Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 9 May 2006

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Blocked for ] except that my comment was not actually uncivil. There was also no warning, nor any chance to discuss the meaning of the comment. Instead, there appears to be a misunderstanding. The duration of the block is, in any case, excessive, and the admin was involved in editing the article.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Blocked for ] except that my comment was not actually uncivil. There was also no warning, nor any chance to discuss the meaning of the comment. Instead, there appears to be a misunderstanding. The duration of the block is, in any case, excessive, and the admin was involved in editing the article.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Blocked for ] except that my comment was not actually uncivil. There was also no warning, nor any chance to discuss the meaning of the comment. Instead, there appears to be a misunderstanding. The duration of the block is, in any case, excessive, and the admin was involved in editing the article.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Welcome

Welcome to my Talk page. Please feel free to leave me messages here. Al 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Al - if you want to get rid of the arrow in your sig use the internal wiki links like this: ] . Good to see you back. Sophia 10:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd. I tried this earlier and it didn't work right, but it's working fine right now. Thanks. Al 17:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision advocacy

Alienus, let's take a moment to review what happened here.

1. Between May 1 and May 2, Jayjg made 4 edits to the article (see diff). Edit summaries explained these edits. A talk page comment remarked on actnow. One paragraph had no citations, which had been requested long before. Two others were commented out with explanations for this in the comments.
2. You reverted these changes, with the inadequate (non-)explanation that they were 'incorrect'. You demanded that anyone disagreeing with you discuss it on the talk page, yet given the above and your further comments, the onus was upon you to do precisely that.
3. I reverted your reversion.
4. You then reverted again, commenting that reverting without explanation is unacceptable behaviour. Apparently there is an exception if one's username is Alienus.
5. I reverted your reversion.
6. You then reverted again, leaving a note to complain on my talk page.
7. I gave a detailed explanation, and reverted.

Some thoughts occur. Firstly, you are making demands of other editors that you are unwilling to apply to yourself. Secondly, you are ignoring earlier edit summaries and explanations in the text. Both of these things are irritating, and make it difficult to work with you. Jakew 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive comments, but I believe I've fully addressed the issue on the talk page of the relevant article, so there is nothing further to discuss here. Al 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Al,

A checkuser does not generally establish that usernames are not the same individual, only that they propagate from different IP addresses. Though I haven't seen the report, to which you're free to direct me.

I'm sorry I came across to you as incivil; I didn't mean to be. I've said my peace, so your warning is unnecessary.Timothy Usher 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A CheckUser can confirm that two accounts use the same IP, hence are likely the same individual. Without such confirmation, suspicions of sock puppetry remain merely suspicions. To state your negative suspicions as fact is a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, as I have explained. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I don't include you (or SOPHIA) in this - there's nothing suspicious about sharing POV(s). However, other editting patterns, most notably patterns of language usage in talk space, can raise suspicions far above the "merely" level. Your edits are nothing like Giovanni's in this respect.Timothy Usher 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if MikaM's edits are indistinguishable from Gio's, I'm asking that you avoid calling them a sockpuppet until and unless there is confirmation. That's all. Al 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another 1 week block for personal attacks

Alienus, I've blocked you for another week for personal attacks, based on this edit summary, made on your very first day back from your previous 1 week block for personal attacks. I note as well, that you've done little but edit war since your return. Your presence on Misplaced Pages is becoming increasingly disruptive; please learn to work with other Misplaced Pages editors. Jayjg 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that since Alienus's return his edits have been very constructive, and has gone out of his way to try to hold others to the same stanards that he is being held to here. For example he has posted messages for other editors who have not been civil in their own comments to other editors. This is praise-worthy. I also note that the breaching the norms of civility is not uncommon, yet the punitive measures seem to be selective. That is not fair. In anycase, its ironic that Alienus gets a one week ban for something he has been an active and positive influence in supporting---assuming good faith and asking for civil conduct. I don't know anyone I've interacted with on here in an ongoing basis who has not slipped himself in some way in this regard. Can't we reduce his block to something more comensurate, taking into account these factors? A one week block is excessive. It would look very big of you and fair if you would reduce the block. It would go a long way to reduce the tensions and feelings of distrust that excessive blocks like this tend to make worse.Giovanni33 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This block is, of course, unreasonable. Then again, I know that there's no point debating this, so I won't. Have fun strutting! Al 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't like clicking, my edit comment was "rv whitewashing; the foreskin is functional, except in the case of Jakew's". In other words, I was insisting that the foreskin is generally considered functional, but was careful not to speak for Jakew, since he believes otherwise. This has been used as an excuse to block me for another week, which says almost nothing about me but is a very interesting insight into the psychology of Jayjg. Ok, I'm going to stop commenting now, before I get this page blocked again. Al 18:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as the person to whom the remark was directed, it struck me as an example of turning a discussion in general terms into a personal remark about myself. It is completely unnecessary to discuss another editor's genitals as part of an edit summary, and clearly a personal attack. Jakew 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we not AGF here? I have come across so many instances on wikipedia where what you have written doesn't read the way you meant it too. Sophia 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I usually do assume good faith, Sophia, but this is far from the first occasion on which Alienus has attacked me. Moreover, he has explicitly declared previously that he's "pissed off", and he's "proud of it". Jakew 19:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated but can he ever make a fresh start or will one misplaced comment always bring a draconian ban down on him? From what I've seen he's been constructively and civily active over the last couple of days. Sophia 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

JakeW, if you had assumed good faith and asked me whether insult was intended, I would have explained that none was. Thank you. Al 19:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How is describing another's edit as "whitewashing" consistent with assuming good faith? If you believe that referring to another editor's genitals in an edit summary is civil, then I don't question your good faith so much as your basic judgement regarding social interaction. Do you claim that this edit summary was your attempt to be respectful and courteous? You've managed to obtain such a reputation here that unfailing courtesy is the only thing that'll give you a chance of editing wihtout constant blocks. -GTBacchus 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that unfailing courtesy does not suffice. No insult was intended, no insult was made. The only rule being violated here is WP:AGF. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose different people will have different ideas about where the lines are, Al. I've certainly stepped on toes (on- and offline) without meaning to. The remark in question seems blatantly rude to me, and apparently to others, but none of us can see into your soul, to how you intended it. -GTBacchus 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were an admin, I would have asked Alienus to explain what he means and find out his intent, if there was any insult intended. I would advise him to be more careful about statments that can be misconstrued as an insult, but would not assume without first asking, then advising. If he said, "yes, that MF'er, he is a %@$#$, and desevered much worse, etc, etc"--then a one week block would seem apropos. But, if Alienus explains clearly his intent and is amicable and respectful to the rules of civility, there should be no punitive block. At most, if you don't believe him, a small block, splitting the benefit of the doubt. But an outright week does seem harsh given the possiblity that he did not mean to be uncivil. We all make poor choice of words at times. Lets always asume good faith, and even if we don't have doubt in our own mind at first glance, it does no harm to ask first before taking actions.Giovanni33 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is where WP:AGF comes in. What one person sees as rude, others do not. What makes something an insult is intent, and if it had been my intent to insult, I'm sure I could have managed something stronger and less ambiguously insulting than a tangential reference to the utility of Jake's foreskin. Like I've said a few times now, this could all have been avoided if Jake and Jay had assumed good faith. A lack of WP:AGF, combined with admin rights, leads quickly to injustice. Al 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) If one fails to assume good faith on the part of others, how can he expect others to assume good faith on his part? 2) How can one describe another's edit as 'whitewashing' while assuming good faith? Is there a good faith variety of whitewashing that you're familiar with? Jakew 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Very easily. Remember that WP:CIVIL does not grant you permission to insult others in response to perceived insults. In the same way, WP:NPA does not grant you permission to assume bad faith just because you think someone else has.

A good reason for this is that perceptions can be wrong. Someone can perceive an insult where none is present, for example, and respond with a genuine insult that breeds more of the same. The way to avoid this vicious cycle is to refuse to use the behavior of others as an excuse for your own.

Nobody can force you to be uncivil or to assume bad faith; it is a decision you must make for yourself. Therapists say that it is emotionally unhealthy to act as if others have control over the contents of your decisions, as it disempowers and frustrates you. For your own sake, I recommend that you reconsider.

2) To whitewash is to gloss over issues through a biased presentation. This is an accurate description of your deletion of all mention of circumcision from the article. If you had merely added balance, I would have been mistaken to call your efforts whitewashing. However, because you removed the term entirely, I think I was entirely correct in calling this whitewashing, in the literal meaning of the word. Accurate, technical usage of a term is neither uncivil nor does it assume bad faith.

Let's be frank here: You are well-known as a very strong advocate of circumcision. Someone who is so sure that circumcision is a good thing might not understand that others might understandably see it as mutilation. Likewise, they may not recognize that their attempt to remove the mention of circumcision from the article might be reasonably considered an example of whitewashing.

In striving to be WP:NPOV in our edits, we must begin by admitting that we naturally have our own POV's. Sometimes, these POV's can get in the way of even understanding those who disagree with us, which is why it's particularly important not to assume bad faith in the face of disagreement about article content. We disagree about whether circumcision is mutilation, yet we can still work together in good faith to make an article that is neutral. Disagreement is not the same as insult.

3) To be very clear, there was no intent to insult you. If anything, I went out of my way to exclude you personally and by name from my generalization about the functionality of foreskins, which was a courtesty. If you took insult from this, I apologize, but there was simply no insult intended.

Reasonable people can disagree about what is insulting, so it's important to assume good faith and directly ask what the writer's intent was. It's particularly important not to be too quick to take insult, because this assumption of bad faith interferes with cooperation. All this could have been avoided if you'd simply asked me what I meant.

Therefore, I would like to once again apologize for any insult you may have inferred and to remind you that none was intended. There was no insult, hence no incivility, hence no objective basis for a block. Al 21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1) You have stated in the past, and I quote from memory, that one should assume good faith, but one should not delude oneself into ignoring evidence to the contrary. Do you still maintain that position? If not, how can you justify holding others to a higher standard than that to which you hold yourself?

2) I agree with your definition. Given that the edit summaries explained that POV was being removed, a person assuming good faith would take that at face value. A person assuming bad faith, however, might interpret it as "glossing over issues through a biased presentation".

You may wish to look at the approach that Sophia chose. Instead of reverting, she reworded the text, making it clear that rather than Misplaced Pages declaring that circumcision is mutilation (which violated WP:NPOV), certain people held that view, and she cited examples. She addressed the objection raised, presumably assessing it in good faith.

While I agree that some have that mistaken impression, for your information I am not an advocate of circumcision. I am supportive of either choice. I do, however, strongly object to misleading propaganda, and will not tolerate Misplaced Pages being used as a vehicle for it.

3) I accept your apology, though I would like to see you acknowledge that it was not an appropriate edit summary. Jakew 11:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) I've said a number of things in the past, some of them clearly and intentionally uncivil. Despite this, I can only be held accountable for my present actions. After all, no matter what I might have been guilty of once, this doesn't make me guilty today. As for applying the same standard, I have never made any attempt to get anyone blocked for perceived incivility. If anything, I've argued that we should be thicker-skinned, especially when dealing with people who are already on the defensive due to admin actions whose validity they question. I have occasionally warned people to tone it down and have certainly gotten people blocked for exceeding WP:3RR or for being sockpuppets, and I will continue to do so.

2) I believe I've already explained that the term is neutral and accurate, so there is no implication with regard to good or bad faith. It may well be that you infer a connotation that was never intended, which would be an unfortunate misunderstanding on your part.

Likewise, whether my edit comment came during a revert or not is immaterial; the charge is that my comment was uncivil. By your own reasoning, both you and Nandesuka are in the wrong for reverting afterwards instead of editing the text so that it was acceptable to you, so let's just not go there.

As for your stance on circumcision, I suspect that most people looking at your user page and your history of edits would similarly conclude that, regardless of what you said just now, you are a strong proponant of circumcision. If it is an error, it is an entirely understandable one. After all, few people are circumcized as adults, and fewer yet without a religious basis or medical necessity. Of those, I can't think of any who go out of their way to contribute towards online forums with the apparent effect of supporting circumcision.

For the record, I don't have any strong feelings about circumcision in specific and I do believe that people should have a choice, which is why I've never said that society should have stopped you from getting circumcsed as an adult. However, I also believe strongly in the medical ethics of informed choice, which includes having knowledge of all the possible negatives. If you remember, I first got involved by restoring some text about an infection risk and adding some text about a bleeding risk, both of which have been edited into a stable part of the article.

Having said that, I'm not sure if I can support circumcision of infants, as it is not medically necessary in most cases and is hard to reverse if the infant grows up and decides upon adulthood that they'd rather have a foreskin after all. I suspect that this is our central point of disagreement, but I could be mistaken. It's certainly something we could explore.

3) The edit summary was inappopriate in that it could be misunderstood as uncivil. It was, however, quite civil and there was never an intent to the contrary. As for accepting my apology, I'm glad that you have, although I'm concerned that your remarks below might undo some of this acceptance. Al 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) If indeed you have turned over a new leaf, then you must be commended for doing so. An essential part of doing so, however, involves stating where you were wrong previously. I am quite prepared to accept arguments of New Alienus (TM) if he clearly and explicitly rejects contradictory beliefs held by Old Alienus, but if he cannot, I must treat them as the same. To demand that others assume good faith, while maintaining that you are not obliged to do so, is not reasonable.

2) Using correct terminology and assuming good faith are both important, but they are different issues. Language, after all, is merely used to express concepts. If I knock on a door and a man answers, covered in blood, he could have butchered an animal, or he could have killed his wife. If I accuse him of murder, it makes no difference that I use language correctly; I am still assuming the worst.

The onus of conforming to Misplaced Pages policies is upon the person trying to insert text into an article, not other editors.

I've stated my position above, and don't intend to repeat myself. Nevertheless, I'd like you to consider the fact that most contributors with an interest in circumcision are anti, reflecting the fact that there is an organised anti-circumcision activist network. Does a person in grey clothing look dark or light against a white background? If grey is neutral, white is anti, and black is pro, what does that tell you?

Your position is noted. I only wish that we were both editing according to policy, and neither of us knew nor cared about the position of each other.

3) Civility includes making every effort not to offend. Jakew 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) As I've stated, I wish to be judged by my current actions.

2) My understanding is that the onus is equal; no editor is inherently better than any other. As for organized anti-circumcision groups, I am not a member of one, nor do I support any. I've explained my view above, and I believe that I was sufficiently clear.

3) Civility includes making every effort to communicate clearly and fairly. This is just as important when listening as when speaking, which is why I've made repeated mention of assuming good faith. In speciifc, it means that if you are inadvertently offended by a remark that, as it turns out, was not intended to offend, the right thing to do is recognize it as a misunderstanding and move on. Al 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We are interacting here as people from different backgrounds with different life experiences and tolerances to some language, we have different cultural values, different senses of humour and different abilities to express ourselves in the written word clearly. A user placed obscenities on my talk page as a joke that some thought was misguided but he wasn't banned as he explained what he meant. I thought it was funny as I have the quirky British sense of humour but I understood why others didn't agree. This is why AGF is so important - no one is immune from it and it must trump "hurt feelings" whenever there is doubt as in an international project misunderstandings of this sort are inevitable. Sophia 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Alienus needs other editors to make excuses for him. His edit summary caught my eye as well. The comment he made was out of line, however you slice it, and the block is justified, especially since he's been blocked 7 6 times before by other admins. At least hopefully it should be clear to him in the future not to insult other editors like that again. --MPerel 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, you both miscounted the number of blocks and made the error of assumign that all of the blocks were correct. Al 05:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Count corrected. --MPerel 07:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort to correct the count. However, it is still not entirely accurate, particularly as it continues to presume that all of the blocks were wholely justified. This is an open issue that is currently in dispute. Al 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever I've done in the past, I should be judged by what I do today. Bringing up the past in this manner can only serve to poison the well, and is not compatible with assuming good faith.

Speaking of the past, though, I do notice that you, JakeW, and Jayjg have coincidentally all taken a strong pro-circumcision stance and have repeatedly butted heads with me over related article content.

While I continue to assume good faith, I can't help to notice that you all share a point of view that conflicts with my own. I know it's hard for people to recognize that their POV is not the NPOV, and to put their own views aside so as to see things neutrally.

Frankly, I am concerned that anyone who has written pro or con circumcision might be too involved in this subject to be objective, and if so, should probably stay out of it. Certainly, one of the procedural errors that JayJg made here was a failure to recuse himself despite his intimate involvement on this article, and I'll be following up on that as soon as my block expires.

There is clearly genuine controversy over whether my comment was offensive or JakeW was too quick to take offense and too slow to accept an apology. In such matters of controversy, we need to calibrate for the inherent biases of the people sharing their opinions, even if this results in us effectively discounting the statements of those whose bias clouds their judgement. That is why, with all due respect, I must disagreee with your conclusions and question your standing in this matter.

Instead, I remind you again that civility is never an alternative to assuming good faith. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's standard for admins to extend blocks if there has been a continued history of ignoring policy (blocked 7 times is excessive, no?). As far as your questioning my "standing in this matter" due to your assumption that I have a "strong pro-circumcision stance", LOL, where have I even made any edits to articles or expressed any opinion whatsoever on circumcision? I only passed through a different article (the circumcision talk page) recently and made a couple observations about editing etiquette, and said nothing about the actual issue, so it's interesting that you assume you know my personal position, or whether I even have one. My "position" btw (and this goes for any article) is that Wikipedians should edit according to policy (civility being an important one, for example), and that personal opinions are irrelevant and don't belong in the article or in the discussion about the article (there are plenty of debate and flame forums for that). --MPerel 05:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, you claim Jayjg was involved on that article Mutilation for which you were blocked. Out of his 36000+ edits, I see no edits by Jayjg to the article in question nor to the talk page. --MPerel 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, it's been noted elsewhere that Jayjg has been in a dispute with Alienus regarding circumcision politics. If that dispute spills over into another article that Jayjg hasn't edited, it's still the same dispute, or at least that's the spirit in which I'd take the guideline. It wouldn't have been inappropriate to ask another, less involved admin to make the block; there's plenty of us around. -GTBacchus 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been noted elsewhere that I have been "in a dispute with Alienus regarding circumcision politics"; rather, it has been falsely claimed that I am. I am not in a dispute with Alienus regarding circumcision politics anywhere, since, unlike Alienus, I have no stand on circumcision politics. I do take a stand on Misplaced Pages policy, whether it is WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, or, as in this case, WP:CIVIL, and I dispute the claim of anyone that they can ignore these policies. Jayjg 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure I believe Alienus's portrayal of a personal dispute with Jayjg (he hasn't provided any links or evidence of that, just claims). And so far, on this block issue anyway, he has demonstrated a tendency to make presumptious claims. For example, rather than taking responsibility for being uncivil to another editor, he tries to dismiss my weighing in on whether he should be blocked based on his projection that *I* am "strongly pro-circumcision", when he has nothing to base any assumption concerning my views, first of all, and my personal opinion about circumcision is irrelevant anyway since the issue is regarding his personal attack of another editor. As far as the admin who blocked, Jayjg edits a lot of articles, honestly there probably aren't too many editors who have edited an article that isn't related to something he's edited. Admins (particularly prolific ones) would be quite limited in performing duties if they were expected to have six degrees separation from any editor before blocking. Also, this block was about a personal attack to another editor, and not related to content. It's apparently not Alienus's first block for personal attacks, nor the first time he's been blocked for a week for personal attacks. Based on his discourse here and nonremorse, IMHO, I think reducing the block would send him the message that he can get away with continuing that behavior. --MPerel 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there's any controversy here. Jayjg, along with Jakew and Nandesuka, are very well known among editors of circumcision-related pages for taking a pro-circumcision viewpoint. Anyone glancing at the history can see multiple cases where they've reverted attempts to include text that points out the negative side of circumcision. They would also be hard-pressed to find any cases where these editors themselves removed text that favors circumcision or inserted text that does not, although it may well be possible to hunt down some exception to this otherwise robust rule. Whatever their personal beliefs might be, their actions are quite clear.

Having said this, there's nothing wrong with being pro-circumcision. This view deserves to be adequately represented in Misplaced Pages, within the constraints of WP:NPOV. My concern is that Jayjg and I have repeatedly conflicted over edits regarding circumcision, so he is not impartial on this matter. As a matter of procedure, I believe he should have recused himself and allowed an admin without a history of participation on circumcision articles to have made a judgement regarding any possible WP:CIVIL violation. This issue is largely orthogonal to the matter of whether there was genuine incivility in my edit comment, but there is some overlap in that Jayjg might be less likely to WP:AGF in my case, due to our intense history. Al 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop a note here to say that I do not believe that Alienus' description of me as "pro-circumcision" is accurate. I would say that I am, if anything, anti-POV pushing. If Jakew started adding unsourced opinionated statements about how circumcision was the greatest thing ever, I would absolutely revert him in a heartbeat. It is not my fault that among the current crop of contributors to the article, some of those opposed to circumcision are inclined to try to pass of their strongly-held personal opinions as dispassionate fact. Alienus has a history of making incorrect generalizations about other editors in this fashion before -- if I recall correctly, he's even accused me of being an anti-abortionist and an evangelical Christian.

The greater point here is that if you want to avoid being banned for personal attacks, don't make them. If you honestly believe that discussing another editors' genitals in a content dispute is not insulting, then I suggest you learn to accept that nearly everyone else in the entire world does, and change your behavior accordingly. Nandesuka 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) It appears that you do not see yourself as pro-circ, instead concluding that anti-circ edits as having a greater tendency towards POV pushing. I'm not going to argue with your self-perception or with your generalizations; I will instead assume good faith and conclude tht you genuinely believe all that you have said. I will, however, point out that the net result is still the same: in my experience, your edits have tended to support circumcision. This likewise applies to editors like Jayjg and Jakew. Apparently, it is quite possible to be a pro-circ editor without personally being pro-circ, which is an interesting little paradox. I certainly admit to being an anti-circ editor even though my view cannot be accurately and unambiguously described as anti-circ.

2) With regard to abortion and Christianity, I am certain that you recall incorrectly and encourage you to consult the history if you are not convinced.

3) The key point is that I did not make a personal attack, nor was I uncivil. Rather, when stating that foreskins are in fact functional, I went out of my way to point out that I am not speaking about Jakew's, as I knew that he had a different opinion about his own. While some might consider all mention of gentials to be rude, I would consider it more rude to tell a man who removed his foreskin that he had mutilated himself. I made a good faith effort at avoiding insult, and yet my remark was nonetheless taken as an insult. This is an unfortunate miscommunication, made worse by an admin's mistaken intervention. This should have started and ended with Jake (or Jayjg) asking if I meant to insult and receiving my assurance in the negative. The importance of assuming good faith is made particularly clear by this incident. Al 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a slight correction to one part of your misreading: I am not "concluding that anti-circ edits (have) a greater tendency towards POV pushing." I am describing the edits made in the past by self-described anti-circumcision activists. As to the rest, it is clear to me that as long as you are unable to restrain yourself from commenting on your fellow editors, you will continue to make personal attacks and engage in breaches of civility, since you do not seem able to distinguish between civil discourse ("I believe you are mistaken, and here's why") and insulting rudeness ("Here's what I think about your dick."). But I've told you this before, and it didn't help that time either. The choice to be blocked or not is entirely in your control: act appropriately, and continue to enjoy editing privileges. Continue to act in the manner you have acted in, and be blocked. Your choice. Nandesuka 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, your post is neither civil nor relevant. I am not an anti-circ activist and I'm not particularly interested in your hostility and threats. Do not bother responding with further incivility, as I will promptly remove it from this page, as I have done before. Al 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not say you were an anti-circ activist, and of course I disagree with your characterization of my comments as incivil. But it's your talk page: do as you wish. Nandesuka 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you mistake "pro-Misplaced Pages policy" and "pro-good writing" for "pro-circumcision". Insisting that anti-circumcision activists (self-described or otherwise) adhere to Misplaced Pages policies that they routinely ignore is not being "pro-circumcision". While anti-circumcision activists may like to think that anyone who disagrees with their edits is "pro-circumcision", that does not make it true. Jayjg 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay, imagine if I were to reverse your claim by saying that pro-circ editors are convinced that anyone who disagrees with their edits is anti-circ. Would you be annoyed? Now put yourself in my shoes. Empathy is the beginning of understanding.

In any case, none of this addresses the central point, which is that there was no incivility on my part. At most, I made a statement that, to my surprise, was mistakenly viewed as an insult. I apologized for any unintentional insult, and Jake has accepted it. Why do you persist in blocking me for what is, at most, a misunderstanding? I keep trying to assume good faith, but I can't make any sense of your actions. Al 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, it's true what Alienus says: An apology has been proffered and accepted. In the spirit of WP:BLOCK - In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Misplaced Pages - what would Alienus have to say or do at this point for you to agree to reducing his block? What exactly are we trying to convince him of right now? -GTBacchus 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a week is excessive, especially considering that Alienus has apologized for his remark. If he agrees to maintain a more, ahem, above-the-belt level of discourse, I think the block should be reduced to 48 hours. -GTBacchus 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be a consensus among those who've commented here that a week is excessive. I'd say this is clearly so, particularly since the initial ban is in error on a number of counts, both factual and procedural. Fundamentally, it is a show of bad faith to lay an extended ban based solely on personal interpretation. About the only possible motive I can come up for knowingly doing so is to lay the ground for forcing a perma-ban. Of course, I can't say whether it was knowing or not, and WP:AGF points to the latter. Al 05:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Alienus, I was about to voice my support of halving the duration, on the basis that while it was inappropriate, offense might not have been intended. Then I read the preceding comment, and I see the familiar protests of complete innocence, and defiant tone. That doesn't seem compatible with an acceptance that your words did cause offense (regardless of intent), and a willingness to make an effort to avoid doing so in future. For what it's worth, then, I oppose a reduction of the block, though I may change this view in future. Jakew 10:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. An apology implies admission of error or wrongdoing; in this case, User:Alienus has made it quite clear he accepts no responsibility for his continued violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I read it as if he is genuinely sorry to cause offense but didn't mean to as he didn't realise he had. The one thing we can all agree on is that Al knows how to insult and has no record of being ambiguous - you know when he means it. Sophia 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I read it that way, too. I also wrote it that way. I don't believe I can honestly apologize for intentionally insulting anyone when I never did any such thing. At most, I can apologize for making a comment that might be taken as insulting, and I have done so quite clearly. My error was in failing to anticipate the reactions of certain readers, but at no point did I intend insult. It would be nice if we all had perfect foresight, insight and empathy, but that is too high a demand to make of us. Therefore, there will always be cases where our comments are misunderstood. The solution is mutual understanding through respectful communication, not punishment.

As Sophia amusingly points out, if I had actually intended to insult Jakew, there would be no controversy here. Contrary to Jayjg's repeated but unsupported assertions, I have not violated WP:CIVIL. Jayjg is simply mistaken. I ask again that he assume good faith and take things at face value instead of reading hostile intentions into everything I say. All editors are obliged to assume good faith, but admins have an even higher obligation because their errors lead to harm. Currently, I remain blocked for a crime I clearly did not commit. Al 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock