There is very much right ... and very much wrong with Wikipedia. I really like Jimbo Wales and his Vision ... what a huge and magnificent undertaking.


Right now there is a huge community crisis ... as a beloved high level arbitrator (I believe) named Essjay ... was asked to resign because he had faked an identity and pretended to be who he was not.

Jimbo Wales on how he had lived by his beliefs and Assumed Good Faith.

Read this from Wiki News on this topic.



Ilena on Wikipedia

March 3, 2007  (under construction)

return to Humantics Foundation Home     Go to Wiki Arb1



Willa "Nanaweedkiller" Nidiffer brought the issue to Usenet, posting fellow Rag-tag Posse Member, Paul Lee and his cronies one-sided version of what went on at Wiki. As can be expected, Paul Lee posted verbatim practically, the same losing arguments Stephen Barrett used in court ... with his typical weasel talk like:

Just because she libeled me, doesn't mean I have to sue her.

What nonsense. He wasn't libeled. He was outed as Barrett's Webring Master, publicist, Healthfraud List Assistant (which he hastily quit after 6 years when I showed up on Wiki)


I will be posting miscellaneous research about how the Barrett operations have seethed into Wikipedia ... the most egregious promoter of quackery there being Paul Lee, aka Fyslee.

Jimbo Wales and many other wonderful editors greeted me with the Wiki pricipal of Assume Good Faith.

This is something I did not have for a nanosecond on Wikipedia, being immediately attacked by the partner of 3 plaintiffs who had just lost to me in the Supreme Court of California ... Paul Lee with the help of Arthur Rubin and Ron Zeno.

I'm going to be expanding on my thoughts about Wiki here ... especially since the Propaganda Mills to fill the internet with every bad thing ever said to me on Wiki ... regardless of the facts.


I would like to invite webmasters and site owners to begin editing Wikipedia and SkepticWiki. There are many subjects for skeptics to get involved with, and we really need help. There are plenty of loons out there doing the editing right now, and far too few skeptics to keep them at bay.



Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Wikipedia keeps a very public history of *every* little edit, and you can't get them removed. We don't need any accusations of a conspiracy!

My User page at Wikipedia:

My "Talk" page ("discussion" tab) for any comments.

I keep an eye on users who keep editing articles to favor an unscientific POV. Likewise those who continually revert good edits in attempts at revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV.

One particular user dominates the Chiropractic article in this manner and needs to be watched:


Some of the subjects in my "watchlist":

Alternative medicine
Anomalous phenomenon
Anti-Quackery Wikipedians
Applied kinesiology
B. J. Palmer
Barbara Loe Fisher
Cold reading
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Complementary and alternative medicine Daniel David Palmer Doctor of Chiropractic Evidence-based medicine Harris Coulter Inedia Innate intelligence James Randi Kevin Trudeau Life University List of oxymora Magnet therapy Manipulation Marcello Truzzi Mass marketing Mucoid plaque National Anti-Vaccination League National Vaccine Information Center Orthomolecular medicine Oxymoron Placebo effect Pseudoscience Quackbusters Quackery Quackpotwatch Quackwatch SCAM Scientology Skepticism Spinal adjustment Stephen Barrett Subluxation The National Council Against Health Fraud Vertebral subluxation Viera Scheibner

Some of the Categories in my watchlist:

Category:Alternative medicine
Category:Alternative medicine stubs
Category:Anti-Quackery Wikipedians
Category:Physical Therapist Wikipedians Category:Physical Therapists Category:Physician Wikipedians Category:Pseudoscience Category:Quackery Category:Skeptical Wikipedians Category:Wikipedians by profession

I hope to see more skeptics in action!


Paul Lee

Skeptic Ring -
Anti-Quackery Ring -


BTW, Bolen isn't an "organization." The last time I checked, Jurimed wasn't registered. It's just him, his wife Jan, and his daughter Tangerine, working out of a mailbox a few miles from where he lives out in the hills. You can fly over his "house." During discovery his receipts and payments from Hulda Clark all got exposed. He's a paid spin doctor for one of the most dangerous quacks around, and you guys actually try to defend this guy? How can you look at yourselves in the mirror? -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Durova lies


am sorry, but I (as respectfully as possible), strongly disagree with almost every word of Durova's anonymous, subjective, and unilaterally punitive assessment of the situation. I admit a prejudice against masked people falsely accusing me of things and censoring me for minor crimes, and had attempted to distance myself. I will respond though, to her accusations, unfounded for the most part.
My experience is that she has chosen to been blind to the disruptive, aggressive, bullying and threatening behaviors of Fyslee.
She started a total fabrication that I made legal threats: Has she shown understanding for how we handle legal threats? If so, then consider the warning revoked. DurovaCharge 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What legal threats??????? She just made it up, and it feels like she did it to attempt to help frame me.
She, to my dismay, had made up her mind about me from her first appearance and turned the situation upside down.
It was not I, but Fyslee (and Arthur Rubin) continually claiming that I was "libeling" them. (Of interest, and why this arbitration is accurately called Barrett V Rosenthal, is because Barrett has been making this same claim and lost to me at every court level.) Fyslee continues with the false libel accusations here.
Fylsee, with Durova's help, has put false information about this case on Wikipedia, not I. To this day, they have provided not one word of potential libel that I have written about them. Here are just a few of the many examples of Fyslee's false libel claims against me. This archive has the whole obscene situation. Achive 3
I'm tired of her deceptive and libelous statements here at Wikipedia and on her websites, so now's the time to settle this
The only reasons I haven't already sued you for libel are that we don't do that here ...Fyslee
From the moment she showed up until her edit above, she has attempted to make Fyslee appear as my victim. She backed his whole Wikipedia:Privacy privacy fallacious arguments.
Her assessment that Fyslee's sudden and irrational demands for Wikipedia:Privacy was in any way possible analogous to this For example, we would do something like that if a child revealed their home address on the site. DurovaCharge! 21:36, 2 February 2007 is ludicrous, at minimum.
Fyslee, using his real name, has been promoting himself and promoting Barrett's "anti-quackery" agenda. He operates commercial websites, blogs, and webrings for years in in his own name and oft with Fyslee together. On Chirotalk, Fyslee and his real name were linked until the middle of this arbitraton. To compare my calling him by his name here, to exposing an innocent child's home address for the first time on Wikipedia, is illustrative of many of her subjective decisions.
I hope that the other Arbitrators will get a clue as to what is truly happening here. Thank you. Ilena (chat) 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Alan2012 removed by Fyslee

Fylsee found an excuse to remove Alan2012's Alan's deleted edit totally from this page. Why he couldn't put it in another place instead of deleting it entirely seems extremely aggressive, especially towards a newbie. Then, I found out that he posted on Alan's page, what seems to be a very heavy handed, and not so subtle threat. This is but a snippet: [3]You are more than welcome to make comments there. Keep in mind that your own conflict of interest will then be used against you, so think twice about what you write. If you treat me nice and assume good faith, I will do the same. I don't want to out you, since we need people of your stature and knowledge here. I realize that Fyslee will deny forever the fact that he too, has WP;COI issues as one of Barrett's publicists for years. He also conveniently failed to respond to any of Alan2012's questions which I will reinstate below.
To clarify, I hope: There is nothing of AGF failure in the statement that you function as a publicist for Barrett or QW. There's no "bad faith" in that; either you do, or you don't. There would only be bad faith if it were true, and you denied it. She presented quite a bit of evidence for what she said. Do you deny that what she is saying is true? You say that any affiliations you have with Barrett "are honorable". Fine. No one suggested dishonorability of your affiliations; what was stated was that you HAD THEM. Do you deny them? -- Alan2012 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Links Forbidden on Wikipedia

Barrett Vs Rosenthal detailing the facts around the California Supreme Court decision

  • Health Freedom Law (links to various Barret
  • American Council on Science and Health and Quackbusters
  • The Big Lie
  • QuackBusted
  • CHIRO: The Chiropractic Antitrust Suit
  • CHIRO: Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown
  • The Man Who Loves to Bust Quacks
  • CHIRO: Setting the Record Straight
  • CHRIO: What's Eating Stephen Barrett?
  • Evidence presented by Ilena

    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 (who I knew to be Paul Lee, web immediately 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.