Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 5 June 2007

"However, Ferrylodge's block log does not reflect that the block was for purposes of disengagement rather than for harassment." -Perhaps because simple disengagement wasn't the purpose of the block? Just because a different admin thinks that would've been a better reason, that doesn't mean that the original reason somehow changes. But maybe you can explain something.
If you:

1. Are told to stop posting on a page; because it is considered harassment.
2. Do so anyways.
3. Do so again.
4. See that the owner of the talk page deleted your comments (thus proving that your comments weren't welcome, and that they were trying to not engage you)
5. Do so again.

How can you possibly expect it to be treated as anything but harassment? It wouldn't matter if you were simply trying to say that "bunnies are cute". "They really are!" "Seriously, bunnies are cute! Stop removing this!" It's still harassment, n'est-ce pas? And that's a serious question, what else could it be? And, for that matter, how could a person get you to stop posting on their talk page? An admin telling you to stop doesn't do it. The owner of the talk page deleting your comments, refusing to engage you doesn't work. Short of asking for their talk page to be fully protected, what could they do?
For that matter, shouldn't "dispute resolution" have been started before you started spamming KC's talk page with material you knew was unwanted? If you really felt it wasn't harassment, perhaps you should have worked that out before continuing? Instead of just continuing as much as you wanted, and then complaining about it after the fact? I fail to see how constantly asserting that Bish made a mistake qualifies as "dispute resolution", especially when the closest you ever got to actual legitimate discussion with her was when you were (for some reason) asking her for advice on how to file a case against her? (And then later asking if she'd second a case against herself)
Hmm, I seem to have rambled a bit. In case it's hard to wade through, the outstanding questions are: "If you continue posting on a talk page after being told to stop, and after seeing that your previous comments were removed by the owner of the talk page, and thus entirely unwanted, how can continuing to post there be considered anything but harassment?", "If being told by an admin to stop doesn't make you stop, and the owner of the talk page removing your comments but refusing to engage with you doesn't make you stop, what would make you stop posting in someone's talk page, short of having the entire thing protected?", and, "Shouldn't you have tried to work out the harassment claim before continuing with the conduct you were being warned for? And, have you actually tried any real dispute resolution, beyond accusing Bish of having made a mistake?" Bladestorm 09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge asked for my support in this matter, and the reason I have decided to support him is that I think he has a right to due process. While it is fair to address his behavior after the block warning was given, all that matters--in this case--is what preceded the block warning. The other stuff is another issue and should be dealt with elsewhere. The reason I support due process is that--as excellent as she may be at other things on Misplaced Pages--I wonder if Bishonen (aka “Bishzilla”) doesn’t have a tendency to jump the gun. For example, to date I have left only one, brief comment on Bishonen’s Talk page ("Request_for_action_regarding_Ferrylodge_account"), and yet she warned me off of leaving any others--because several OTHER people had written at length. In other words, her warning to me was unwarranted--especially since, even including her Talk page, I have logged very, very little text in this conversation. I also wonder if it seems odd to anyone else that a user who blatantly vandalizes a page would receive only a warning and yet, in this case, someone who was earnestly trying to improve an article was warned off, blocked, and permanently labeled for being in a conversation that, at worst, could be characterized only as mildly sarcastic. Now, I want to be clear, I am not saying that Bishonen is bad or evil or bad-intentioned. I am interested in Ferrylodge getting due process to determine if Bishonen acted prematurely. And that is the central question in this conversation.LCP 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(Break)

Added a section break. Not because it needs it, but just because it's easier to have a little edit button, than having to edit the whole page.
Anyways, I feel it necessary to make a few things clear:

1. This is not a court of law. "Due process" is taking things a bit far.

   Reply to LCP: It isn't a court of law, and my point was that referring to "due process" implied some sort of trial. It's an exaggeration. The name of the game is 'dispute resolution'. It really didn't need to be so adversarial. Incidentally, he already got a review in AN/I. And trust me, I've seen quite a few blocks overturned if they were deemed questionable. But my comment was about your choice of nomenclature. Again, it entirely misses the point of the process.

2. In 'certifying' the RfC, you aren't just protecting his right to said "due process". You're asserting that you also believe fully in it, and have similarly tried honestly to resolve your own dispute with her. The whole point in having two people certify an RfC is so that these things aren't filed frivolously.

   Reply to LCP: You may very well be right in this one. I may be mistaken in the point. Technically, the RfC can simply be seconded by someone else who has tried to resolve the dispute. Of course, you weren't involved with the original dispute, so you obviously had no ability to attempt resolution there... And your single goal since the block seems to have been to start the process of RfC, rather than spirit or intent of RfC... So, I suppose it's possible that you would have been a valid choice to second the claim, if you had any association with the original dispute, or if you'd ever tried to resolve the blocking-dispute instead of trying to force it to an escalated process, or... uh... do I need to continue?

   I have no idea of what you are trying to communicate here. Your text is incoherent.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

3. You might be a bit more believable when accusing her of tending to "jump the gun" if you hadn't already done so yourself. Your own link which you cite is dated after you jumped to conclusions here and here. For the record (and feel free to correct me on this, bish, if I'm wrong), the 'bishzilla' name was originally used by someone who created it as an attack account for harassing her. Rather than simply having it entirely removed, she instead usurped the name and used it as a playful avatar of sorts, to lighten people's moods and deal with people who might otherwise be offput by admins. Rather than being the sort of monster you seem to have assumed, 'Bishzilla' has never done anything but good. I can personally attest that I've been pulled back from foaming at the mouth and telling people off, simply because I got a friendly note from bishzilla lightening my mood, and letting me calm down a bit. Perhaps if you didn't assume that bishonen was some sort of self-identified ogre, then you wouldn't have treated her the same. At any rate, that's certainly "jumping the gun".
   

   Reply to LCP: I honestly don't know how to state this any more plainly. Prior to supposedly trying to 'resolve' this problem, you already established that you were pre-judging her based on a comedic alternate account, without bothering to actually do any research before drawing harsh conclusions. How can that be considered anything but "jumping the gun"? Well, I don't know much about Bishonen, but I know that 'Bishzilla' is an accursed name. Talk about hubris! Man, speaks volumes about her! huh? facts? why should those matters? Seriously, the fact that you alternated between villifying her and saying that you don't know much about her hardly qualifies as an excuse. If nothing else, admitting that you know little about her is a perfect reason to not pre-judge her! (Honestly, if I were to say, "KC is pompous and arrogant. I mean, everything he is and does condones vile atrocities. I'm not saying (s)he's evil. Just that KC is arrogant. I don't know them well, so I can't say they're bad, though", would you really take that seriously? Let alone proof that everything I said about KC after that would be entirely neutral and assuming of good faith?)

   I have never said or implied--or thought, "I know that 'Bishzilla' is an accursed name." Please stop putting words in my mouth. Bishzilla sounds like "Bitchzilla," and that hardly says, "I am intersted fair-play and collaboration." Instead, it means "I will do to whomever I please what Godzilla did to Tokyo." Or do you think a "bitch" and Godzilla are good and helpful things, having qualities that one would want in an admin?

   Apart from that, you make a good point when you say, "Prior to supposedly trying to 'resolve' this problem, you already established that you were pre-judging." I stand corrected.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

4. As for her response to your message to her, I'd love to know which part in specific you think was so out-of-line, especially considering the fact that things were explained pretty cut and dry. And the fact that she was apparently expected to simply assume from the beginning that she must have made a mistake.

   Reply to LCP: True. KC did not leave a formal request for Ferrylodge to desist. Granted, KC did see the warnings left to Ferrylodge, and never said, "Oh no, I don't mind!". And, granted, Ferrylodge did delete Ferrylodge's comment from their talk page, and wisely opted to not engage in petty arguments. But, um, yes... just because a person immediately deletes content... that in no way, whatsoever, implies that said content isn't wanted. Uh huh. Sure. Yup.

   Sarcasm? Really? It's not even good sarcasm. Its not even funny.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Also, you can't see why a vandal would get a warning? Well, in this case, that's what Ferrylodge got as well. At least, at first. But if Bishonen warns a vandal to stop their behaviour, and they keep doing it (as in, three more times), then, um, the chances are pretty good that she'll impose a block. (minor clarification) I see I may not have been clear with this one. I was referring to your not understanding why a vandal would only receive a warning, while Ferrylodge received a block. My point was that he, too, received a warning. If you still believe I've mischaracterized your vandal comment, then please tell me.
6. Incidentally, you might not really know what the "central question" really is in this case. Again, you aren't supposed to be 'finding out' if Bishonen acted prematurely. If you certified the RfC, then you should be trying to prove that she did, and that you tried civil and good-faith attempts to resolve the matter. What's more, I think it's pretty clear that Ferrylodge not "getting it" is really a more central issue here. And I should hope the results of the RfC will show that. Bladestorm 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Reply to LCP: Again, I don't think you necessarily realize just what the central issue really is by now. First off, yes, the fact that you prejudged Bishonen based on 'Bishzilla' very much made you an inappropriate mediator. But so did the fact that you approached this from a position that Ferrylodge couldn't have done anything wrong. From the position that RfC is a good thing. (RfC, rather, is a sign that, unfortunately, more informal methods didn't work. Resorting to RfC should be pretty close to the end of the lists of things to try. It shows a deficiency in the system.) The very fact that you called for "an impartial review of Bishonen's actions" but not "Bishonen's and Ferrylodge's actions" very clearly illustrates the problem.

I hope that's the last I'll need to talk of this to you.

Ok, Dad. Does this mean I don't get to use the car?LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I question the value of your analysis of my helpfulness. If you intended to say, "you have not been helpful to me or Ferrylodge", then I'm not surprised. If, however, anyone else believes I've been generally unhelpful, then you'd be surprised how surprisingly quickly I can clam up. Bladestorm 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep on putting words in my mouth? I really don't get it. I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Next time you want to put words into my mouth, please just re-read what I said and assume that I meant what I said, no more and no less.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1. According to whom? You? If your reputation were at stake, wouldn't you want "due process"? Due process in this context simply means that FL gets his impartial review. LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Really? Where does it say that? Maybe I missed it. I don’t have lots and lots of free time to give to learning the finer nuances of Wikiguidelines. What I do know is that I signed a section titled, "Users certifying the basis for this dispute {Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}." I did try, in good faith, to resolve the dispute. That is different from what you suggest.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I responded to another user who resorted to name-calling. And if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that while I expressed an opinion, I did not presume I was correct. I said, “I would like to see her actions in this case reviewed by an impartial group of her peers.” Being direct and forceful is not the same as "jumping the gun." Regarding the name "Bishzilla," it does leave me with a bad impression. But as I stated above, I do not have a personal history with “Bish.” I also stated, “I am not saying that Bishonen is bad or evil or bad-intentioned.” And personally, my natural tendency would be to give her the benefit of the doubt. I have heard people say good things about her, and I think I’d rather have her as ally than an adversary. Nevertheless, I couldn’t care less what you think of “Bish.” Your support of her appears to me to be sycophantic, and it does not impress me or concern me.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
4. She stepped in and gave a warning where I could not see warning was called for. KC herself had not even yet ask FL to desist. But as I have implied several times, I do not presume to judge this situation. I have an opinion. I have clearly left it to others to decided what is appropriate. So frankly, I don’t know why you are attacking me.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
5. I did NOT say that. Please go back and re-read what I actually did say and stop arguing strawmen.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
6. You are again making assumptions that are contradicted by what I wrote. Someone who tries to resolve a dispute may be simply a mediator. And while I admit that, being put off by Bishonen and “Bishzilla” myself, I have been an imperfect mediator, I have NEVER called for anything more than an impartial review of Bishonen’s actions. Please re-read what I wrote for #1 and #2. You are repeating yourself.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your entire message is characterized by misreading and false assumptions of what I wrote. And where I wrote in good faith only to clarify what thought and I saw as my role, you wrote only to take an adversarial position against me. You have not been helpful.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bladestorm, I'm embarrassed for not catching the obviousness of the situation, that your remarks so adeptly point out. I was looking at Ferrylodge's obvious lack of good faith attempts, and I completely overlooked LCP's superficial and weak attempt at resolution. Your point is very well taken, that editors should not endorse an RFC unless they believe there is merit in the complaint.

The extent of my thoughts regarding LCP, were that he was a straw-man supporter and I wondered if there was a socks issue involved due to his lawyer-speak being similar to Ferrylodge's. Lsi john 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Was beginning to wonder the same thing. Orangemarlin 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• LCP, I'm sorry, but I don't see where you tried in good faith to resolve the dispute. What I saw from you, was a perfunctory appearance on Bishonen's talkpage, with a demand in order to satisfy the requirements of an RfC. In contrast to you, I tried, by having a conversation with Ferrylodge and by trying to find out exactly what his demands were. From what I could tell, his demand was to have an RfC, which is not in the spirit of good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. Lsi john 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jus’ ‘cause I’m not willin’ to jump up n’ down n’ talk ‘bout what wonderful folk Ferrylodge is n’ “give” him images of food doesn’t mean that I don’t support him or that I’m sock puppet. I read the texts in question, n’ I thought what he was askin’ for is legit. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have posted my REQUEST to Bishonen.

Congratulations to you on your efforts to talk to Ferrylodge. I would point out that by the time I came into the discussion, all other attempts at resolution were water under the bridge. I looked at exactly what Ferrylodge was askin’ for, n’ I thought he had a point n’ was within his rights. Unlike you, however, I didn’t presume to read his mind (e.g., “His pride is hurt and his ego is bruised and he is now abusing the process, in an attempt to obtain vindication in the form of a retraction.”) or pass an overall judgment on the situation. I think the measure you used against me is unfair, n’ that your measure of “good faith” is flawed (at least in this case).

In contrast to what’s gone on so far, this conversation shouldn’t be ‘bout character or who’s more wonderful or horrible than who. N’ it isn’t ‘bout the nice or mean things people tried to do for or to Ferrylodge or Bishonen. N’ it isn’t ‘bout slapping Farrylodge for his misbehavin’ AFTER the block. It’s ‘bout a particular series of events at a particular time n’ place. N’ from what I see, it looks like everybody is willin’ to damn Ferrylodge for what he did AFTER the block warning n’ no one is lookin’ at the appropriateness of the block warning itself.

I hope you like the slang better than the “lawyer-speak”.

LCP 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have confused "slang" with "dialect" - and there is need for neither, this being the English Misplaced Pages. KillerChihuahua 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to lack depth in your understanding of English. Slang: “2: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech” .LCP 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to use "slang" offends me, personally ;) If this thing was really about what he did before the warning, then the first point wouldn't matter. The block log states: Repeated harassment posting on User talk:KillerChihuahua after warning. Read Bishonen's reply. There was a warning. FL posted a short comment to KC, and then a longer, more inflamatory post to Bishonen about KC. FL then posted on KC's talk page a link to the post at Bishonen's talk page. KC removed those two edits. So, FL again added a comment to KC's talk page, after being warned, and after the first series of comments were clearly unwelcomed by KC. Ergo, FL repeatedly posted harassing comments to KC after a warning. And in case there is any doubt, WP:HARASS clearly states that restoring such comments after a user has removed them is a form of harassment. FL not only restored comments, but demanded that they not be deleted. So the edit block log does not need any ammending. The only question left is did FL's prior actions deserve a warning. After an An/I that dealt specifically with Bishonen's "harasment" claim, and this RfC, I have to assume good faith that the uninvolved editors examining this case have looked into this matter. In fact, the response and 2 outside views specifically mention FL's pre-warning behavior. When you say that no ono is looking at the appropriateness of the block warning itself, I have to respectfully disagree. -Andrew c 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, you state, "The only question left is did FL's prior actions deserve a warning. After an An/I that dealt specifically with Bishonen's "harasment" claim, and this RfC, I have to assume good faith that the uninvolved editors examining this case have looked into this matter. In fact, the response and 2 outside views specifically mention FL's pre-warning behavior. When you say that no ono is looking at the appropriateness of the block warning itself, I have to respectfully disagree." The issue you bring to light here is exactly the one I had hoped would be examined in this discussion. Thanks for chiming in!LCP 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• LCP, I have a simple question for you:
  

Do you feel that you truly tried to find a resolution, between Bishonen and Ferrylodge, which would help them avoid this RfC?

By this I mean a real resolution, as in a compromise or solution, where both of them would be satisfied with the result. That is the definition of tried in good faith attempt to resolve the dispute.

I ask this, because I did try to help resolve the dispute, and failed. I tried to help Ferrylodge avoid this RfC. And if your purpose for posting on Bishonen's page was simply to re-state Ferrylodge's non-negotiable demand, then I stand by my assessment that you did not try in good faith to reach a resolution.

Based on your comments here, you wanted him to have his day in court. Which means, you were fulfilling the technical requirements of an RfC, and not actually attempting to help resolve the dispute. And that is not in the spirit of the required failed dispute resolution steps for an RfC.

If you can say that you truly tried to resolve the problem and avoid an RfC, then I will retract my remarks above, and apologize.

As for what this RfC is and is not for:

An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

Lsi john 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

break2

(edit conflict) - I want my own edit button!

LCP, actually I don't think that due-process is the central issue here. His due-process was granted at length on AN/I. Not every appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. Sometimes due process runs out, due to insufficient grounds.

The central issue here, is really Ferrylodge's ego. His pride is hurt and his ego is bruised and he is now abusing the process, in an attempt to obtain vindication in the form of a retraction. The vindication is not deserved and I predict that it will not be forthcoming.

I went to his page, in an effort to cool down the situation and to help find a solution. I began by asking him questions like: 'What do you expect to accomplish?' and 'What is your desired result?'. Ferrylodge had no idea what he really wanted to 'accomplish' and, instead, responded with an essay on 'how he was wronged', and he tried to enlist me in his campaign with detailed 'justification' for his actions.

His campaign was a means, without an end. I believe that what he really wanted was a 'retraction' from Bishonen about her 'judgment' that he was harassing KC. But he was so convinced that he wouldn't get it, that he sabotaged himself at every opportunity, by adding statements like "I know you won't agree to this." He failed to assume good faith in virtually every one of his posts. With all his lawyering skills and verbosity, he couldn't concisely state what he wanted in one or two bullet items.

In my opinion, this is not about his 'due process'. It is about his pride, his arrogance, and his ego, which would not permit him to offer a simple apology for anything KC or Bishonen may have 'misunderstood'. I have not been on wikipedia very long. However, in the short time I have edited here, I have seen a lot of crap get excused, overlooked and dismissed in the name of good faith, simply because a user was appropriately contrite, apologetic, and accepted responsibility for their conduct. My point here is, Ferrylodge has shown no sign of contrition. From the very start, up through this RfC, he has seen himself as the victim, and hasn't once considered any negative impact that his words and actions may have had on another editor. His pride won't even allow him to pretend to be sorry.

Bringing article discussion to KC's talkpage was inappropriate. Including divisive and antagonistic language was more inappropriate and in poor taste. Ignoring the warning to stop, was ... well ... unintelligent. Arrogantly going back, after his posting had been deleted, and reposting with an edit comment telling KC how to manage her talkspace, rightfully earned him a block.

Could Bishonen have given a nicer, more polite and sugar coated warning, prior to her threat to block? Sure. And based on the results we now have, it would have been a complete waste of time. Ferrylodge is annoyed because he was accused of harassment. His indignation got him blocked. And, I submit, that he'd have been blocked no matter how Bishonen worded the warning, because he has repeatedly refused to accept any criticism or responsibility for his situation. He disregarded the advice of several editors (and admins) who suggested that he was on the wrong path. He opened an unsuccessful AN/I. And, now he's opened a ridiculous RfC.

I agree with Orangemarlin that Ferrylodge owes KC an apology for the abusive posting on her page, he owes Bishonen an apology for this frivilous RfC, and he owes the community an apology for wasting our time.

Lsi john 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point I have no opinion of whether FL owes B an apology. Regarding issue of wasting time, however, you state above, "Sometimes due process runs out." In other words, not everyone gets a hearing. Those who didn't have the time didn't have to participate. Everyone here has chosen to participate, and I don't see how you can punish Ferrylodge for the choice you made to spend time here.LCP 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept the time consequences of my choice to edit on wikipedia. I also accept the time consequences of my choice to stand up for what I believe is right. That does not exempt Ferrylodge from owing an apology, for creating the situation which led to us choosing to spend time addressing it. And, suggesting that he owes an apology is hardly punishment. Lsi john 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The RfC summary

The RfC summay on states Bishonen is an administrator who accused Ferrylodge of "harassment", and subsequently blocked Ferrylodge. So, Ferrylodge's block log now brands him a harasser. Ferrylodge seeks correction of his block log because there was no harassment. Sandstein denied Ferrylodge's unblock request for the stated reason of disengaging a dispute, and Sandstein agreed that Ferrylodge's last statement prior to Bishonen's block was not harassment by Ferrylodge. Is this an accurate summary of Sandstein's position given that user's recent endorsments? Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct-Andrew c 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the way I read it, but Sandstein is welcome to address that for himself. To me, it appeared that Sandstein only addressed the content in response to Ferrylodge's claim that the content did not constitute harassment. But, Bishonen did not block for content. The harassment that Bishonen blocked for was defined in her warning, as: "any further posting on KC's page". Ferrylodge chose, not once, but three times, to disregard that. And, due to his edit-summary, which indicated that KC was 'not to delete the post', after she had deleted his previous 2 posts, I believe his last post actually was harassing in nature. Lsi john 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)