Statement by Ilena for Arb
I've spent the last months taking Wiki 101. I fully understand now, that many would give me a failing grade. Others have privately and publicly expressed their support of who I am and what my intentions are on Wikipedia. One kind editor said it simply and truthfully, "She just wants to be heard."
For my apparent many errors and missteps, for those I sincerely apologize.
My intentions to edit with facts and verifiability have been my only goal at Wikipedia. I have utter respect for the collaborative process, have many varied interests, and fully believe that I can be a valuable editor. I have studied and have experience with SLAPP suits, public relations campaigns, mass_media, breast implants [16], Latin America, Civil Rights, [17], Women's Rights, and First Amendment Issues [18], bringing decades of advocacy and experience to aid my editing.
Much of what goes on in Public_relations was discussed brilliantly in one of my favorite Seinfeld's The_Opposite When it showed up again on Jon Stewart's Daily Show this week during my research for this Arbitration, I got a hearty laugh and a new love of Wikipedia ... and the amazing job they've undertaken to separate unbiased facts from disinformation and create this much sourced encyclopedia. I often feel that any interactions with Fyslee feels like being in that Seinfeld show, or the logic displayed in this brilliant satire I saw this morning [19]
I realize that it may appear to some that Fyslee is a more flexible kind of guy, ready to admit his mistakes, and I more brash and caustic. I can understand that and have every intention of softening my tone and being less reactive to what feels like censorship and lack of balance to me. I also fully believe that he frequently posts blatant and intentional disinformation, and only when challenged, will ever so graciously rescind the false information, apologize, and make it appear as an honest mistake and he one heck of a guy for admitting his error. False statements he has made around BvR and the still in progress, Barrett Vs Clark cases, could frequently go undetected. I came back to Wikipedia, in fact, when I was told that BvR on Wikipedia made it seem like Barrett lost only on a technicality, and I allowed no description whatsoever. The fact that I am head of a non profit foundation, have been a breast implant awareness advocate and activist for 11 years, a woman's health advocate for decades, been quoted in Wired Magazine, MyDNA, WebMD, Chemical & Engineering News, Glamour, US Magazine, Los Angeles Times, to name a few, mattered none.
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 Wikipedia. In fact, I found evidence that as recently as December, 2006, [4] on Wikipedia, 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. [5]
Here is just one of many links to his websites, as well as several of Barrett's on Wikipedia, posted by him. [6] Recently on his user page, he admits that he has used his own name and links on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 [7]
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 [8]. 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 Wikipedia entry Reply #12 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am he was soliciting others from the group to come onto Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, [9] 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 Wikipedia, 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 [10]. 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) [11] [12] —
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 [13]. [14]
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 Wikipedia to help him collaborate. This is but one example. [15] Please note the list of his affiliations advertised on this link, which he also advertises on Wikipedia. Here is a list (if it disappears too, I have the evidence in my files) [16] 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 Wikipedia.
Sampling of Disinformation intentionally posted by Fyslee
A. " ...The NCAHF is still registered in California." -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006(UTC)[17] In fact, NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 by the State of California. This falsity had been discussed (with this link) [18] 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.[19] When I first came back to Wikipedia 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..." [20]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [21] [22] and after careful consideration, the judge ruled in my favor and against Barrett in a 27 page decision. The industry backed front group[23] 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 Wikipedia).
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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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) [24]. 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 [25] 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,[[26]] 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 [27]
These are tiny examples that are repeated throughout Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.[28] 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia. 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. [[29]
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.[30][31] 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 [32], 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 Wikipedia, has publicized that I am "the laughing stock of the internet." This is repeated on Usenet on the attack website that Fyslee posted on Wikipedia, 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 [33] 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. [34] I have discussed the many reasons I won here [35]. 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." [36].
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.[37]
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 [38] 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 Wikipedia and am not a single purpose editor as he claims.
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?
[Entire GigiButterfly history ... All edits add Barrett links and eliminate valid criticism or both]
[Removed valid criticism against Barrett]
[Added several links to Barrett operation (chirobase)]
[Added more links to Barrett's suspended NCAHF.org]
[Removed still valid POV tag claiming "no purpose for this article has my blessing now" ... and then fluttered away].
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. |
