's demonstrated propensities to attack Barrett, Quackwatch, quackbusters, and anti-quackery efforts in general, make her a liability to the Misplaced Pages experience as a whole, and in an interesting twist places her in direct COI with BLP itself. She has not demonstrated an ability or willingness to refrain from allowing her COI to cause her to be in constant danger of violating BLP as regards the parties and POV of those parties.

• Warned by SlimVirgin for BLP violations.

• She didn't accept the advice, and seemed not to understand the point at all, and why? Because of the next point:

NPOV issues (related to both of the above)

To top it off, she still fails to understand NPOV:

• "Now I'm quite confused. Fyslee claims that "POV suppression is not allowed here." I had understood that Misplaced Pages was not about POV but verifiable facts. The term "quackery" is totally subjective, pejorative, and who is and who is not a "quack" is just one's opinion. I don't believe these non objective quackery discussions belong on Misplaced Pages at all since it's so subjective. So someone please, is Fyslee being correct in his claim? Thank you. Ilena" 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

All of these factors reveal that she is a POV warrior who fails to understand, or is willing to respect, NPOV. Such editors are a constant threat to Misplaced Pages's collaborative spirit and mission, which are governed by the following

Fundamental principles

1. The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Collaborative editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, but such a relationship is rare on controversial subjects.
2. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Misplaced Pages should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

-- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena falsely claims that BvR is motivated by opposition to her breast implant activism

This is a response to this charge above:

• "D. Nor have any of Barrett's activities or the libel suit against her ever had anything to do with her breast implant POV or activism. This is another fine example of his classic doublespeak. Once again, Fyslee is claiming to speak for Barrett, although he also claims he doesn't."

(Let's just start by ignoring her obvious admission of lack of understanding of my statements and proceed. An AGF would remove that confusion, but she refuses to AGF.) I speak from what I am currently aware, not "for Barrett". I have made similar statements more than once on my own account, and Ilena has failed to present any evidence that proves the libel suits had anything to do with anything other than attempts to stop specific libelous statements unrelated to breast implant issues. To the best of my knowledge Barrett has not attacked her for her breast implant issues (or even discussed them). If she can present such evidence, then I will stand corrected. I'm open to learning more. I have searched and failed to find him dealing with this issue.

Here are the statements I have made here (that I can find):

"Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism....... -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)" (Emphasis original. The original diffs listed in the next paragraph there no longer function, so that copy will have to do. Their deletion (by an archiving bot?) has also removed them from my own contributions listing (!), which I find to be an unfortunate glitch in the way permanent deletions and automated archiving function.)

We had an exchange on this very point on her user page:

• "To the best of my understanding, BvR all started solely because she started attacking Barrett (without him having attacked her first) by republishing Bolen's "opinion pieces" (his words) newsletter, and also adding her own comments. Nothing ever involved breast implants, so it wasn't a "spat" between them. (Barrett doesn't comment on those issues at all.) It was Barrett's (and Polevoy's) libel suit in an attempt to get her to stop posting what they still consider libelous statements made by Bolen. He is now awaiting trial, since the SLAPP suit was overturned. None of the suits were ever SLAPP suits (as the reversal indicates), and everything is now back on focus as a malicious prosecution and libel suit against the originator(s). ] I'm not a lawyer, so if my understanding is incorrect, I welcome hard evidence to the contrary. -- Fyslee 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)" (Emphasis (and links) added to show where I clearly express my lack of absolute certainty, willingness to be corrected, and to clarify my meaning about the SLAPP suits.)

• "I originally included and widened (by wikilinking) the description of her as a women's health advocate, but since that is not, and never has been, at issue here, then it's not relevant to the article, and can only function as a distraction and platform for soapboxing (of a good issue!). None of this was ever about her activism, about breast implant issues, or about industry attempts to suppress her activities. That's a straw man, and should not be allowed to divert the discussion or article."

• Her reponse here, where she repeats her conspiracy theory of being a persecuted breast implant activist. Maybe she is, but the BvR case didn't involve those issues, to the best of my knowledge, and therefore the BvR article should not include such information, as she insists it should: "The fact is it was quackwatch vs breast implant awareness advocate."

She falsely accuses me of attacking her breast implant activism:

• "Fyslee has continually attacked my work with breast implant women here on Misplaced Pages,..."

That makes no sense, since I am sympathetic to the cause of women injured by breast implants! I would like to see proof of that false charge. Lacking such proof, I expect an apology.

Ilena changed my contribution

Here and here she alters my "post header into something inflammatory while she accuses of inappropriate action." (That is a later summary of the whole incident by admin Durova.)

I finally succeeded in getting a restoration of my post header to stick. (Note my edit summary.)

The whole section, with the clear documentation of Ilena's "error" (I'll avoid using the true description here) was later deleted by Peter Dodge. While well-intentioned, these types (there were several more) of deletions have made documenting things much harder, since the deleted evidence can only be found in the edit histories.

Her action led to a well-reasoned final warning (also deleted by Peter Dodge ), that ended in yet another block.

Bad faith accusation of intentionally inflaming Ilena

Levine2112 is making a duplicate posting! What's going on? I have already answered this here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's meatpuppetry accusation from the James Randi list

On the face of it this one looks really bad for me! For once there is something to a charge. My only defense is that I did not know it was against the rules back then, only that other editors would use it against me, and now they are! I have since learned about meatpuppetry, and that it's improper to use it to stack the votes, but I wasn't doing that.

My invitation way back then was a general invitation to a few skeptics (and not to the whole Randi list), as there were (and still are) far more pseudoskeptics and true believers editing at the time, and Levine2112 was one of the chiropractors who constantly violated NPOV (and still does, but he's getting better) by deleting opposing POV, even when well-sourced. He has often gone on deletion rampages to delete any and all references to Quackwatch or Barrett as sources, no matter the context. (His edit history tells the story quite clearly.) Lately he has been doing it again, but occasionally using legitimate arguments, and I have let them slide. He claims above that he is "not in favor of a unscientific POV." Well, there are other POV about that statement among skeptics. His edit history tells a different story. Well, whatever the case may be, and whatever his POV, it is welcome here, just as long as he doesn't deny others their right to have a POV, and as long as he stops suppressing opposing POV (and their editors) when it's well sourced. We all have differences of opinion, but there is hope, and I can see a positive learning curve. I hope that he will begin to AGF about me and will join Dematt and myself in collaborative efforts in the future. Dematt is also a chiropractor, which makes for interesting work, since I'm a chiroskeptic. We work great together. (I might even get him a QBOTI decoder ring and take him to the Vatican to meet JFK some day!) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's COI accusation involving webrings

This one's even more far out. I don't know what "benefit" I get by being linked to and from lots of other websites. That's what the internet is about. There are legitimate ways to do it and illegitimate ways. I earn nothing from it at all. It is a hobby. There is no form of illegitimate "benefit" from it or from using links to good Quackwatch articles as sources here. (I am far from the only one who thinks that here.) Far from all of Barrett's sites are in the rings, and I recently bounced the most popular site from the Skeptic Ring - Steve Milloy's site - because I was uncomfortable with his COI issues. So if traffic was my primary motivation, that was a very bad move. No, webrings are a perfectly legitimate phenomenon. Mine are totally free and I earn nothing but criticism for them. You're going to have to look further out in the wilderness for dirt than this. This is scraping the bottom desperation. I find it quite hypocritical to hear this from someone who claims to be a skeptic. Skeptics stick together, so his actions are speaking louder than his words. He should be complaining about all the alternative medicine websites and their huge webrings illegitimately used to sell worthless and dangerous products and scam people. Now 'that's really bad news! That's a real COI, and the huge linkfarm of very dubious sites at Health freedom movement needs to be cleaned up. It's a disgrace and huge violation of many policies here.

As far as it being any "evidence of Fyslee having a personal relationship with Barrett" is concerned, I have never met or spoken to a single webmaster for any site in the rings. I had a hard time getting Barrett to even submit one site. Finally he caved in and now has several sites in, but far from all.

Increasing noncommercial site hits by legitimate means is not a COI violation that is described in the policy here. Everyone, including Misplaced Pages, wants more hits. If it were to earn more money, it would be a policy violation, but Levine2112 objects not at all about alt med sites doing it for an illegitimate profit at innocent sufferers' expense, but he objects to quackbuster sites doing it. He doesn't like their skeptical POV, which he has said and lived out here many times in various ways. We need more NPOV editors, not more POV warriors who won't collaborate.

The Colby Nolan edit summary mentioned WP:COI because it specifically forbids what Levine2112 and SlimVirgin were doing:

• "...suppressing negative information..."

All significant POV are to be presented in articles. That's the essence of the NPOV policy, and it was being violated. Better arguments need to be used. SlimVirgin, an admin at that who should understand NPOV and RS, still ended up deleting it with a bad argument. A perfectly good article, the most indepth one on the subject anywhere, got trashed on a false basis. It should be restored, but I'm not edit warring, so I'll let others here do it. (Is it meatpuppetry to say that!?!) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's "linkspam and vanity links" accusation

Note. This issue is spread out over more than one spot here, so my comments elsewhere should be considered relevant here:

• Conflict of interest (2); Diff 1; Diff 2

First of all, Levine2112 is misusing the word "spamming" here. There is absolutely no evidence of such behavior. I have never indiscriminately added links in some willy nilly fashion. They have always been carefully chosen and topic related, so his objections are more likely a reflection of the fact that he doesn't like the POV represented there.

As regards "vanity" links, in my newbie days I didn't understand these matters well and did add a few vanity links, again on topic, and never spammed. I have since learned and have not objected to them being removed, and have even removed a couple myself. Levine2112's list even provides ample proof of my learning curve, in that I have not vanity linked for a very long time, and it was only a few instances.

He also often claims I have "added" links when I have just been restoring existing links (I'm not the only one who uses Quackwatch, since it is the largest database of skeptical material of its kind), often after Levine2112 himself has deleted them in a POV suppressive manner during one of his delete-everything-related-to-Quackwatch-and-Barrett rampages. He's not the only one who does it, sometimes removing the only documentation for important information. That is very unwikipedian, anti-NPOV, and uncollaborative editing.

Here's a quick analysis of his pattern, showing it can't be trusted at face value, and often helps to show my positive learning curve: -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• adds vanity links to his own blog Yes, a newbie error more than a year ago.
• adds link to Quackwatch Another good source.
• adds link to Chirobase The Chirobase link was perfectly good. Note: Here I even replace a link to my own blog because I found a link to replace it, a link to a chiropractic site! I had just previously (two edits before) learned that blogs weren't acceptable, and I immediately applied that knowledge to another link of mine. This is a good example of my learning curve. Thanks Levine. Other examples of this exist, so you're welcome to also provide them....;-)
• adds link to Quackwatch Another good source.
• adds link to NACM Of course. That links to their website. Levine2112 doesn't want the only reform chiropractic group mentioned, even in the references section. An example of POV suppression.
• adds vanity link to his own Web ring Yes, technically a vanity link. The subject is skepticism, and a link to the only and largest skeptic ring seemed logical to me at the time. I wouldn't do it now.
• adds link to Quackwatch A good link providing another POV.
• adds link to NCAHF Significant development using the sources I knew, even including the antagonistic and now forbidden link to Bolen's site. Now I wouldn't use his site or any vanity links.
• adds vanity link to his own blog Yes, a vanity link to a specific article. I wouldn't do it now. That link has been deleted by the editor who still tries to control the page and sell the false idea intimately tied to a huge commercial enterprise. I didn't dispute its deletion. (That article has even been nominated for deletion.)
• adds link to NACM Another example of a link to the organization's website. Levine2112 doesn't want anyone to know that chiropractic is questioned by chiropractors. An example of POV suppression of opposing POV from within the profession itself.
• adds link to Quackwatch I included citation source for a fact, which Levine2112 hotly contested in the following edits in a very odd manner. That fact is now firmly included as what it is: Chiropractic was founded on the idea that 100% of diseases were caused by joint dislocations, primarily of the spine (which is a totally false idea). Few chiropractors subscribe to the idea now, but it's a historical fact he attempted to keep out of the article.
• adds link to Quackwatch Of course. The two organizations are closely related. A common practice here.
• adds link to Quackwatch Only restored it after I had mistakenly deleted it.
• adds link to Chirobase and NCAHF Perfectly appropriate development of the section, with sources. It's the critical section, which Levine2112 doesn't like included. I contest that the article should not sell the profession. All significant POV should be included without being sold. I'm an inclusionist of any well-sourced POV and he's a suppressor of even well-sourced negative POV, especially regarding his own profession.
• adds link to Chirobase Provided documentation. Perfectly proper.
• adds link to Chirobase We were both involved in that issue, and my edit summary to him: "When you have a better one, then use it." He then found one to a private chiropractic clinic, IOW a commercial site!
• adds multiple links to Chirobase Important development of all links, including many links to pro-chiro sites. The two to chirobase were to two different types of links, one an article, and the other to a free book text of great importance to chiropractic history, and the only source. Only two links were improper (according to my present understanding: my own chirolinks, and the one to Chirotalk, because it is a discussion forum.
• adds link to Chirobase Restored vandalism of link by an anonymous user who exploited two IPs to make unexplained deletions..
• adds link to Quackwatch On topic link.
• adds link to CredentialWatch On topic link.
• adds link to Quackwatch On topic link.
• adds link to Quackwatch An anti-external link (of any kind!) editor nuked it, in collaboration with Levine2112.
• adds link to Quackwatch Restored unjustified removal of reference. Bad practice to remove references.
• adds link to Quackwatch Not added, but restored Levine2112's questionable deletion of the most indepth article on the subject available.
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch and InfomercialWatch Not added, but restored Levine2112's removal of important links in criticism section. Maybe there were too many. They covered different aspects of Trudeaus dubious and illegal methods..
• adds link to Quackwatch Reinstated POV suppressive deletion of excellent reference by Levine2112.
• adds link to Quackwatch Another on topic skeptical and excellent article deleted by Levine2112 using improper and disputed arguments. Again removal of balancing opposing POV. Misplaced Pages is not here to sell magnet therapy and my editing has only upheld wiki policies.

Continued misuse of spamming accusations with more links added by Levine2112:

• adds link to Quackwatch The transcript of Senate witness testimony. I can see that the article has recently been whitewashed. The problem of removal of anything critical from politician's articles is a well-known phenomenon here.
• adds link to Quackwatch The affidavit of the Indiana Deputy Attorney General. This was a revert of repeated improper mass deletions (and inclusion of a commercial link) that amounted to whitewashing and removal of sources by IR. I invite everyone to see what was going on at the time and see both before and after this incident. In spite of repeated attempts to whitewash the article and removed good information from V & RS, the article still presents all sides of the story in NPOV fashion. I left the article when she persisted.
• adds link to Quackwatch Previous diff from same Hulda Clark series of edits.
• adds link to Homeowatch An excellent extensive history originally published in the Food and Drug Law Journal 55:161-183, 2001. Perfectly appropriate strengthening of the article using good sources of information.
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch A consensus new article, with content moved from the old one. Links are informational, with no commercial interests, in contrast to the subject of the article, which is a big business.
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch A restoration of Dr. Uthman's (it was misspelled) deleted information as an expert on the subject of gastroenterology.

I would suggest that the entire editing environment and consensus aspects be examined in all cases, except that this whole thread is misplaced in this ArbCom. The status of Quackwatch is not on trial here, and therefore such charges cannot logically be raised until after such a decision is made, which needs to be done in a much more appropriate manner than can be done here at this time. It's too serious a decision. We aren't here to discuss article content/editing but the specific behavior and attitudes of the involved parties that have disrupted Misplaced Pages since this whole affair began, IOW since Ilena arrived. Anything before that time is highly suspect as possibly inadmissible evidence, since it does not concern our relationship.

For my comments elsewhere:

• Conflict of interest (2); Diff 1; Diff 2

Ilena has been blocked indefinitely

I have been urged by several to do this, so here goes.....Ilena has been blocked indefinitely by SlimVirgin, who explained with these two very astute comments, which say it all:

I'll answer here rather than spreading things out. I don't know the background or who all the other editors are. All I can see is that Ilena edits very aggressively about issues she's involved in in real life; she tries to out other editors; she constantly assumes bad faith; she violates BLP, one of our most important and most strictly enforced policies, and to make things worse, violates it in relation to people she's been involved in real-life litigation with; she edits poorly in general; she seems not to understand the content policies; and she's rude to other editors. As if to add icing to the cake, she today created an attack page in an effort to out another editor even as the ArbCom was voting to ban her. That's it, I'm afraid, regardless of any other issue. SlimVirgin 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget COI for a moment. She tried to out another editor. That's harassment, and it's blockworthy. Given she was already warned, it's indefblockworthy. You seem to be arguing that, because there may have been bad behavior elsewhere, her bad behavior is okay, but it isn't. People are very tired of her, including several good editors whose work I respect and whose opinions I trust. You asked me to e-mail you, by the way, and I have. SlimVirgin 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Her block was supported there by two other admins:

• ≈ jossi ≈ and

• KillerChihuahua, who had this to say:

"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." (Used by permission: "puppy supports, feel free to link to this dif whereever appropriate"

Ilena protested quite vehemently and SlimVirgin was then forced to protect Ilena's talk page:

• "(for BLP reasons, I'm protecting the page and continuing this by e-mail instead)"

• "(Protected User talk:Ilena: BLP violations being posted )"

More information can be found here: (modified)

• Category:Ilena's early IP addresses

-- Fyslee (collaborate) 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'clast's charges regarding use of unreliable sources

These were content issues and thus not relevant to an RFARB, which is about behavioral issues, not content issues.

Lest anyone be confused by this, User:I'clast and User:TheNautilus are the same person who has and does dominate that article. Why he uses two different user names is beyond me.

These IPs User:66.58.129.101 User:66.58.130.56 (and others) are also his when he's not signed in, and also figure prominently in the edit history of the Orthomolecular medicine article.

Why I'clast brings an article from my blog to this discussion is beyond me. The link he uses from my blog is an article not written by myself, nor did I use it at Misplaced Pages (TTBOMK). It is from Jonathan M. Gitlin's science column. The wikilink in that article is original, as can be seen by the archived copy. It's actually nice to see that others link to Misplaced Pages, even though Misplaced Pages is not a RS. That author apparently thought people might be interested in looking up Pauling at Misplaced Pages. The viewpoints expressed in that article are the author's, including his reference to his mother.

Interestingly the article quotes new research that (once again) contradicts Pauling's and I'clast/TheNautilus' beliefs. It is this type of mainstream POV that Barrett also shares, and which I'clast/TheNautilus continually attempts to keep out of the article, and that is POV suppression, a practice that violates NPOV. Even if it is a false POV (according to I'clast), it is a common mainstream POV and should be included.

I have had relatively little interest or involvment in that article. It is a long and bitter feud between I'clast and other editors, so I have only participated occasionally. The discussions have even gone so far as to violate the concept of "undue weight", with a recent suggestion to reduce the repetition of "mainstream" in the article. The mainstream view is the one that should have the most weight, both content-wise and visually. This suggestion is just another attempt to suppress mainstream POV.

We are here reading an attack on me by an editor who wishes to eliminate opposing POV and editors who support it. The charges above are content disputes involving an editor who wishes to suppress the mainstream scientific POV, even when it is documented using verifiable sources.

This is also the editor who has made very serious COI charges during this RFARB against User:Shot info, implying that he was Barrett's son. Not only have they been disruptive and an exercise of bad faith, they have also had a negative role on these proceedings. I suggest that this editor and his charges not be given the time of day, and that he be forced to immediately provide all of his evidence of a COI to the ArbCom committee. If his charges are false, I expect that his bad faith attacks on Shot info, and the disruptive effect it has had on these proceedings, will call forth appropriate sanctions.

The same goes for the misleading charges made by User:Levine2112, the dubiousness of which have been amply demonstrated by several others here. Malicious bad faith charges made(up) against me should have consequences for these editors, just as does perjury in any court of law. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to MaxPont's "evidence"

Now we know MaxPont's non-mainstream POV, which is nice to know, but it's not "evidence." It is related to content disputes, which are not the areas dealt with in this or any other RFARB.

Resources come in varying types and qualities, and are used in various ways here. Some are excellent as internal references, others as representatives of certain POV, and others as external links. As to Quackwatch's status as a RS, that depends entirely on the Quackwatch article in question. It is the largest database of its kind, with thousands of pages of unique resources, historical documents, government sources, court testimony, scientific research, etc., sometimes not available anywhere else. It also contains personal op eds, some of which would be suitable as examples of skeptical POV, and others totally unsuitable for Misplaced Pages in any manner. Each use must be evaluated individually. The same applies to many other websites commonly used here that aren't even questioned in this manner.

What makes Quackwatch so special is that its clear POV makes it the "canary in the mine," and many who find their beliefs and practices challenged and/or exposed would love to kill that canary. We all know what happens in a mine when the canary dies and no one notices it has died. The same applies to Quackwatch. The assassination attempts continually attempted in the real world must not be allowed to succeed here at Misplaced Pages. It's notability has not arisen in a vacuum. It has a POV and is not afraid to stick up for it with references and documentation. Quackwatch does not claim to be a neutral source, but a source heavily indebted to the scientific mainstream POV. It judges methods by those standards and finds some of them wanting. That makes it unpopular in non-mainstream circles. Fortunately the reliability of sources is not determined by their popularity.

MaxPont uses a straw man logical fallacy when he faults Quackwatch for not criticising the failings of mainstream medicine and pharmaceutrical industry abuses. It is not the business of MaxPont or anyone else to dictate what Quackwatch or NCAHF chooses to specialize in and criticize, nor does lack of criticism outside of its chosen subject areas mean it is not concerned about those areas, or considers them to be totally legitimate and without problems. Plenty of others already do that, including the system itself.

It is worth noting that by far the largest group of individuals criticized at Quackwatch are MDs, followed by other licensed medical professionals in the mainstream healthcare system, with a few non-mainstream individuals included.

Quackwatch's definitions of alternative medicine are shared by Marcia Angell, Richard Dawkins, and others who use a definition that is based on the objectively verifiable criteria of the scientific method, not David M. Eisenberg's one based on the changing curricula of various medical schools, or ones subject to constantly shifting and non-objective anecdotes. According to them it is possible for a method to change categories (main stream/alternative) in either direction, based on increased knowledge of its effectiveness or lack thereof. Such definitions are admirable, since they aren't locked by traditions, financial interests, regulations, governmental regulations, or popularity. Solid evidence is much more objective and should always be the guiding star by which medical practitioners and scientists regulate their "compasses." This allows for growth and improvement. Unchanged methods are a sign of stagnation and failure to harmonize theory with increasing understandings of reality.

MaxPont makes another straw man argument when he implies that NCAHF "claim that CAM treatments never work and that conventional medicine is the only reliable option." I suspect he's reading more into their positions than is warranted.

MaxPont also makes a misleading claim regarding NCAHF's tax deductible status (which is a repetition of one of Ilena's repeated claims). The information has been in the article for some time:

"The most recent Internal Revenue Service list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions includes NCAHF as a non-profit organization ("a public charity with a 50% deductibility limitation")."

(Use this Internal Revenue Service link and search for "National Council Against Health Fraud," then choose "All of the words," then click the link under the word "Code." A pop-up will appear if not blocked.)

MaxPont is welcome to have his POV, but no editor is welcome to deny others their personal POV or to violate NPOV by keeping significant opposing POV out of articles when they are included in an NPOV manner using good sources. This type of thinking characterizes the editing on many alternative medicine articles, with the mainstream POV being constantly deleted, watered down, or relegated to so little a place as to violate the principles regulating undue weight. Non-mainstream POV should get less weight, but it would be hard to find such an article in the alternative medicine category. We document all significant POV here without selling them. That's the essence of NPOV. Dematt and Jim Butler (pro alternative medicine editors) are (the only?) two such editors who understand and practice this, and Dematt has left us. (No offense intended to others who don't come to mind at the moment.)

Evidence by JoshuaZ

Fyslee's involvement

Fyslee called for outside editors to edit Misplaced Pages. Ilena's evidence for this- is incontrovertible. In general, such behavior is not a good thing especially when it occurs in a partisan forum. However, Fyslee did say in the request "Keep in mind that POV (point of view) editing is forbidden, and one must cooperate with other editors, also antagonists. Articles must present all POV, including unfavorable ones. Think carefully before saving edits, since every edit is recorded publically for posterity, so mistakes will haunt you" Given that, it seems that at least in that limited matter Fyslee's behavior was not so bad, since Fyslee seemed to be trying in a good faith way to make sure the editors who joined in understood that they should be neutral.

Ilena

Ilena has been editing a wide variety of alternative medicine related articles, and has been editing them all with a strong POV. This has included most recently her getting blocked for 3RR on Clayton College of Natural Health (this was in fact an NRR for large N, see , her sixth fifthFyslee has pointed out one block was to change duration block over all, and her second for 3RR on a Barret related matter). Some of this may just be her general problems with Barrett spreading to other articles. In this case, her POV about Barrett was so strong that she made a massive distortion of a court decision involving him. . This editor has acknowledged her conflict with Barrett and despite that has continued to attack him and edit articles removing material about Barrett and adding attacks to Barrett in a variety of articles. The conflict of interest is clear and her refusal to back down despite it is also clear. Ilena is a single purpose account with a strong POV and should be treated as such.

JoshuaZ 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Arthur Rubin

My apologies for not presenting evidence against Fyslee. I have some, but I expected Peter to introduce any real evidence, and Levine and Ilena to introduce anything that at all resembles evidence.

Ilena makes off-Wiki personal attacks against specific Misplaced Pages editors

As it's off-Wiki, and most of them have been removed, diffs are problematic. However,

• (December 10) is her addition of a pointer to what was obviously an off-Wiki attack against me.
• (December 11) is my note that off-Wiki attacks may be used against the assumption of her good faith in disputes, and
• (December 19) is my request that she remove off-Wiki errors of fact. (I didn't technically claim "libel", but merely defamatory errors of fact.)

There are still attacks against "Paul Lee", who she claims to be a Misplaced Pages editor, at http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Wikipedia.htm Although repeating the defamatory material from her web site here would not be libelous, it might very well be a violation of our "right to privacy" provisions, so I won't do it here.

Ilena spammed her web site in her signature, in violation of WP:SIGNATURE

Sections are generally in chronological order. I didn't feel the need to list a number of "normal" signature links, as most of the links that day were in violation.

1. General warning about linkspam
2. Additions before a formal signature was created include .
3. Normal signature links include:
4. Warnings (by me)
5. Re-editing signature areas to insert the link include January 15 links

It should be noted she has generally stopped adding inappropriate links to her web site, but still ocassionally adds questionable links to it.

Ilena was uncivil and committed personal attacks

References noted on her talk page by Ronz include :

Fyslee was not adding vanity links

Quackwatch, etc., links may be linkspam. I don't think so, but at least one Arbitrator has explicitly said so, so it must be true — or at least Misplaced Pages policy. But they are clearly not vanity links. Even if Ilena is correct as to Fyslee's assoication with Barrett, the association is much too weak for them to be considered vanity edits. Levine2112 is clearly mistaken in his interpretation of the evidence he presents.

Well, were any of them in 2006? This may fall into WP:BITE; if all his vanity edits were in his first two months, we're supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may learn that the edits are improper. Quackwatch may be "self-published" by Barrett, but many of them are well-referenced.

A quick scan of the links Levine lists shows most were over 13 months ago. If that's the case, we should probably assume that he would stop if a proper reference to Misplaced Pages guidelines showing they were improper. (And Quackwatch links are clearly not unreliable per se; the individual articles need to be looked at.)

Re Levine2112's latest comment on Fyslee

In regard the claim that Fyslee blanketly deleted a newbie contributor's post

• Fyslee removed material by an opponent, claiming WP:BLP, and then asked about it on the appropriate BLP noticeboard. The deletion was affirmed by at least one other editor not listed as a party to this dispute, asserting both WP:BLP and WP:NLT.

(There's really no place to indicate that an editor's commentary on evidence presented is completely without foundation. I'm putting it in "Evidence" rather than in "Workshop" or "Talk:...Evidence", because it seems to fit better.

WP:BLP allows an editor who is the person named in a violation to remove it. It's hard to see why an editor who is peripherally related to the article or subject should be prohibited from removing WP:BLP violations.

Evidence presented by MastCell

Extension of a real-life dispute

Two people (Stephen Barrett and Ilena Rosenthal) have a real-life conflict going back years, and are essentially professional antagonists. One sues the other for libel, and the case goes all the way to the California State Supreme Court, resulting in what may well be a landmark decision. Then one party in the lawsuit (Ilena) shows up here to edit almost exclusively articles relating to her antagonist (Stephen Barrett) and said lawsuit. This is the definition of a conflict of interest. If Ilena's participation was directed toward identifying and fixing WP:BLP issues, that would be one thing, but she's been disruptive, prone to personal attacks, and an edit warrior. She's continued her battle against Barrett here even while this ArbCom case is ongoing (). Regardless of right or wrong, the importation of a real-life dispute onto the talk and article pages of Misplaced Pages by one of the litigants violates both WP:COI and ...not a battleground. In spite of mentorship from an experienced user, Ilena has not modified her approach to work within Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines - witness the recent block for 3RR.

WP:BLP

Any solution adopted by ArbCom would need a mechanism for Ilena to raise WP:BLP issues, whether directly on talk pages or via email or posts to the BLP noticeboard. By the same token, Ilena's constant repetition of attacks on Barrett and accusations of a smear campaign (e.g. ) are definitely skirting a BLP violation and, in any case, have no place on Misplaced Pages (per ...not a battleground).

Reformability

Fyslee's behavior hasn't been sterling and has crossed the line at times - I'll leave it to Peter Dodge and Ilena to fill in the blanks - but he's had a history of reasonable participation as a good Wikicitizen before all this. It's harder to be optimistic about Ilena becoming a constructive editor - even with this case ongoing, she's been engaged in an edit war at Hulda Clark and Clayton College of Natural Health, and her evidence above is mostly a repetition of the personal attacks and claims of victimization that landed things here in the first place. She's not a newbie and has had the benefit of assistance from experienced editors. Given that neither the carrot nor the stick has been effective in encouraging her to edit within Misplaced Pages's policies, a community ban would be a reasonable option at this point.

MastCell 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ronz

Ilena has contributed to Misplaced Pages through a number of ip addresses

Included for the record, since there is some confusion about when Ilena began editing initially and the circumstances of her return to editing in December '06.

• 196.40.14.198 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006 to Talk:Stephen Barrett (SB)
• 196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006 to Talk:SB
• 196.40.12.235 (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2006. Three to SB, one to NCAHF
• 196.40.14.167 (talk · contribs) on 7 July 2006. Three to SB 15:45, a few minutes before she started editing as Ilena.
• 200.122.153.238 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006. Eight edits to Barrett v. Rosenthal (BvR) starting at 02:10. (This is an ip used by others at other times)
• 196.40.13.172 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006 to BvR at 15:02. Ilena logged in a few minutes later to edit Talk:BvR, BvR, User talk:Ilena, NCAHF, SB, and Talk:NCAHF on that day.

Ilena has attacked multiple Misplaced Pages editors on her own website, and has used links to those attacks as part of her editing here

As Arthur mentions, it is difficult to document this because this is off-wiki and Ilena is blocking the archiving of her website. The most recent google cache contains a December 25 version which says:

After I wrote about Rubin and Lee on my blog, up popped Ronz, who erases every trace of evidence that shows that Barrett's NCAHF has no apparent legal corporate status ... if he was unbiased, there would be no reason for him to erase these facts. He is their perfect distraction shill ... claiming that NCAHF's distraction, or "POV" (point of view.)

The attacks on Arthur are already partially removed in this cache. Attacks against Fyslee are still in the January 18 version, still online as of February 18 .

She's linked directly to the attack on Arthur and me . And linked to a different section of the site as a part of an uncivil response to KillerChihuahua . She continued to link to it after she was aware of and contributed to the AN Dec 26 and was warned on her talk page .

Response to evidence of Fyslee using unreliable sources

I see no evidence posted here of Fyslee using unreliable sources. When such evidence is shown, I'd like the chance to investigate how Fyslee supported use of such sources, what consensus was reached, and how Fyslee was involved in the consensus process.

MaxPont's evidence below is his opinion that Quackwatch is biased because it's perspective is current medical practice rather than something else. MaxPont seems to think the pov of modern medical practice makes a source unreliable.

Evidence presented by Addobbi

Ilene blows Chirotalk issue out of proportion

As a member of chirotalk, I couldn't help but notice what was going on here in regards to this dispute between Fyselee and Ilene. It would appear to me that this has gone beyond being a reasonable dialogue and has become personal. It was I who wrote the post "This sounds like a job that Fyslee could spearhead". Therefore it was also I who deleted that evidence, and not Fyselee. It was also I who referred to him as a Misplaced Pages expert. I was saying this out of respect, since I admired the good work he was doing here, and was impressed by his desire to be a fair and objective contributer to wikipedia. I later regretted pointing out his wikipedia activities in my chirotalk posts, given that they were being used against him, and modified them out of respect in a manner that I felt was appropriate. From my perspective, given that I wrote some of the posts in the chirotalk threads that are being quoted as evidence of Fyslee's actions, I can assert that several of the changes that she was giving as evidence were actually changes that I had made, and were not initiated by Fyslee nor were they requested by him. Furthermore, I could be counted as one of those unknown to Fyslee, and am in no way a part of any anti-quackery conspiracy.

Fyslee has not made a single post on Chirotalk since last August. And yet great efforts have been made here to dig up as much dirt as possible regarding his activities on there. This has even included mentions of recent changes to his chirotalk ID name. I can only assume he has done this deliberately to point out how foolish the overstatement of the decidely thin chirotalk evidence is.

The Chirotalk forum only has about a 10 regular posters at any given time. Over time, several contributers have in fact left. The idea of Chirotalk members coming to wikipedia to make contributions to chiropractic themed entries was discussed in specific threads as has already been mentioned. I admit that some of my own comments therein do at times appear incriminating. Incriminating in the sense that they may lead the reader to believe that there was an intention on our part to arrive at wikipedia with the intention to make contributions that could become disruptive. Yet after learning more about the wikipedia community, it became clear to me that I was not objective enough to consider making additions to topics related to either chiropractic or alternative medicine for that matter. Of course I can only speak for myself personally, yet I doubt that many chirotalk members have joined Misplaced Pages specifically as a result of Fyselee's so called "call to arms".

My lack of knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules, when I first approached the idea of editing Misplaced Pages could have led me to be disruptive, or to disobey the rules. I believe that Fyslee may have likewise made some wrong assumptions regarding what was acceptable when he was a Misplaced Pages newbie. I think this should be kept in mind when viewing some of the posts he has made outside of wikipedia dating back several months ago on sites such as chirotalk.

I can assure you that any contributions I make here aside from this post will be made on non-chiropractic topics.

Addobbi 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AvB

Discussion of evidence provided by Levine2112

I have studied Levine2112's linkspam evidence in depth. Please find my overall findings below. The findings rest on the fully clickable contextualization I've prepared (appended at the bottom of this discussion).

User:Levine2112 has introduced as evidence a list of 61 diffs on this Evidence page. I will not be discussing newbie mistakes here, or analyzing whether or not they were policy violations, therefore I am ignoring the oldest 29 diffs. On close inspection, the presentation of these 32 diffs as additions is found to range from debatable at best (4 diffs, 12.5 %) to incorrect (11 diffs, 34%).

Levine's 61 spamlink diffs resolve to 4 true additions, all carried by consensus

How should we interpret the fact that Fyslee has added a number of Quackwatch links beyond his newbie days? In my analysis, Levine gave 32 diffs over the last five months, totaling 33 links to Quackwatch etc.:

• Code 0 (no evidence, no QW-related links added/reverted): 11 links
• Code 2 (I’m not sure, or consensus had yet to form in new article, or dead link): 2 links
• Code 3 (revert to/defend existing consensus link): 16 links
• Code 4 (added for good reason/consensus; others can look for a better source or cannot be sourced elsewhere): 1 link
• Code 5 (added for good reason/consensus; cannot be sourced elsewhere): 3 links

As you can see, of those 33 links in five months, 10 were completely incorrect. 16 links were simple, mostly 1RR reversions carried by consensus. One of the two “not sure” links gained consensus when other editors had come along; the second remains unknown since the page does not exist. The few “failed to remove” links were actually a single link to Fyslee’s blog that was restored several times in the context of large reversions. That leaves us with 4 additions by Fyslee that need to be accounted for. In my opinion, they were all added for good reason. 3 could only be sourced at Quackwatch, 1 other was a good link but could perhaps be replaced with a non-QW link in time. 11 were incorrect and not evidence of anything, 1 link that gained consensus later on, one dead link and the 16 clean reverts mean that 29 out of 33 links definitively did not involve any policy violations by Fyslee.

Fyslee added 4 of the 800 links to Quackwatch-related sites during the last five months: 0.5%. Only 0.1% of Fyslee's edit count consisted of new additions of QW-related links. During those same months he defended such links on 16 occasions. Only 0.4% of Fyslee's edit count consisted of defenses of QW-related links by reverting to older versions. In comparison, if Levine2112 (edit count 2,007 over that same period) has added more than 2 links to partisan pro-chiro sites and defended the removal of such links in 9 cases, and if what Fyslee did was wrong and a reason to ban, Levine (and many other editors, including myself) can also expect a ban.

Mediation

It soon becomes clear that Quackwatch is not the common denominator in the diffs mined by Levine2112. On close inspection it appears that most of those edits would not have been necessary if they had not been preceded by attempts to delete such links by other editors. One specific editor stands out here: Levine2112's list of diffs, on close scrutiny, demonstrates his own behavior in initiating interaction with Fyslee by deleting targeted Quackwatch links: 11 of the 16 reverts incorrectly presented as “additions” actually restored links just deleted by Levine2112.

If it is true that Fyslee has aggressively added Quackwatch related links to the encyclopedia, it is also true that Levine2112 has aggressively removed Quackwatch related links from the encyclopedia (1). Which is worse? When seen from the NPOV during the many years that Quackwatch et al. were seen as reliable sources by the majority of our editors? (Note that we do not know for a fact that this has changed.)

If Levine2112 can go on editing as before, there is no reason whatsoever to sanction Fyslee. As evidenced here, this is a content dispute between Fyslee and Levine2112 (the latter, for a while, with help from Ilena). These skirmishes, often initiated (1) by Levine2112, are somewhat disruptive due to the frequency with which they take place.

(1) In the months before this arbitration, Levine was going through the encyclopedia deleting QW-related links with mixed success. Example: {diff}(diff)(diff)(diff)(diff)(diff)(diff). He claims the right to do so as follows: You may as well suggest that I be banned for correcting spelling throughout Misplaced Pages (which I do quite often using the "Live spellcheck" tool) (diff) - which I take as an indication that he intends to continue serially deleting QW-related links after the arbitration and is headed for WP:DR anyway.

I submit to the arbitrators that the appearance of "partisan editing" has been caused not by Ilena vs. Fyslee but by Levine2112 vs. Fyslee. I recommend that Levine and Fyslee be sent off for a mediation instead of ridding Misplaced Pages of one of its staunchest defenders of the majority POV, i.e. the scientific POV, while leaving free to edit one of Misplaced Pages's staunchest defenders of the alt-med POV. Essentially we're talking about minor edit warring between two experienced Wikipedians who do not usually let things go to even a semblance of 4RR.

Conclusion (2)

Finding of fact (3), originally thought to apply to Fyslee, on closer inspection clearly lacks support in terms of diffs. The same goes for the remedy or remedies related to these findings.

I believe I have demonstrated that evidence submitted by Levine2112 on close inspection shows the opposite of Levine2112's interpretation of the same diffs. I would like to ask the arbitrators to review their votes where they have already made them, in the light of the above. In my opinion this new information frees Fyslee from Levine2112's linkspam accusations on this Evidence page.

Contextualized diffs of Levine2112's evidence against Fyslee

(Evidence continues below this table here)

I have sorted Levine’s list by date and time and added the relevant context and my personal comments. The full list of 61 diffs is here. Below I’m presenting the links posted on 10 October 2006 or later. The remaining 29 edits are older than 20 April 2006.

Ilena's updated "Misplaced Pages" page

See http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Wikipedia.htm -- If pressed for time, scroll down to the second half of the page. (To be on the safe side I've archived that page on my computer.) It's a true hate page against Misplaced Pages, Fyslee and other editors. It makes my skin crawl. So this is how Ilena responds when she thinks Misplaced Pages is banning Fyslee from alt-med articles. Counterproductive I should imagine. 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect meatpuppetry accusation

Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge)

Wizardry Dragon has, here on this arbitration page, used selective quoting, portraying Fyslee as a meatpuppeteer who had posted a call for new WP editors on a skeptics' forum. Looking at the post itself, User:JoshuaZ has already explained that it did not violate our rules. After looking at the entire thread on that forum (it's here) I will go further and commend Fyslee for posting what he did. Summary of the thread: Someone (not Fyslee) had flagged up a WP article. A discussion ensued about the possibility to start another article (about the forum in question). Someone did, but was confronted with "pro-chiro" opposition. In post #10 in this thread Fyslee chimed in with some quick start information for those interested or already busy editing Misplaced Pages. A good thing in my opinion. I would have done the same. In fact, Fyslee's post ended the thread, and I presume any subsequent discussion took place on Misplaced Pages talk pages, as it should. Some five months later, two follow-up posts very sensibly discussed the removal of the Misplaced Pages link to the forum. AvB ÷ talk 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

Ilena has also, here and here on the Workshop page of this arbitration case, engaged in selective quoting portraying Fyslee as a meatpuppeteer. I have responded on that page, showing that the four "examples" do not constitute misbehavior of any kind, especially when read in context (i.e. the relevant discussion or "thread"). Copying my response here:

Such examples would not support the point you are trying to make even if they were valid. Your belief that Fyslee is "selling anti-quackery" on Misplaced Pages remains a conflict-of-interest claim without any evidence. As to the examples themselves: This was in May 2005, long before Fyslee started editing Misplaced Pages. Hardly a call to "help him collaborate". This had nothing to do with Fyslee. Here I present evidence against what you are portraying as "call to arms" on Chirotalk re Life University Misplaced Pages entry. That leaves us with "but one example" - healthfraud Misplaced Pages - and that was when Fyslee was still a newbie editor here, slightly over a year ago. AvB ÷ talk 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The last example should also be read in context: it is in response to this post. Once again, Fyslee's response proves totally acceptable and cannot be called meatpuppetry by any stretch of the imagination.

Since Ilena suggested that there are many more examples, and Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge) provided the Chirotalk "example" as his sole evidence of meatpuppetry, I decided to check all of Fyslee's posts to the Chirotalk platform. I limited my check to posts made after January 1, 2006. During that period, Fyslee posted 98 contributions. Five of those posts in four different threads (=discussions) mentioned Misplaced Pages.

The first one (here) reported and denounced Misplaced Pages vandalism from an IP number and asked the perpetrator to stop for several reasons, one of them was giving Chirotalk a bad name. A perfectly valid post dated Jan 14, 2006. The second post, in the same thread, contained references to two Misplaced Pages edits made by Fyslee, one retained, the other one deleted. A neutral post showing Fyslee's respect for the collaborative editing process; dated Jan 15, 2006.

The third post (here) mentioned a slight technical hitch at Misplaced Pages in response to a similar hitch elsewhere on the Internet. Simple, helpful post, dated Feb 6, 2006.

The fourth one (here) quoted some information from Misplaced Pages. Quite unsurprising use of the encyclopedia, dated Apr 14, 2006.

The fifth one has already been discussed by User:JoshuaZ and myself, see above under Wizardry Dragon (Peter M Dodge). It was posted on June 5, 2006.

In short, I checked over a year's worth of posts to the Chirotalk forum and did not find a shred of evidence of calling up people to start editing per Fyslee's instructions. Finally, what's so bad about advertizing Misplaced Pages? As long as there's no vote-stacking etc involved, there is no problem. See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. Many of us have started their Misplaced Pages "career" this way. AvB ÷ talk 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Levine2112

Fyslee enflamed Ilena from the get-go

I was avoiding voicing myself here as I really haven't edited much (if at all) on Barrett v. Rosenthal. But I read this, I wanted Fyslee to at least be clear here. From Ilena's first day here (coincidentally User:Sbinfo's first day here), Fyslee has been on her case. We are told here to not bite the newbie, but Fyslee's first confrontation with Ilena shows that he was ignoring this basic policy. 19:45, 7 July 2006 This harsh, high-level warning template (template #1 is preferred starting point for a newbie) followed only after a small amount of intitial editing on Ilena's part at Stephen Barrett. So right away, Fyslee was being extremely confrontational. Now my experience with Ilena, though limited to just Misplaced Pages, has shown me that when she is pushed, she pushes back. And following her intial edit, you can be assured that Fyslee stayed on her case and wouldn't give her a moments peace. Note that I am not defending all of Ilena's edits. I agree that placing a vanity link to her own site or adding unreferences speculative info to an article is a bad idea. My issue here is that Fyslee is attempting to say that he was willing to work collaboratively with Ilena, when clearly that wasn't his intention at the start. He set up a defensive relationship with her and continued to push her buttons, knowing that eventually she would react poorly. I would speculate (and I bet I am right) that Fyslee knew exactly who Ilena was right when she showed up at Misplaced Pages. As a member of the RagTag Possee of Snake Oil Vigilantes, Fyslee clearly has a preexisting bias against Ilena. Please peruse this immature attack site that dates back to 2000. It is filled with satirical song lyrics lambasting Ilena and trying to enflame her. (Barrett is also a member of the RagTag Posse.) Clearly, Fyslee's intent here right when Ilena arrived was to enflame her more. This is a real-life dispute that has continued onto Misplaced Pages and neither party has acted in good faith. And now that Fyslee is pretending to put on his good-boy hat and say that he wants only to work collaboratively with her... well that's just a ploy not to get what's coming to him. I warn the arbitrators reviewing the evidence not to fall for this. I guess I am asking Fyslee to take a step back and realize that he has been antagonizing Ilena from the start and that he is very much to blame that it has come to this RfArb.

In a recent edit, Fyslee wonders how many people Ilena has driven to suicide.

Here Fyslee admits to me that he is part of the RagTag Posse to "tease" people (Fyslee's words are "trolls and jerks") such as Ilena. What he calls teasing is actually attempts to poke fun at and enflame their opposition.

Here are some examples of Fyslee enflaming/teasing Ilena. Here, Fyslee describes being "attacked" by Ilena, but when reading through her posts, they are no different in nature from what Fyslee had been posting about Ilena.

Meat-puppetry by Fyslee

Here is another example of Fyslee recruiting to skeptics to combat who he calls "loons". In this case, the loon was me. Please see this entry in the forums of Randi.org.Skeptics needed for Misplaced Pages. It is a repost of a mass email which he sent out covertly only to have it - whoops! - posted publicly on this skeptic's forum. There are a couple of troubling statements which Fyslee makes which I would like to point out:

There are plenty of loons out there doing the editing right now, and far too few skeptics to keep them at bay.

Okay, as I said, I guess I am a loon according to Fyslee.

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!

Clearly he was orchestrating a behind-the-scenes effort and (dare I say) conspiring against users like me. He goes on to say that I am an editor who "needs to be watched" as I favor an unscientific POV. (To clarify, I am not in favor of a unscientific POV. I am a scientific skeptic by the true definition of the term. My beliefs are wholly dependent on the presentation of scientific evidence.)

Another example of Fyslee's meatpuppetry can be found at "Chirotalk" - a dubious discussion forum where they attribute a career in chiropractic to a cause of suicide. Here Fyslee (though he recently changed his user name to protect his identity) tries to round up more likeminded editors to spew their special brand of hatred on Misplaced Pages.

COI for Fyslee

Aside from being the listmaster of one of Barrett's email forums, volunteering to aid Barrett with his libel suits, and corresponding with Barrett about Misplaced Pages, I would also like to point out two links found on the home page of Barrett's websites. Go to QuackWatch and scroll down just to about the bottom of the page where it says "Ring Membership". There are two rings which Quackwatch is a part of - the Anti-Quackery Ring and the Skeptic Ring. Click on either of those links and see that the ring is managed by Fyslee. The ring links sites like Quackwatch to Fyslee's blog, Chirotalk, and beyond. Oh, and you can find links to this ring on just about every home page of every site in Barrett's empire. What does this mean? Fyslee benefits directly when links to Quackwatch are place on Misplaced Pages. Yet, he has placed and defends dozens of Quackwatch links throughout Misplaced Pages. As recently as today he was defending one. He went so far as accusing me of a COI for removing it. What COI do I have I ask him? How do I benefit from removing a link to a site that - as described by admin SlimVirgin in her subsequent removal of Fyslee's work - is "not a reliable source". So what do I have to gain? Nothing. What does Fyslee have to gain? Much more exposure for his webring. More external links to all of his site, higher Google ranking, more users clicking through to his site. Thus a COI. Remember, this isn't necessarily a financially motivated move. In Fyslee's case, he wants to make sure that his opinion is the opinion most ofter heard. Increasing web exposure by exchanging links with a Google powerhouse such as Quackwatch is a great way to do that. Fyslee knows this well (as revealed in his advice for boosting ChiroTalk in Google's ranks). There's your motivation and there is your COI.

Additionally, that Quackwatch and all of Barrett's site feature links to Fyslee's ring so prominently on each of their home pages, does add to the evidence of Fyslee having a personal relationship with Barrett.

Fyslee admitted his COI with Bolen (even admits personal correspondence with Bolen) early on yet continues to violate this today. On many other occasions, Fyslee has removed links to Bolen's website - - perhaps with reasonable grounds in WP:EL, but given Fyslee's admitted COI, he shouldn't have been the one making such deletions.

Fylsee has a COI with Hulda Regehr Clark. He has been named in a cross-complaint of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Clark filed in 2000. Yet, Fyslee has made many edits to her article (including adding a link to Quackwatch and general POV edits).

Fyslee's POV Push against Chiropractic

Fyslee has had a major motive since he has arrived at Misplaced Pages -- to make sure that chiropractic is shown in a negative light. Edits suchs as these - where he compares chiropractic to witchcraft - are among his most egregious. Along with this POV push comes Fyslee push to denigrate vertebral subluxation with inflamatory posts. Here is an example of that and here is another and another and another and another. Please note his abusive edit summaries in these examples. In one of the strangest example, Fyslee tried to add made-up anti-chiropractic oxymorons to the Oxymoron article. Please review the string of diffs begining here.

Fyslee brings his outside conflict onto Misplaced Pages

In the wake of Fyslee's false accusation that User:Healthzealot was Ilena's sockpuppet, admin User:Slimvirgin posted this message to Fyslee:

... It would be a good idea if you were to stop posting about individuals you're in conflict with in real life, and also to stop editing articles about issues you have direct involvement in. This whole pro- and anti-Quackwatch thing has gone too far. As a project, we can't support or oppose any of these groups or individuals. We're only here to write about things that reliable sources have written about, and there shouldn't be any campaigning or real-life fights spilling over into the encyclopedia ...

I would like to note that today Fyslee disregarded this admonishment from SlimVirgin when he blanketly deleted a newbie contributor's post with whom Fyslee has an outside conflict with. Fyslee then went on a tirade on this newbie user's talk page. He then posted multiple warnings on the BLP noticeboard about not only this newbie editor but for Ilena as well. Finally, his interpretation of what he calls a legal threat lodged by this newbie user, is most clearly a misrepresentation. The newbie user is not threatening anyone but rather warning us that the outcome of Barrett v. Rosenthal may not necessarily protect Misplaced Pages users. That's all. No threat. Just a sound piece of advice for anyone editing at Misplaced Pages. And note that the newbie is clear that this is just his opinion.

Please note that I am endorsing what this newbie editor added to the talk page, nor am I contesting Fyslee's interpretation of WP:BLP. Given Fyslee's COI with the article in question (and apparently with this newbie user), given this ongoing RfA and given SlimVirgin's warning, it was improper for Fyslee to be the one to delete this newbie's comments.

Linkspam and Vanity Links added by Fyslee

Fyslee has a history of spamming links to Stephen Barrett's websites (Quackwatch, NCAHF, Chirobase, etc.) as well as adding vanity links to Fyslee's own blog or web ring. Again, this may not be of financial interest to him. What is of more value to Fyslee is making people believe that his opinion is fact. That means spreading his and Barrett's gospel as much as possible. To do a search for everytime Fyslee has added a link to one of his or Barrett's sites would be an arduous process indeed. Here is but a sample to give you an idea. If more is needed, please let me know and I will gather more examples.

• adds vanity links to his own blog
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NACM
• adds vanity link to his own Web ring
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds vanity link to his own blog
• adds link to NACM
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Chirobase and NCAHF
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds multiple links to Chirobase
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to CredentialWatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch and InfomercialWatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Homeowatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• fails to remove vanity link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• fails to remove vanity link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• fails to remove link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• fails to remove link to his own blog (quackfiles.blogspot.com)
• adds link to Casewatch
• add link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NACM
• adds link to NACM
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds link to Quackwatch, Chirobase and RatBags
• adds link to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds link to Chirobase
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch, NCAHF and a vanity link
• adds vanity link
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch
• adds link to NCAHF
• adds multiple links to Quackwatch and NCAHF

With regard to Fyslee's vanity link to his non-RS blog which he left on article Mucoid plaque for a long time (nearly a full year) all the while deleting other external links on this article and other article, it would seem that Fyslee was protecting his vanity link to serve his own interest. Here is an example. Clearly he is aware of WP:EL as he had deleted Ilena's link because her site is a blog and/or because it was a vanity link. Therefore, he knowingly had been violating WP:EL for close to a year. The editor who finally did find and delete this link discusses it here.

Response to AvB

I am a bit troubled that User:AvB is turning this evidence page into an attack on me. While I wholly respect AvB's right to adamantly defend User:Fyslee, I am taken aback by AvB'shostility toward me. The diffs above which I have listed are presented as evidence without passion or prejudice. While they don't include every instance of Fyslee adding a link to Quackwatch or a related site or a vanity link to Fyslee's blog, I believe them to be a representative sample of Fyslee's behavior. For instance, I don't think I included any of the plethora of external links which Fyslee has added to articles Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett or National Council Against Health Fraud. I didn't see much of a reason to highlight these as the links are more relevant to the articles themselves. I also skipped over several months of Fyslee's edits as I didn't have the time or energy to perform such an exhaustive search. Please note that what I do have listed above totals approximately 70-80 links added (about 60 diffs thus far and many with multiple additions per edit). However, regardless of the reason which AvB hypothesizes in defense of Fyslee, given Fyslee's close working relationship with Stephen Barrett and interest in boosting Barrett sites' web exposure, Fyslee clearly violated WP:COI everytime he placed a link to one of Barrett's sites. The same obviously goes for Fyslee placing vanity links to his own site. I am not on a "witchhunt" as AvB suggests; nor do I appreciate AvB's incivil aspersions. (Please note that since I first posted this response, AvB has attempted to make his entry less hostile. I still contend that it is incivil as it stands and improper for this ArbCom. I am not a party to this arbitration and I believe that AvB is hoping to discredit my evidence by showing impropriety on my part. Regardless, please don't let this distract you from the evidence at hand.) I am simply providing evidence which establishes 1) Fyslee indeed has a close relationship with Stephen Barrett 2) Fyslee has actively sought to increase the amount of Quackwatch-related external links on Misplaced Pages 3) Fyslee has indeed placed and defended his own vanity links for nearly a year 4) Fyslee had a prior prejudice against User:Ilena 5) Fyslee acted in bad faith and incivility with Ilena on Misplaced Pages 6) Fyslee had a prior prejudice against Tim Bolen 7) Fyslee acted in bad faith with newbie user Tim Bolen 8) Fyslee has carried his crusade against chiropractic and other alternative medicines onto Misplaced Pages and - though sometimes he can put his POV in check - he often times cannot and edits inappropriately, using Misplaced Pages as his soapbox, and ridicules other editors with opposing viewpoints 9) Fyslee has tried to covertly recruit likeminded editors to Misplaced Pages by disparaging non-likeminded editors.

After an early slip-up here (which User:Ronz was gracious enough to point out), I have made it a point not to bring up other editors into my evidence other than the involved parties; namely Fyslee, Ilena and tangentially User:SbInfo (who we assume to be Stephen Barrett). I suggest AvB follows this same advice and keeps his evidence on topic and civil.

In response to AvB's mischaracterization that I did not graciously accept Fyslee's apology after he misreported me for a 3RR violation, I submitted the following onto the discussion page of proposed decision: . AvB seems to be making a habit of putting spin on the solid evidence I have supplied here. It is for this reason that I am making the following statement, in hopes that AvB and others would reciprocate:

Finally, to set the record straight, I would like to attest that I have no special interests or conflicts here. I am not a professional advocate for alternative medicine. I am not a "gun for hire" paid to defend alternative medicine. In fact no one has prompted me to defend or oppose any subject on Misplaced Pages other than myself. Then again, I don't characterize what I do here as a defense of topics, but rather as a defense of Misplaced Pages policy - which I truly believe works to author an encyclopedia with an endless amount of co-authors. I attest that I had no knowledge of or relationship with Fyslee, Ilena Rosenthal, Stephen Barrett, or Tim Bolen prior to my time at Misplaced Pages. I have had no direct correspondence with any of these people outside of Misplaced Pages (aside from the occasional email from Fyslee and Ilena). I am just a Wikipedian, plain and simple. I am learning the policies as I go and I don't ever claim to be perfect. With that, I step back and let my evidence stand on its own ground and put my trust in the ArbCom members and support their eventual decisions.

Personal attacks by Fyslee

Fyslee has personally attacked editors. One such example occured when multiple editors noted his attempts to smear the subject of the former Quackpotwatch article. Fyslee countered with various accusations and insults.

Fyslee calls people who oppose his edits "promoters of quackery".

Fyslee calls me "a rather primitive type" and insults my intelligence.

Fyslee taunts editors

Fyslee likes to make his perceived opponents look and feel foolish by mocking them. With regards to this edit where Fyslee essentially scared Alan2012 away with threats, he basically makes this editor feel like - for lack of a better term - a conspiracy theorist nut job. Apparently, this Quackbusters Of The Illuminati ( QBOTI) is a Yahoo! group which Fyslee belongs to which is designed to taunt their oppenents. This is another example of an external battle which Fyslee has brought to Misplaced Pages. An example of a post from Fyslee's blog designed to taunt his opponents can be found here. As an outside observer, I see the humor in Fyslee's post. However, if I was on the receiving end, I imagine it would be rather frustrating to hear yourself taunted and mocked. Wait a minute! I don't have to imagine it. Fyslee did it to me on this very page of evidence.

Closing note

Since posting the above statements, Fyslee was quick to respond with personal attacks against me rather than just deal with the issues at hand. Unfortunately, I have become used to this from him as Fyslee has been calling me juvenile names ("primitive type", "stupid", etc.) for a long time now. I think this shows the kind of behavior which drove Ilena and him to these procedings.

Further, Fyslee's insults continue on my talk page where he fails to assume good faith and compares my intelligence to that of various birds.

Evidence presented by I'clast

Ilena has borne more chronic, systemic and perhaps systematic bias than is generally recognized, since she started, even to this day which may make part of her responses more understandable.

Fyslee's attitude toward Ilena & others

I am shocked at Fyslee's intimidating comments today, no matter how dressed and buried...you would be totally banned from editing many alternative medicine subjects here.., to another, less experienced editor that has primarily contributed on Talk pages with interesting, hard-to-find mainstream references on nutrition-altmed (old IP) & medical RS and is relatively shy & limited in his criticism even at Talk, much less so few direct article edits. Threatening him with the prospect of a COI ban just because of his general employment for such an infrequent, scholarship & reference oriented, hesitating editor???

Fyslee's attitude about things counter to QW "wisedom" is long, pronounced (e.g. his sCAM campaign on & off WP, also ) and, frequently, not reconciled with current science. Even in this RfArb "It is quite vital to note that is only questioned and attacked by alternative medicine sources, fringe and pseudoscientists, quacks, scammers, frauds, and criminals who find their practices exposed as improper or illegal....Just that fact alone should give it a specially protected status here at Misplaced Pages..." Sweeping disparagements to disparate groups of people (and scientists) and special pleading for QW in a very small interval. The accuracy of Quackwatch material has been questioned by some figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds for decades, only to be denounced, and some of the prominent Quackwatch inaccuracies are almost trivial to verify if you know what to look for (most less specialized readers don't).

I also felt Fyslee's unannounced action against me last month was uncalled for andharrassing in nature, perhaps even strategically prejudicial to me, a technically oriented person. Such an approach and attitude may affect other editors, too.

Here is Fyslee's opinion about the most science based of the alternative medicine related categories after being pointedly removed twice from the List of pseudoscientific theories with prejudice (locked) by independent rational science editors. Fyslee's response to independent skeptic editors: It belongs there. It's Pauling's folly.(--Fyslee, 7 August 2006) and later, Being fringe doctors, they fall for weird ideas. (Fyslee, 7 August 2006)

Ilena's COI accusations & the hostile environment

She may have named the wrong individuals or specific problems. Ilena has been overwhelmed with highly negative, and, IMHO, often unkind & even unfair, attention since she arrived at WP. She may have seen certain other editors, that embody her various concerns, as too similar to possibly familiar voices elsewhere w/o doing sufficiently detailed anaylsis, without having anti-trolling skills, or without better details.

The QW areas she has edited, such as NCAHF archives 2 & 3, or sometimes appears to avoid, have bigger problems with trolling and conflict of interest than is generally recognized. For instance, one of Ilena's critics editor corrected here at WP QW-land appears to be consistent with an unrecognized editor of a personal/partisan website, at least 6 years long in dispute offsite with Ilena. Given this editor's sophisticated, more WP-saavy dialogue, Ilena can be subtly undermined, and provoked when combined with other pro-QW editors efforts in conflict. His deletions of Ilena's material like this, this may be harder to AGF when this factor is considered. Especially since that editor appears have an interest as one of Ilena's arch adversaries on USENET. An editor who as an example, enticed another editor(s) with easily recognized trollish capabilities into QW-land, the enticed editor who then insulted even a strong conventional medical editor for insufficient zeal. Also simply recruiting more. Yet hardly an unkind or skeptical word, "rtfm", familiar to Linux users, questions this editor during several months that affects altmed editors' environment like Ilena. Although his direct presence at BvR is limited, this recent activity was boiling over on IR, when I asked someone to look more clearly into the mirror and their aggressive comments finally ceased.

Also I strongly believe an RfArb proscribed troll from my earlier IP days showed up recently, "breaking parole". I broke cover in response to this very familiar entity's characteristics - including sucking in a newbie editor who thought someone else was being trollish. I butted in early, essentially identifying myself (who would already know or suspect me) terminating the behavior pattern and evidence generation phase, to try and shield a newbie editor from getting baited, humiliated and hammered if not blocked and alienated. (my evidence is limited but reasonable if I need to discuss this with an administrator). A number of "skeptic" trolls have transited through this small cluster of articles. Ilena has been more forthright about her interests and potential COI than some I have dealt with in QW-related space and the field has been even more biased than stated openly, until now. --I'clast 15:14, 21 February 2007, updated I'clast 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee's (re)use of unreliable sources in 2 more articles

Fyslee repeatedly (re-)inserted 4 unreliable links in several related articles, particularly Linus Pauling and Orthomolecular medicine despite months and pages of prior, specific discussion, why the links failed badly on cross checking claims and fact checking. Fyslee participated at these articles from August 2006, first contributions: , ,

In addition to Levine's broad sampling of links above shows, Fyslee brings Quackwatch's point of view, his beliefs, negative family experiences, readers, and agenda to Misplaced Pages, quite literally. Here Fyslee funnels his Quackfile readers to his WP views:

1. As an example, Fyslee's offsite quackfiles Vitamin C and common cold with its first, most prominent link, Linus Pauling linked at Misplaced Pages, article posted Aug 2005.

2. Fyslee's Linus Pauling edits with 3 unreliable sources from 12 August-3 September 2006, none reported by Levine above:

(a) 3 September 2006QW opinion supported by unreliable sources previously discussed at length in articles where Fyslee participated.

(b) again, 12 August 2006

(c) An edit to Linus Pauling adding three links to {Linus Pauling,12 Aug 2006} previously shown to have substantial misrepresentations (failing source based fact checking of the article)

On BCCA being unreliable: 20-21 June 06

On QW and SJ Barrett's writings on vitamin C and colds being unreliable: 12 Aug 06, 28 Aug 06

On Cassileth's stmt failing fact checking: counterexamples to unfounded assertions29 Jun 06, discussed again, 3-6 Sept 06

Note: There is an element of content contention here, but Fyslee's repeated failure to recognize previous discussions and the most current medical science sources in contrast to somewhat popular, often dated, medical opinions is precisely what I have labored hard to resolve technically and topically with a number of JD, DO, MD & PhD editors. Fyslee's point of view hobbles his effectiveness on technical matters, even though he can be powerful, personable and persuasive writer.

3. Fyslee's adverse re-insertion of unreliable links previously discussed at length, in Orthomolecular medicine

(a) QW source, 29 Jan 07

(b) QW source in Orthomolecular Medicine 29 Jan 07

(c) Levine's QW source example, also above, 25 Jan 07

(d) re-including the unreliable BCCA source, again,14 Sept 2006

despite previous & repeated discussions, among many:

Regarding Fyslee's link addition on 14 Sept 06 despite, 19 Aug 2006,

12 Aug 2006, BCCA mentioned again, 12 Aug 2006, 26 June 2006, BCCA 20-21 June 06,

Also Quackwatch as a RS 12 Aug 06,

Alleged Reliabilty of QW 28 Aug 06--I'clast 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, Gaming the system vs others' collaboration

Well, here is Fyslee that days before says, “I have come to appreciate your integrity..”. Fyslee then launches the full scale denunciation, above, and personal attack, massively displaying my legitimate, separated User accounts (nothing so subtle as links) where I have had problems with being trolled in the past, e.g. - and other trolls that *finally* disappear from self embarrassment. All because I have the temerity to offer my points here at /Evidence. The aforementioned trolls also represent the "long bitter feud" Fyslee refers to. I have corrected my criticism in response to his, his angry accusations are still glowering days later despite my suggestion to modify his rather less civil response. This is a demonstration of the problem with Fyslee's make (believe) nice - intimidation tactics. I have had far longer, more difficult edits with other editors, and we collaborated fine. Fyslee on the other hand, as soon as his cherished Quackwatch dogma begins to be corrected on science points -, goes and creates a clear POV fork from a still immature article to preserve one of his favorite self serving Quackwatch statements, devoid of any scientific balance, ,and of course, Stephen Barrett. He then can muster an instant majority of pro_QW editors to float it anyway.

Fyslee has repeatedly had trouble understanding acknowledging the difference between Suppressive POV, e.g. reverting , & my reply at length, request again, and a Scientific POV implemented a la Misplaced Pages policies using NPOV, fact checking (WP:V) and source based research (WP:RS). I have been able to achieve collaboration this way with formidable editors like User:Gleng (PhD), User:DocJohnny (DO) who even requested me, Please continue to edit so we can achieve a consensus on NPOV. Despite our differences in opinion, I feel that is possible; User:MastCell (MD); User:Andrew73(MD)bothat Orthomolecular & Megavitamin but apparently Fyslee knows better than they.--I'clast 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)