User talk:Ilena

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Ilena/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

,

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

No worries

Hey Ilena, I'm happy to hear that you feel you're figuring things out and that you're happy with the archiving. Please don't hesitate to drop by my talk page if you ever need to a hand with anything. Pura Vida :) Sarah 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy

Your work is advocacy. In your work here that is what you have done. That is great on your own website, but inappropriate here. Fred Bauder 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request by User:Ilena to look at broader picture ... Am I the only "advocate" here?

Some burning questions and explanations of my experience here.

Barrett has, as recently as January, 2007, edited here himself, despite several comments to the contrary. It has been said that I brought this "conflict" to Wikipedia. In fact, I attempted to correct verified false information being posted by Barrett himself (immediately followed by Fyslee and other anonymous posters on various pages) regarding the case he lost to me. I carefully sourced my edits with links to the court decisions.

Please consider that are probably several of the anonymous editors, with undisclosed large WP:COI, who delete criticism and post PRO-Barrett commercial links throughout Wikipedia, while keeping their identities hidden.

Please note the first diff below where Barrett was editing and adding link after link to his commerical sites. He then became invisible and Fyslee immediately appeared and made sure that his vanity links remained, as well as adding more. Please consider that indeed, this is a role of a publicist.

Despite accusations, I have never denied that I edited before I created my account, nor denied any edit I have made, nor posted anonymously nor attempted to be anything or anyone but who I am: a woman's health activist and advocate. Because I have been open about my identity, I feel I am now being punished and perhaps banned.

Is Fyslee not an advocate for those he claims are harmed by quackery and chiropractors?

Is Barrett not an advocate for the same, with his vast empire of "anti-quackery" books and lectures and courses and non-profits soliciting donations and people harmed by what he calls quackery?

Please further consider that Barrett's many commerical websites that are linked throughout Wikipedia are inappropriate as WP:RS. They are websites self published by Barrett, which sell books for a company, for which he, himself is the "medical editor." [1].

Every day, I watch Fyslee and others with a pro-Barrett POV removing links to those they criticize claiming that they are "commercial" or "promotional" while adding link after link after link to Barrett's sites, selling their "anti-quackery" viewpoints. How is this neutral or fair and balanced? Is this really the Wiki way?

Barrett was described in a losing court decision as being a "zealous advocate" for NCAHF NCAHF loses to King Bio]. He is given hundreds of links on Wikipedia, and I not allowed even one. In my winning Supreme Court decision article Barrett_v._Rosenthal, his editors have not allowed even a comment of who I am. Is this neutral or fair?

Could the anonymous pro-Barrett editors not be his own family members and team [2] with a decided, but unverifiable WP:COI since they are hiding behind aliases?

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

Before Barrett had an account

Stephen Barrett posting anonymously as recently as January, 2007

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

I respectfully request that the fact is carefully considered that Barrett described himself in Time Magazine, "today, I am the media." Is media not about public_relations and propaganda?

I believe that the Wiki definition fits precisely: Media: an industry communicating through different media

There are various anonymous single_purpose_posters on Wiki such as GigiButterfly whose only edits were to erase negative links and post PRO-Barrett POV and links.

A few have posted false and misleading information as to the NCAHF and their suspended status and laws regarding non profit status. The archives clearly show the amount of distraction and attempts at creating reasonable doubt about this topic, that they collectively managed to keep off of Wikipedia for over 6 months. I do apologize for any uncivil behavior on my part during these heated discussions. You could understand, however, the enormous amount of disinformation I corrected and sourced time after time after time to be told I was "attacking" and it was all POV and not relevant nor notable. For a self named "consumer advocate" and one who scrutinizes and criticizes other non profits to the degree NCAHF, Inc. does, it is certainly a relevant notable fact if they are operating with no state license. Fyslee promised repeatedly to prove their legal status, and instead repeated this serious disinformation as recently as December:

...The NCAHF is still registered in California. -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006

In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This has been discussed (with this link) [3] for over 6 months. One anonymous editor made several totally false and unverified statements about state licensure. you ignore the fact that you don't need to be incorporated to claim non-profit status. Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006

He also made this unproven and unprovable claim: Since NCAHF can legally operate and collect donations and advertising without a "legal corporate status" ...Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006.

I have never seen any evidence that these are true statements and believe them to not be true. I have much experience with non profits. I believe he is deliberately posting misleading and unfactual information. I further now believe, that he is a very close blood relative of Stephen Barrett's, with obvious and glaring serious WP:COI issues. Keeping negative information out of articles about Barrett's operations has been one of his prime purposes on Wiki.

If so, banning me and allowing him free editing seems unbalanced and unfair. I was blocked once for changing a subject header. He is welcomed and supported and makes jokes at my expense, however, after editing in intentional disinformation. Under this user name, he seems to be practically single purpose, with a huge amount of Barrett and Quackwatch related edits. Single purpose? His edits appear to be to advocate for Barrett and to attempt to keep off any criticism and negative facts about him off of Wiki.

What if we are correct, and it is indeed Barrett's family member "just passing through" without any scrutiny whatsoever, while commenting frequently about what he claims is my WP:COI? [4] [5] [6]

I too feel that I was never given a chance on Wikipedia.

From the day (July 7, 2006) I began editing facts and correcting falsities against Barrett himself (unbeknownst to me), Fyslee mmediately proved that WP:AGF was not even an option as you can see from my talk page and their prominent immediate warnings and threats. [[7]].

I would love to have the opportunity to add to my growing watch list and edit other articles, as I bring a wide and broad experience of many aspects of life that interest me. Please do not judge and ban me without considering the vast amount of pressure and antagonism put on me by Barrett's editors here from the moment I appeared.

Thank you.

Godspeed Ilena

Ilena, I do wish you all the luck in the world. I know you will be fine no matter what happens in this virtual world. Please do take care of yourself and play nice;) Love Ya. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll be missed, Dematt. --Ronz 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diff that I claimed you were Barrett

Many places around Wiki you have claimed that I once "accused" you of being Barrett. I do not know who you are and do not believe you are Barrett. People who hide their identities and attack others may find that their own identities then come into question. I have not been able to find this "accusation." Please either provide the diff or retract your accusation. I checked this log [8] where you and others were working diligently to keep off the verified fact of NCAHF's suspension, and it's not there. I await your diff. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your request from my Talk page because I found it uncivil and assuming bad faith given that you deleted without response my request for you to address the very situation from here on your own Talk page. I've been debating with bring it up as evidence in the ArbCom. I'm not sure if it's necessary. I'd much rather put my time into providing evidence to back my Request to consider the environment of the sites in question. --Ronz 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take your speedy removal of my valid and honest honest to be an admission that you made up your accusation and it was meant as distraction and attack. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll submit it as Evidence, as well as this exchange about it, to your ArbCom. First I would like an apology from you for assuming bad faith on my part, and that you refactor your talk page above to reflect that. If you don't mind, I'll strike out the thing you said that I think you should refactor, but only after you allow me to do so. --Ronz 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)