Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilena (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 21 February 2007 (Barret tried to change history of his lost court cases). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It really might be a good idea to get something into Evidence before bothering with proposals at all... --jpgordon 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• My line of thinking was - "I make a point, then I prove it." ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Per their talk pages, both Ilena and Fyslee are working on statements with diffs. They have asked if there is a "deadline" for their presentations. I have advised that they should move promptly but there is no actual deadline or timetable. If the arbitrators have a specific target date in mind for reaching this case, please advise so the parties can be aware. Newyorkbrad 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. And Mr. W. Dragon's point makes sense. --jpgordon 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From a practical POV, Peter's methodology sounds good, but he has not yet provided any proof. Can someone get him to do so? (From a scientific POV his methodology is more questionable, as the "points" he makes should be developed based on the evidence, not the opposite. But....this situation is more like a courtroom than a laboratory...;-) -- Fyslee's (First law) 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I understand this and apologise. I have had very little free time due to real life concerns (namely a full time job that ends up cutting into home time too), however I'll try and get something done before I go to sleep this evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter M Dodge (talk • contribs)

I understand you are having trouble and sympathize with you in this situation. Keep in mind that some of the rest of us are also pressed very hard by this unnecessary situation that could have been prevented from escalating. My original private (well, there's no such thing as private here! - and I can see now unwise) comment about suicidal thoughts was not coming out of nowhere, and you of all people should know what depression (especially when caused and then exacerbated by these constant attacks and now an RfArb) can do to people's thinking. It is very disturbing and causes one to say too much in the wrong settings. So please be careful how you deal with this situation and please provide evidence as soon as possible. Be careful not leave out anything, because that will only force me to dig up what has been left out, since context is important. We are both aware that there are things that don't really have to be brought up, but I will balance things if necessary. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena's early ip addresses?

Since Ilena's earliest edits here on Misplaced Pages where through ip addresses less than a year ago, I thought it might be helpful to list them here. I just ran across 196.40.14.198 (talk · contribs). I believe there are a few more that were listed somewhere. --Ronz 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting there is to follow the next couple of edit strings. Fyslee quickly accuses her of being a sock puppet. I don't think there was any deliberate deception there on Ilena's part - just a fundamental lack of Misplaced Pages know-how. And thus Fyslee's antagonizing of Ilena begins. -- Levine2112 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sockpuppet accusations are unfounded. BLP, NPOV, and NPA warnings should have been given instead. --Ronz 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally. Though NPA? Was she attacking an editor personally? Mind you, this was before the subject of the article became an editor. But yes to BLP and NPOV. I think if Fyslee would have started out treating Ilena with a gentler hand, we might not be at this point here with the RfArb. -- Levine2112 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) is another --Ronz 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

True enough about not technically being a sock. She just kept switching around and I thought she was gaming the system. That was a long time ago!

As far as where we are now, you can thank her mentor. We all may have contributed in various ways, but it could have been stopped if she hadn't been protected and defended when she did wrong. It happened all too often, with chiding remarks all too few. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) is another --Ronz 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Various IPs from Costa Rica

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.14.198

16:55, 10 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stephen Barrett (→Two different matters) linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.12.109

20:37, 10 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stephen Barrett (→Two different matters) linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.12.235

23:12, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) The National Council Against Health Fraud (→Introduction)

23:10, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→Biography)

23:08, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→External links)

23:04, 6 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→External links) linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.14.167

16:47, 7 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→External links) linkspam

16:46, 7 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→Biography)

16:45, 7 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Stephen Barrett (→Platform for activism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/200.122.153.238

03:17, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→External links)

03:16, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings)

03:15, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings) link spam

03:14, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→California Supreme Court decision)

03:13, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→External links) link spam

03:12, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→California Supreme Court decision)

03:11, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings)

03:10, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal (→Lower court rulings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.13.172

16:02, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Barrett v. Rosenthal

196.40.14.47 Used in a comment on my blog (11.17.05 - 10:05 pm). I have removed the link spam she left then. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

She is definitely not a newbie anymore, yet she has a NOOB user box on her user page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing: Ilena has edited as:

• 196.40.14.198 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006
• 196.40.12.109 (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2006
• 196.40.12.235 (talk · contribs) on 6 July 2006
• 196.40.14.167 (talk · contribs) on 7 July 2006 (same date she started editing as Ilena)
• 200.122.153.238 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006 (an ip used by others at other times)
• 196.40.13.172 (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006

--Ronz 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz!

I have never denied the edits I have made before I created an account. Because of the recent research because of your accusations, I just today found out that Stephen Barrett edited as recently as last month (January, 2007), and that before Fyslee slid in and took over, he was posting linkspam after linkspam and attempting to change the history of various articles.

Before Barrett had an account

Stephen Barrett posting anonymously as recently as January, 2007

Barrett's edits --- then he left and Fyslee continued

Barrett had another bad day today, btw ... he just lost yet another motion! Ilena (chat) 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just found out that Geni (who first blocked me) posted absolutely false information about NCAHF and then blocked me for a week. Geni's lie:(the lisense expired it was not suspended.) In fact, NCAHF was suspended, not expired.

Barrett posting very skewed and biased information about his Appeals Court loss to me

Yes, the fact that Barrett edited as Sbinfo is noted at the very top of Talk:Stephen_Barrett in a position that will never be moved to the archives. Since this ArbCom is not about Barrett's behavior here on Misplaced Pages, I don't think it's relevant. --Ronz 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)