Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.


In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Bishonen warned Ferrylodge about "harassment" at the talk page of KillerChihuahua (hereafter "KC").[1] This occurred at 02:16 on 28 May 2007, at which time Bishonen told Ferrylodge to leave KC’s talk page immediately, although KC had not requested that Ferrylodge leave. At that time, KC and Ferrylodge were arguing at KC's talk page about whether Ferrylodge had made bad faith edits at a particular article (i.e. the RCOG article).
Following Bishonen's harassment warning, Ferrylodge posted briefly at KC's talk page, including a statement that he was leaving, while also linking to further discussion of Bishonen's harassment charge.[2] When that statement by Ferrylodge was deleted by KC,[3] Ferrylodge posted a brief denial of the harassment charge: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." Bishonen immediately blocked Ferrylodge for 24 hours, and Ferrylodge's unblock request was denied by Sandstein, who said that the block was for disengaging and cooling down the controversy, rather than for harassment.[4] The elements of this dispute are therefore as follows.
First, Bishonen's entry in Ferrylodge's block log is disputed. The block log entry is disputed on the grounds that the block itself was improper. And, even assuming arguendo that the block was proper (e.g. for violating a command from an administrator to cease posting), that block should not be characterized in the block log as being for harassment, because no harassment occurred.
Second, the propriety of Bishonen's harassment warning is disputed. That warning is disputed because nothing like "harassment" occurred at KillerChihuahua's (KC's) talk page leading up to Bishonen's warning at 02:16 on 28 May 2007. And, even assuming arguendo that harassment had occurred, the harassment warning unreasonably forbade Ferrylodge from even posting at KC's talk page a brief apology, or a brief denial, or a link to an apology or denial.
Third, the propriety of Bishonen's block is disputed. The block is disputed because the prior harassment warning had been improper, and also because no "harassment" occurred between the block warning and the block. Bishonen's block is additionally disputed because, after an unblock request was submitted by Ferrylodge, the block was allowed for purposes of disengaging Ferrylodge from the dispute that Ferrylodge was having with KC, whereas Wikipedia does not allow such "cool-down" blocks.
Fourth, to the extent that the argument at KC's talk page between KC and Ferrylodge regarding the RCOG article may be relevant here, there had been no edit-warring or bad faith or original research or disruption by Ferrylodge at the RCOG article. To the extent that Bishonen's actions here may have been based on an assumption that KC's accusations against Ferrylodge were correct, that assumption by Bishonen is disputed.06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Desired Outcome

The primary desired outcome is that the block log of Ferrylodge should be supplemented in order to preferably acknowledge that Ferrylodge is not guilty of harassment, or at the very least to acknowledge that no judgment is being made in that regard. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block."
If nothing else, the block log of Ferrylodge should be supplemented in order to acknowledge that the block was deemed appropriate (by Sandstein) for purposes of disengagement, and not because Ferrylodge's final message before the block amounted to harassment.[5]
An additional desired outcome is whatever further or alternative action would be appropriate in response to Bishonen's misleading entry in Ferrylodge's block log, and/or Bishonen's unjustified warning of harassment at 02:16 on 28 May 2007, and/or Bishonen’s unjustified block of Ferrylodge, and/or Bishonen's unjustified assumption that KC's accusations against Ferrylodge were correct (those accusations by KC included edit-warring and bad faith and original research and disruption but did not include harassment).06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Description

The "harassment" warning and block threat by Bishonen occurred at 02:16 on 28 May 2007.[6] By that time, Ferrylodge had not done anything particularly offensive to KC. In the course of substantively discussing edits in the RCOG article, Ferrylodge said that KC lacked objectivity, that she conspicuously omitted diffs to support her position, and that she was guilty of what she accused Ferrylodge of (e.g. disruption). Nothing Ferrylodge did prior to the warning at 02:16 on 28 May 2007 anticipates that warning. KC had never asked Ferrylodge to leave her talk page, much less suggested that Ferrylodge was harassing her. Bishonen showed up suddenly and made that harassment accusation.
Ferrylodge and KC were both impolite to each other at KC's talk page. The worst example that anyone has cited of Ferrylodge's alleged “harassment” of KC prior to Bishonen’s warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007 was when Ferrylodge said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again.” KC had accused Ferrylodge of disruption as well as bad faith and edit-warring.[7] So even assuming that Ferrylodge had made bad edits at the RCOG article, there was no particualrly offensive conduct by Ferrylodge at KC’s talk page leading up to Bishonen’s warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007. And in fact there are legitimate arguments in favor of the edits by Ferrylodge at the RCOG article (see this archived comment which is hereby incorporated by reference in case the propriety of the edits by Ferrylodge at the RCOG article is deemed relevant).
The subsequent block for harassment occurred immediately after Ferrylodge posted the following denial of Bishonen's harassment warning, at KC's talk page: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." Even assuming arguendo that this statement amounted to defying an order from an administrator and warranted a block, there is a separate issue about whether this mild statement is accurately described in Ferrylodge's block log as "harassment".
Ferrylodge's unblock request was rejected by Sandstein, and Sandstein agreed with Ferrylodge that the block was “not appropriate" for the final message that Ferrylodge left at KC’s talk page before the block, but was appropriate “for the purpose of disengaging” Ferrylodge from the dispute that Ferrylodge was having with KC.[8] However, Ferrylodge's block log does not reflect that the block was for purposes of disengagement rather than for harassment. Ferrylodge's block log now brands him as a "harasser".[9]
Here is what happened after Bishonen’s harassment warning at 02:16 on 28 May 2007. Ferrylodge posted the following message at KC’s talk page: “I most certainly am done here.” This was in response to KC having just said “I’m done,”, and Bishonen having just said “you’re done”. Four minutes after posting those six words, Ferrylodge inserted a link, enabling people reading Bishonen’s accusation at KC’s talk page to access Ferrylodge's denial. Ferrylodge's denial at Bishonen's talk page included some harsh words about KC, but the history of events involving the RCOG article described in this archived comment, as well as the accusations of bad faith and disruption that KC had already made against Ferrylodge, provide context for those harsh words that Ferrylodge used at Bishonen's talk page in reponse to Bishonen's harassment accusation. This entire situation should not be viewed in a vacuum; KC has previously criticized Ferrylodge for "generally acting like a dick," and for "bitching," and for much else.[10][11]
In any event, KC subsequently deleted both the link and the six words that Ferrylodge had posted at her talk page after the harassment warning.[12] Then, Ferrylodge posted what was meant to be his last message at KC’s talk page: “I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment.” This denial by Ferrylodge of the very serious charge of harassment is now itself characterized in Ferrylodge's block log as harassment. 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Powers Misused

Blocking Ferrylodge.06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Applicable policies

Blocking policy says that blocking may be used in situations addressed by "more specific policies dealing with particular issues." In this case, the reason cited by Bishonen was "harassment," and therefore it appears that the Wikipedia policy on harassment is applicable as part of the blocking policy. In particular, Bishonen has cited "user space harassment,"[13] which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:
"Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.
"A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space." [14]
Bishonen has exceeded her powers here, because Ferrylodge did not engage in this or any other kind of harassment. Bishonen has been ambiguous about which features of user space harassment she believes that Ferrylodge engaged in. At KC's talk page, Ferrylodge made no warnings, placed no sockpuppets or similar tags, and inserted no displays. KC and Ferrylodge were both annoying to each other, but that does not constitute user space harassment, since KC was not so annoyed as to ask Ferrylodge to leave (or so annoyed as to accuse Ferrylodge of harassment). There was no edit-warring at KC's page. Ferrylodge was blocked immediately after making an explicit denial of harassment (which he had never before done at KC's talk page), and immediately after making a request of KC which he had never previously made of KC, and which KC granted: "Please do not delete this comment."[15] Bishonen has punished Ferrylodge for writing the barest denial of Bishonen's harassment warning at KC's talk page, and thus Bishonen has effectively punished Ferrylodge for seeking to prevent KC's talk page from being used by Bishonen as a wall of shame to display an unrebutted accusation against Ferrylodge.
Blocking policy says to give users a reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour. In this case, the block was imposed immediately after Ferrylodge wrote the following: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." It was not reasonable to deny Ferrylodge an opportunity to make good on this statement. In other words, it was not reasonable to assume Ferrylodge was lying here.
Blocking Policy prohibits cool-down blocks. That is how this block was described by Sandstein in response to Ferrylodge's unblock request.[16] Therefore, the block was improper.
Blocking policy indicates that acknowledgments of errors should be inserted into a block log. That has not been done here.06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

There were initial attempts by Ferrylodge to find a resolution or compromise at the talk page of Bishonen, and then at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Further attempts to find a resolution or compromise occurred at the talk page of Bishonen, where LCP posted a single comment. In response to that single comment, the subject of the RfC said: "I'd appreciate it if ... LCP didn't post on my page anymore,"[17] instead waiving "all further requirement" for an RfC.13:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Ferrylodge 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LCP 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua on her page,[18] [19] [20] and I warned him against posting there again.[21] He replied with a sarcastic thank-you on my page, expressing pleasure in being spared, through my warning, "the agony" of dealing with her "blatantly false and malicious accusations" anymore.[22] I replied lightly.[23] There was apparently something unsatisfactory about that, because he then posted on her page, to say there also that he was "done".[24] It seemed a bit repetitious, but I ignored it. Then he posted on KC's page again, this time linking his previous innocent-looking message to the attack on her that he had just made on my page.[25] Call me soft, but I ignored that as well. I hoped he was running down. He wasn't. A little later, he posted on KC's page again, for the third time since my warning, repeating yet again that he was done, and introducing (rather belatedly, you may say) what has since become his main theme, a protest against my use of the term "harassment."[26] Three posts—no signs of running down. I blocked. Not for his final message, but for the cumulative effect of his messages on KC's page, and most especially for posting to that page three times after being warned.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Frivolous RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bladestorm 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FL should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous and unsupported RfC. Orangemarlin 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lsi john 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Addhoc 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It appears that Bishonen acted appropriately, which given her past record of quality service as an administrator does not surprise me. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seems, if anything, a generous description of events. Jkelly 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As a frequent lurker on Bishonen's page, I agree with this. --SGT Tex 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. El_C 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Severa (!!!) 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Andrew c 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Geogre 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. •Jim62sch• 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC) As others have said, frivolous.[reply]
  16. --MONGO 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Riana ⁂ 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. This RfC is a frivolous and ridiculous waste of time. Bish has my full support. Sarah 09:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. —Gaff ταλκ 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. These accusations have no merit. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MONGO

This is a frivilous Rfc. Ferrylodge was blocked for harassment...was nothing learned here?

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --MONGO 08:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --(Can I support this statement before it's 'accepted'? If so, I do) Bladestorm 09:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. El_C 09:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Orangemarlin 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Lsi john agree, this is frivolous. 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JoshuaZ 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Addhoc 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jkelly 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sandstein 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Geogre 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Indeed, and isn't this RFC exactly the sort of "I will worry you to death" approach that caused the problem to begin with?[reply]
  13. Agreed. Smee 20:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  14. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Guettarda 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sarah 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. —Gaff ταλκ 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Phaedriel

The wikilawyering and endless arguments that the creator of this RfC has exhibited at a multitude of places, including KillerChihuahua and Bishonen's talk pages, his own, and AN/I, although being offered repeated explanations and AGFy attempts to calm down and take perspective, looks simply vindictive and autist at this point. I'll just limit myself to copy here a succinct list of the facts compiled by Lsi john in a last attempt to make him understand exactly why his attitude led to a block, and why it construed harassment.

00:23 May 28, Rude post by Ferrylodge on KC's page, declaring that KC does not have an ounce of objectivity. here
01:10 May 28, Rude post by Ferrylodge on KC's page, classifying Killerchihuahua's editing as conspicious (def: marked by a noticable violation of good taste). here
01:46 May 28, Rude post saying dealing with Killerchihuahua's editing is a waste of time and categorizing Killerchihuahua's editing as disruptive. here
Note: all of the prior conversations belonged in the article talkpage, not on KC's talkpage.
02:16 May 28, Bishonen warns Ferrylodge (on Killerchihuahua's talkpage) not to post there again, and clearly indicates a block will follow if the warning is ignored. here
02:21 May 28, Bishonen also warns Ferrylodge on his talkpage: here
02:24 May 28, Ferrylodge responds to Bishonen with impolite sarcasm on Bishonen's page. here
02:25 May 28, Ferrylodge makes same reply on his talkpage. here
02:32 May 28, Ferrylodge ignores Bishonen's warning, and posts on KillerChihuahua's page: here
02:36 May 28, Ferrylodge 'updates' his edit. here
03:08 May 28, KillerChihuahua deletes Ferrylodge's post. here
04:08, May 28, Ferrylodge again posts on Killerchihuahua's page. here
04:13, May 28, Bishonen blocks Ferrylodge after he posted two three times, following the warning to stop. It appears the block-comment is correct. blocklog
04:23, May 28, Ferrylodge deletes Bishonen's warning from his talkpage: here

To my knowledge, Bishonen has never addressed the specific content of any of Ferrylodge's posts. The block was done, after a warning had been ignored twice three times. The block text states the reason Repeated harassment posting on User talk:KillerChihuahua after warning, and does not cite the specifics of Ferrylodge's final post. It was the fact that he posted, not what he posted, that resulted in the violation. (...) The fact is, he ignored Bishonen's direct warning twice thrice, and continued posting to KC's page. The contents of his posts are totally irrelevant, as he was very clearly told to stop. Lsi john 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes, all these facts give substance to Bishonen's interpretation of events. The persistence with a behavior he was clearly warned to discontinue, repeatedly posting even when informed that he was not welcome to do so, and doing so in a rude manner to boot, are motives more than enough to warrant a block in order to defuse the situation. Needless to say that his insistence to seek responsibilities has proven said block to be ineffective, but that's another story.
A last few words regarding a fact that has not been mentioned yet: Bishonen is also aware that KillerChihuahua is going through delicate personal moments, and is facing several health problems. The last thing she needed was the neverending stress created by this editor, and I personally believe the block was also destined to protect her in that sense - but only resorted to it after warning many times.
In conclusion: I believe the stress Mr. Ferrylodge has caused has been great enough to warrant the legitimacy of the short block he was subject to. Whether he has the ability to learn from it, only time will tell - but the fact that he has now resorted to this makes me be pessimist about it.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Phaedriel - 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. El_C 09:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --MONGO 10:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Orangemarlin 12:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -Lsi john 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -(put very well!) Bladestorm 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JoshuaZ 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Addhoc 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jkelly 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --SGT Tex 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sandstein 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Severa (!!!) 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Andrew c 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Geogre 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. •Jim62sch• 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Guettarda 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Riana ⁂ 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sarah 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. —Gaff ταλκ 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. If a Bishonen RFC is necessary, this certainly isn't it. Ral315 » 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Orangemarlin

Cupcakes!
Something desi~! Something hawt! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... poutine...
Lollipops! Miranda
Chocolate cake is best
Chicken for Bishzilla. Miranda

Following a tradition begun by Sean Black (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen#Outside view by Sean Black), the correct response to a ridiculous Rfc on Bishonen is to thank her for her hard work as an administrator and award her cupcakes!

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Orangemarlin 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lsi john 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes! Plus a nummers canadian treat as well! Bladestorm 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Addhoc 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jkelly 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yummy! --SGT Tex 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am hungry now... Sandstein 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The cupcakes embody the semiotic relationship between the is and the is not latent in the imagination of the viewer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Chocolate cake (I ate the missing piece...just to make sure it tastes alright) should do. Geogre 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Guettarda 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Save one for the 'zilla! >Radiant< 11:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mmmm...chocolate, please! Sarah 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm down with that! —Gaff ταλκ 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse on the proviso the cupcakes come with lashings of cream and lemonade.--Alf melmac 10:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. per Bunchofgrapes, not to mention the tension between Self and Other inspired by the confluence of "cup" and "cake." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside/Involved view by Lsi john

Ferrylodge

I was involved (for a brief time) in attempting to help resolve this dispute. I first noticed it when Ferrylodge posted a somewhat incoherent (and lengthy) post on Bishonen's talkpage. After three readings and clarification from Bishonen, I concluded that Ferrylodge was putting the cart before the horse.

I asked him what outcome he hoped to accomplish and he indicated that he had not considered an outcome, only mediation. I advised Ferrylodge to cool off, and pointed out that he had gone straight to a mediation solution, without making any specific demands/requests. He then went straight to Bishonen's page, misquoted me, and made wiki-lawyer demands that appeared to be designed to obtain a negative result.

I then concluded that Ferrylodge was not interested in resolution, but, instead was only interested in laying the groundwork for arbitration and RfC, and I broke off my attempts to help mediate.

In my opinion, Ferrylodge made no serious attempt at resolution before jumping straight to AN/I and now RfC, and therefore the 'above' evidence of attempted resolution is faulty and disingenuous at best.

I do not believe that Ferrylodge's final posts on KillerChihuahua's page were intended to be harassment, but, rather, were an extreme adverse reaction to having his name associated with harassment. However, his initial posts were inappropriate and were harassing, and his final posts (regardless of their content) were harassment, by definition of the warnings he had been given.

My experience of Ferrylodge in this situation was not one of compromise and community, but was one of self and ego. Ferrylodge has shown no remorse for posting harsh and disrespectful comments on KillerChihuahua's page and has shown no concern for how those words might have affected KillerChihuahua.

I suspect that an apology (instead of his outright denial) would have been accepted, and could have prevented this entire situation.

Ferrylodge, this is not about whether your posts were harassment. It is about whether your posts were perceived as harassment. They were, you were told, and you continued posting denials. As members of a community, if we are mis-interpreted, it is our responsibility to apologize for the misunderstanding, not deny the charges.

I strongly encourage Ferrylodge to reflect on all the feedback being given in this RfC, and use it to become a great wiki editor.

Bishonen

My experience of Bishonen has been one of extreme patience and tolerance with what I would call a tenatious and verbose editor.

In all my dealings with Bishonen, she has shown herself to be even handed, fair, patient and tollerent.

In my opinion, Bishonen is an excellent example of good admin.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Lsi john 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Bladestorm 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Not sure what else to say in all of this, but this RfC is a waste of time. Bishonen has been nothing but exemplary in everything I've ever observed. FL on the other hand.... Orangemarlin 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jkelly 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Andrew c 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Good thing computer memory is much cheaper than it used to be, because we've sure wasted a lot of bytes due to Ferrylodge's disruptive actions.[reply]
  7. Guettarda 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MONGO thinks Bishonen is an excellent example of an excellent admin.--MONGO 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside view by Orangemarlin

Based on all of the evidence prepared, especially the comments by Phaedriel, which outline a pattern of attempted resolution by Bishonen and KC, but still lead to continued harassment by Ferrylodge of administrators, I would support significant community action against Ferrylodge, which must include an apology from Ferrylodge to continue editing this project. Otherwise, the action should lead to a sanction. Frivolous RfC's like this must be dealt with firmly. In the real world, when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, it can lead to any number of actions against the attorneys and the plaintiffs, including fines, disbarment, and other more or less severe punishment. This RfC was a waste of time, because there wasn't even evidence that might have been slightly in Ferrylodge's favor. I didn't even know of Bishonen until this RfC was brought to my attention, and I checked her out. Bishonen is an exemplary individual, a credit to this project. KillerChihuahua is the same. These two individuals make me proud to be a part of Wikipedia, and Ferrylodge has shown nothing but contempt for the rules, the process, and the project. If we allow every silly complaint to be filed, the project is going to bog down eventually. We need to put a stop to frivolous RfC's and other administrative actions by reprimanding or sanctioning those who abuse the project in this manner.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Orangemarlin 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not just because bish and KC are good editors, but because RfC is supposed to be used to solve problems, not be a tool for causing more. Bladestorm 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Somewhat support. I agree that Ferrylodge owes several apologies. Any serious consequences will be a direct result of his future actions. The process allowed for this RfC, that is not Ferrylodge's fault. Lsi john 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guettarda 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maybe retitle this one to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferrylodge?--MONGO 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This RfC appears to be at best frivolous, but probably better characterised as a continutation of the pattern of unfortunate behavior that led to the block in the first place. —Gaff ταλκ 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Geogre

This is merely meant to be my view. Assessments of Bishonen's actions are already well attested, above. There is no need to heap scorn on user:Ferrylodge, but he was blocked for, basically, being so energized by his desire to ensure exactly his view was reflected in an article that he kept worrying at the users who disagreed. The passion is admirable, but the behavior was doomed and dooming. By trying to assure at "Right Version" of the article, he or she was missing the nature of a wiki. My suspicion, given the subject of the edit warring, is that outside political convictions were being ported over to Wikipedia and informing his tenacity. That is not what we are here for. We will never take a position upon, much less settle, abortion debates, euthanasia debates, capital punishment arguments, or personal armament issues, and it is foolhardy or naive to try to "win" on any of these. Ferrylodge took his or her complaints to WP:AN/I, and there reiterated not the unfairness of the block in terms of policy, but the rightness of the edit state he or she wished. Excusing behavior by appealing to the ultimate Truth and virtue of the cause simply can't help. I am quite sure that the user feels aggrieved, and I am sure no one enjoys that, no one wishes it, and no one wants it to continue, but the block's validity is only endorsed by these actions, because the block was designed to allow for peaceful editing, not victory, and I hope the user can realize that Bishonen was not taking a position on his issues, just his behavior, and that we who sign to endorse her likewise are not against, and certainly not for, any position in his campaign, but we will absolutely insist that others be allowed to edit without disruption and wars of attrition. Geogre 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andrew c 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lsi john 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guettarda 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --MONGO 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Severa (!!!) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Is this piling on? Orangemarlin 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fair enough, though I frown at Bish for using the "H" word. Accusing people of harassment, even when the accusation is justified, isn't good for much. Being coldly and officially polite works better. Zocky | picture popups 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I could not have said it better than GeogreJimmuldrow 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat involved view by Severa

This incident is the tip of an iceberg that is six months deep. Ferrylodge has been making tendentious edits throughout abortion-related articles since late December 2006, when he showed up at Abortion for the first time.[27] Since then, Ferrylodge has expanded his involvement to general pregnancy-related articles, including Stillbirth, where he attempted to have the term "stillbirth" redefined to include miscarriages as early as 8 weeks.[28] At Talk:Pregnancy, he advocated the inclusion of an image which he had earlier failed to gain consensus for at Talk:Fetus, and, when 3 editors (myself included) agreed this image was no more appropriate at Pregnancy than it was at Fetus, [29][30][31] he responded by suggesting that a series of perfectly neutral, if somewhat simplistic, anatomical drawings of pregnant women be removed from the article, describing them as "pro-choice." [32] Five minutes after making this suggestion, he went ahead and removed the anatomical drawings from the article,[33] and did so three more times, after they were restored by myself and another user, Gillyweed. [34][35][36] He then tried to have the images deleted on Commons.[37]

My point, besides trying to add a little context to this RfC, is that in all of my interaction with Ferrylodge, I never once recall running into Bishonen. A number of editors have been left rather careworn by Ferrylodge's conduct on Wikipedia (myself included), [38][39][40] but, so far as I know, Bishonen hadn't crossed paths with Ferrylodge, or been involved in a dispute with him, until the incident on KC's talk page. Thus, I don't think it can be claimed that Bishonen misapplied her abilities as an administrator by enacting a block on Ferrylodge, because she was not involved in a content dispute with him at the time (see Blocking policy#Disputes). Nor was this a "cool-down block." Whether it was inappropriate for Bishonen to intercede at KC's talk page, the posts Ferrylodge made on both KC's and Bishonen's talk pages subsequent to the warning were hardly constructive, and served little more than to have the last word after being told not to post there again. There are a thousand things Ferrylodge could have said which might have justified posting again after being requested to stop, if the intent was toward dispute resolution, but statements like "I most certainly am done here" and "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her..." seem more like simple nose-thumbing than reasoned attempts to state his case. Regardless of whether Ferrylodge was harassing KC before being warned by Bishonen, he most certainly was afterward, so the charge stands, even if it was ultimately self-fulfilling. Being accused of something, even unreasonably, doesn't given an editor license toward such incivility.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Severa (!!!) 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Can we close this now? It's been a farce from the beginning.

  1. --MONGO 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support closing. Sarah 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Draw the curtain, the farce is ended." (Rabelais) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I second that motion? It's been nothing but a stream of insults.

  1. --Ferrylodge 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've unlisted the page because there's really little else to say. I'll leave it to Bishonen whether she wants it kept or deleted. >Radiant< 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And thank you very much everybody for the food and other input. My own preference is to keep and archive this RFC, but I choose to leave that decision to Ferrylodge. If he requests that it be deleted, I ask that an admin comply. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Archiving would be fine. For the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment.Ferrylodge 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen_2&oldid=1221636976"