Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:38, 30 May 2007

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Vandalism warnings

When you revert vandalism, you might consider warning the editor with the warning templates; should the vandalism continue, editors are usually not blocked unless they have been warned. KillerChihuahua 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that.Ferrylodge 04:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you Ferrylodge, for your support on the miscarriage discussion. Its great to see that there are people like yourself in wiki. --McNoddy 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mother" and abortion

Somehow I've managed to miss this aspect up until now. I'm not feeling particularly thoughtful tonight, but my immediate opinion would be that mother, while accurate, is a more ambiguous word and so is less precise. Looking at the Answers.com definition brings far more to the table than I had initially thought. "Mother" also may presume that a woman has the intention to be a "child raiser," something she might take issue with. Then you have terms such as "expectant mother"... while I do not know the etymology of such terms, and/or if they are/were politically motivated; it is clear motherhood does not start at the same point for everyone. In the end this curls back to debating the personhood of the fetus, and I don't see that being constructive.

As to its use in pro-life sections; I guess it should be mentioned, but that's something I'd like some consensus on. Would you like me to mention it on the Abortion talk page? - RoyBoy 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The etiquette on talk pages seems to be dictated by personal preference. Some online savvy people have a distinct distaste for fragmented discussions because of bad experiences in other online forums making things hard to follow. In the realm of the talk page theres really isn't an issue since discussions are usually brief and between two people. If things get complicated, then one talk page and/or neutral discussion page is preferred. Heh, that's the low down on that.

As to mother, well 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d could be and/or. Regardless of which definition(s) are applicable to a woman, the very existence of four primary definitions makes the word "mother" less precise than other available terms. Sure 1a is accurate, but so are the others. (distracted by abortion edit) I'm guessing the concern by pro-choice advocates is that mother infers she wants/should be a mother 1d. While I firmly support death in the lead because its short, accurate and provides balance in tone; I'm unsure if "mother" accomplishes anything other than being short. Though I do like to avoid politically correct conventions (a systematic bias Misplaced Pages has) if it were to improve the article; I don't see that yet in this instance. - RoyBoy 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

<Moved below by reviewing admin>

Decline reason:

While a block was, in my opinion, not appropriate for the final message you left per se, it is acceptable in the present circumstances for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua. I hope that it will not continue after your block expires. Please be careful in your editing of contentious topics such as abortion, and work constructively with other editors to attain consensus based on reliable sources instead of edit warring. Since I don't know the circumstances of the dispute, I have to mention that this advice applies, of course, to all involved. — Sandstein 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have communicated with the block administrator (Bishonen), and was unable to reach agreement that the block should be lifted. I feel that the block is extremely unfair. Although it is only a 24-hour block, I feel compelled to appeal. The block arose here at the talk page of KillerChihuahua (KC).

Bishonen accused me of "harassment" toward KC, and then warned me to not say anything more or else I would be blocked. I posted a brief goodbye which was deleted, and an hour later I posted the following 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" (emphasis added). This was brief, polite, and cooperative. However, Bishonen tells me that this denial was "the last straw" that caused her to block me. It is true that I could have alternatively written a denial and put the denial in my back pocket, but most people in the world understand that a person accused of an offense has a right to deny the offense in the place where the accusation was made. Bishonen also says I had the "effrontery to tell her to not remove" my denial. But look at the bolded italicized words above: "Please do not delete this comment." That is a polite request, and there is no effrontery there.

Bishonen says that I have committed "userspace harassment." This is untrue. Userspace harassment is "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." I did nothing of this sort at KC's user space. KC never asked me to leave, and we were in the middle of a conversation, when out of the blue came Bishonen with a harassment accusation and a block threat. I would not be blocked right now but for politely and briefly denying Bishonen's harassment accusation.

Bishonen and KC are very good friends, and so I feel that a neutral administrator is needed here. Neither Bishonen's email nor any of her comments at Misplaced Pages indicate that she bothered to read the discussion between me and KC, at KC's talk page. KC was making accusations of edit-warring, disruptiveness, and bad faith that were completely unfounded, and which I believe were so obviously without foundation as to be malicious. Bishonen completely ignored this, and has never addressed it, even though I specifically pointed out to Bishonen that I felt KC's accusations were malicious. I am completely innocent of harassment, and I feel that the only reason I am in this situation is because two editors who are close friends have decided to misuse their power as administrators.

P.S. The block message I received said that Bishonen is the "blocking administrator." I initially assumed that this meant Bishonen is the Misplaced Pages person in charge of blocks. This was a slight misunderstanding on my part, and I have acknowledged my mistake to Bishonen. I did so in my reply to her email, in which she warned me to "leave KC the hell alone" and told me "You were hell-bent on aggravating KC, that's the trouble. Shame on you." Of course, I am glad to leave KC alone if she will leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs)

Regarding Sandstein's decision, please note this: before being blocked I had already said that "I am glad to be done posting on this page." Therefore, this block obviously was not necessary or appropriate for (as Sandstein wrote) "disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I appreciate Sandstein's attempt to be neutral here, but Sandstein's reason just does not make sense.Ferrylodge 10:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint conspicuously fails to mention my deleted warning and my reasons for the block as given in my deleted block message, as well as in my e-mail. See especially the links I provided. All of them. You wrote a message full of insults to KC on my page, and linked to it in the first of your ostensibly "brief and polite" messages on her page. So clever! Make sure you don't post on her page after the block expires. "Don't" doesn't mean "write a series of so-called good-byes", it means don't do it. And don't waste your time working out any further innovatively roundabout ways of attacking her, either. You have been warned Bishonen | talk 11:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

You really are as irresponsible as KC, aren't you Bishonen? I deleted your warning at this user page because you refused to allow me to add a word to the section header. And as anyone can see, your material that I deleted from this talk page was completely redundant to what you already wrote for me at KC's talk page (which I of course would never delete).

Regarding the material that I wrote at your talk page, Bishonen, I linked to that material in my block removal request, in which I said exactly what I said at your talk page: that KC's accusations against me have been "malicious".

You wrote a harassment accusation against me at KC's talk page, and all I have ever asked in response is that a brief and polite denial accompany your accusation. Your insinuation that I want to "write a series of so-called good-byes" is --- yet again --- irresponsible. And if you ever post again at my talk page in such a fashion, expect it to be deleted. I am leaving your most recent comment merely as an example of the sort of thing I have had to deal with from you and KC.Ferrylodge 14:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I have sent a further unblock request via email:

This block is unjustified.Ferrylodge 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your e-mail, your being upset is noted, and reconsideration politely declined for the reason that you need to calm down. Consider editing something completely unrelated to your previous activities once the block expires; I find this to have a calming effect. It would now be appropriate for you to confirm that you are indeed done with your dispute with KillerChihuaua by refraining from perpetuating it through any further comments on this matter. You are free, of course, to leave Misplaced Pages at any time if you don't like the way this community operates. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, you should not limit reconsideration of your decisions to situations where the requester is not upset. Why would anyone request reconsideration unless they were upset?

As I said previously, your assertion that a block is "acceptable in the present circumstances for the purpose of disengaging you" makes no sense in view of the fact that, before being blocked, I had already said that "I am glad to be done posting on this page."

If that is how "this community operates" then there really is no reason for me to remain here.Ferrylodge 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I refrain from any further comment. Sandstein 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising. If this irresponsible block is allowed to run the full 24 hours, then I will have to make a decision about whether to stay at Misplaced Pages. If I stay, it will be with full knowledge that this is an extremely flawed enterprise. And if I leave it will be with great relief.Ferrylodge 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious

Ferrylodge, I'm curious what you hope to accomplish with all your postings? Is all this fuss for one block, which has already expired? Based on your last post to Bishonen's page, it seems that your pride is involved and that you are offended because your integrity has been questioned or disputed. If so, that would have been a much better angle from which to calmly approach this.

Do you want Bishonen to lose admin rights? - That isn't likely to happen over a block which was upheld by another admin. (By the way, that request-denied should have told you something right away.)

Do you want an apology? - If so, you might have tried asking nicely instead of launching into Bishonen with threats of ArbCom and such.

What do you hope to accomplish by pursuing RfC, MedCab, or ArbCom or whatever else?

Opening a user RfC will also open yourself up to comments. From the little I've seen of your postings, on Bishonen's page, those comments wouldn't go well toward yourself.

You said that you have taken an extra bit of time to cool off, but from my perspective, it looks like you took an extra bit of time to work up a really good pissed-off. As a patent attorney, I'm sure that you are aware that coming at things from an emotional position is generally unproductive.

My free and unsolicited advice to you, is to cool off and think this through. Figure out what you outcome you really want and then calmly find the best way to achieve that result. I've found Bishonen to be extremely patient and understanding.

(If you feel a reply is warranted, you may reply here as I will be watching).

Peace in God. Lsi john 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting. You have a lot of questions.

A) "I'm curious what you hope to accomplish with all your postings?" My purpose today has been to learn more about what my options are, and to ask Bishonen about mediation.

B) "Do you want Bishonen to lose admin rights?" I personally think that would be appropriate given her conduct thusfar, in this matter. However, I really had not thought about that until you mentioned it.

C)"Do you want an apology?" Same answer as (B).

D) "What do you hope to accomplish by pursuing RfC, MedCab, or ArbCom or whatever else?" My hope mainly would be to exhaust whatever appeal rights I have, so that if I leave Misplaced Pages I will not do so prematurely. A simple acknowledgment that I was not lying or harassing anyone would be sufficient. Ferrylodge 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, ordinarilly I would NOT interrupt in the middle of a post. In fact, I detest breaking someone's thought or having my thoughts broken. However, you segued from answering my questions into a lengthy dissertation on the sequence of events. And, I'd like to stick to the questions and answers for now. To be honest, the details of the 'story' aren't relevant at this point in time. (no offense intended, it's just inappropriate right now).

A) I'm truly confused. Until you know what you want to accomplish, how can you begin to find out what your options are? What is your GOAL? How will you know if the options you find will accomplish what you want, unless you first determine what you want to accomplish?

B) I'm glad you had not considered it. And I'm sorry to see you say that you believe 1 bad action (your conclusion) warrants removal of admin rights. Isn't that even more drastic than your getting blocked? Do you know anything about this admin? Do you have any knowledge of her contributions to wikipedia? I'm not suggesting that she has or has not contributed. I'm asking if you have looked into it at all? Are you breaking WP:AGF and assuming bad faith? Have you considered the possibility that she was having a bad day or that she misunderstood?

C) You haven't considered asking for an apology? Ok. Then refer again to A) - What do you want?

D) And here "whatever appeal rights you have" in order to accomplish "what"? You would appeal a conviction. But your block has expired, so that isn't up for appeal. What do you want to appeal? What do you want?

Sir, and now at the very end, you finally answer what I asked you for in the beginning. You say you would like 'an acknowlegement that you were not lying or harassing anyone'. Please excuse the way I ask this, but given the number of words you have typed to Bishonen and now here to me..

Have you considered simply ASKING for an acknowlegement that you were not lying?

If so, I missed it. It looked to me like you went from zero to shitty in 5 seconds flat. (An expression used by a friend of mine to describe his ex-wife).

I respectfully suggest that you:

1. Cool off a bit. really, take a breath and relax. If you went into a court hearing the way you went to Bishonen's talk page, the judge would throw you out.
2. Go read what you've written to Bishonen. Don't write anything else right now, just go read it. Put yourself in her place. Do you really ask her for anything? Perhaps I missed it. But to me, it looked like you went right for the throat and never even told her what you wanted to end up with.

The part that seemed weird, was that you asked her to help you 'sue' her. It would be like asking an attorney for a company who infringed on a copyright to help you prepare a case against his client. And in any litigation, isn't it customary to at least let the opposing counsel know what you're asking for? You might get it, without having to go to court or appeal.

To me, it looks like you're pissed off and your feelings are hurt and ego is bruised. Perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. Regardless, I think the point everyone was trying to make is that you 'came out shootin' and seemed to be doing a lot of 'bad faith' assuming. That isn't likely to win you support from anyone.

I'll leave the remainder of your writing (below) for another time, if its necessary. At the moment, until you decide what you want to end up with, knowing what happened isn't really relevant. And, telling you what your options are, is impossible.

Peace in God. Lsi john 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what happened, pretty much chronologically, and with as little excruciating detail as possible. The group at issue here is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ("RCOG"). Someone (I do not know who or why) had written in the fetal pain article that RCOG is "pro-choice". Another editor (not I) installed a "citation needed" tag. I then did some research and provided a citation, since that was the only "citation needed" tag in the whole article (an article to which I had contributed substantially). KC then reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice." Also in the discussion thread at fetal pain, KC said:

So, KC distinguished a "pro-choice group" from a group that has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. I researched some more about RCOG (see above where KC said "please provide a source") and I learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I ultimately decided the best place to deal with all of this would be at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

At that RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info unrelated to abortion. Plus, I wrote: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position that abortion 'is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.'" This was reverted a couple times by another editor (not KC), without any discussion at the talk page. Ultimately, I concluded that I needed to quote an even more unambiguous expression of pro-choice sentiment from RCOG, in order to satisfy everyone that RCOG has in fact taken a pro-choice position on an issue.

So, I edited the RCOG article to say: "In the United Kingdom, RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'" Then things started getting nasty (or nastier). KC showed up at the RCOG article, reverted this edit, and accused me of being disruptive, et cetera. I left it reverted. I figured that this was becoming interpersonal, so the place to take this kind of thing is to the user's talk page. So I went to KC's talk page, where I implored her to assume good faith. Instead I got further accusations: edit warring and bad faith.

Ultimately, I said to KC: "Show me once other than here where I edited any Misplaced Pages article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a 'pro-choice position.'" KC replied that "the contested edit is characterizing RCOG as 'pro-choice'", and she cited a bunch of diffs. And she huffed: "If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands." But that was clearly total nonsense on KC's part, because she had already emphasized (see blockquote above) that saying RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is entirely different from saying that it takes a "pro-choice" position on a particular issue. The edit we were arguing about (i.e. a sentence saying that RCOG opposes reduction in the time limits for abortion) was a position about a particular issue, and indeed a political issue about what the governing laws should be. So I quoted the blockquote above back to KC, and I said as clearly as I know how: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice." I also gave her some of her own medicine: "I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again."

At this point, Bishonen jumped in. KC had never asked me to leave, much less to tone down what I was saying. But Bishonen says at KC's talk page: "That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment." Needless to say, I was surprised. I felt that I was being harassed by KC. I've never been charged with "harassment" before. The whole thing was getting absurd and surreal. I felt like this was all a big trap (and it still seems to have been a trap); after all, KC had told me that being a pro-choice group is different from taking a pro-choice position, and I then edited accordingly, only to be accused of edit-warring, disruption, and bad faith for making the very distinction that KC had explicitly urged. So, I made the following statement to Bishonen at KC's talk page: "I most certainly am done here." Four minutes later, I linked that statement to a denial of her harassment charge (in which I said that KC's edits were "malicious"). I assumed (wrongly) that when a person is charged with a serious offense, then that person should at least be allowed to deny that offense where the offense is charged. But, my statement that "I most certainly am done here" was subsequently deleted along with the link to the denial. All that was left was a charge of harassment without any denial by me. So, I wrote (about an hour after Bishonen showed up with her harassment charge and block threat): "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."

So then all hell breaks loose, and I'm blocked. I had said that I was glad to be done posting on KC's talk page, and all I wanted was to deny the charge where the charge was made, and then get away from KC. But instead Bishonen did not believe that I was glad to be done posting at KC's talk page, and felt the need to impose a block. You can read the unblock request above. Sandstein responded to the unblock request by saying, "a block was, in my opinion, not appropriate for the final message you left per se." I agree with Sandstein 100% about that. But then Sandstein said that the block, "is acceptable in the present circumstances for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." What kind of bizarre statement is that? I had already said at KC's talk page that I was "glad to be done posting on this page." No one believed me.

I haven't done anything dishonest at Misplaced Pages, and there's no reason to treat me like a liar, much less a lying harasser. This whole thing is absurd.

I sent another unblock request, by email. In response, swatjester wrote, "It would be a good idea to stay away from KillerChihuahua's page." I already said that I would stay away, before I was blocked. All I wanted was to deny the charge of harassment where the charge was made. I do not like being accused of lying and harassment. I am obviously guilty of neither. The only reason I posted a second time after the block warning was because the link to my denial had been deleted. The second denial has not (yet) been deleted from KC's talk page, for which I am grateful to her.

Lsi john, I was not harassing anyone. Then, when I was accused of harassment, I said I was done at KC's page. Bishonen says the "last straw" was me saying I was done at KC's talk page, and denying the harassment charge. That's like a police officer telling rioters to disperse, and then arresting a bystander for dispersing and for denying that he was a rioter. It's absurd.

A simple acknowledgment that I was not lying or harassing anyone would be sufficient.Ferrylodge 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And I would welcome any further comments you may have, Lsi john.Ferrylodge 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)