Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log, as those will have changed by the time people click on your links. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Ferrylodge was banned appropriately by the CSN
Following this discussion and the user's (User:Ferrylodge)attempts to manipulate it, he was banned. I feel that it would have been better for the ban to have waited another 24 or 48 hrs to happen, but consensus was for site ban, not one of the alternative proposals. --Rocksanddirt 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline
All times GMT if I did the math right - please correct if I didn't
 * - edit count
 * 02:09, 29 April 2004 - Ferrylodge's first edit
 * ca December 2006 - Ferrylodge becomes a regular contributor (169 total edits prior)
 * 16:45, 20 September 2007 - MastCell blocked for a 3RR violation on
 * 23:32, 20 September 2007 - KillerChihuahua proposes the ban
 * 03:05, 21 September 2007 - MastCell unblocked Ferrylodge so that he could participate in the CSN discussion)
 * 18:23, 21 September 2007 - FeloniousMonk made the indefinite block

KillerChihuahua and Ferrylodge

 * 15:11, 20 September 2007 - KillerChihuahua makes a highly incivil comment to Ferrylodge, just 8 hours before proposing the ban
 * 15:11, 20 September 2007 - KillerChihuahua makes a highly incivil comment to Ferrylodge, just 8 hours before proposing the ban

FeloniousMonk

 * FeloniousMonk was a participant in the discussion and should not have made the block.
 * FeloniousMonk was a participant in the discussion and should not have made the block.

The Community sanction noticeboard met with widespread community disapproval

 * The board was deactivated by community consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination).
 * Community bans ought to be the last step, not the first step in dispute resolution and users ought not to be AFD'd/

is a sock puppet of
''As a quick word, please forgive me for the length - there's a lot of evidence here and I'm afraid I will have to exceed my allotted time. -- B 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)''
 * (Odd nature edit count)
 * (FeloniousMonk edit count)

Odd nature

 * (ON) registered on 16:34, 18 April 2007. His first edit was 14:05, 23 April 2007, or, just after the s-protection timeout ended, though he had edited for some time prior as an IP.
 * ON only edits during the standard business day, west coast time - never on weekends and or nights. With rare exception, his edits are between 12:00-20:00 east coast time, or, 9:00 - 5:00 west coast time.
 * The earliest ON edit is 11:23 eastern (8:23 western) and the latest is 21:53 eastern (18:53 western)

Vacation time

 * ON did not edit from Monday July 30 until Friday August 10 (inclusive). Presumably, he was on vacation.  During that stretch, on several weekdays, FM edited during the day - July 30 (only as late as 12:15/9:15 so inconclusive), August 7 (12:13 - 14:43 eastern, 9:13 - 11:43 western), and August 8 (13:25 - 13:42 eastern, 10:25 - 10:42 western).  These were his only weekday edits during the business day other than one notable instance (stay tuned).
 * They both got Labor Day off too ... but then, I think that's one of the few everyone gets.

Ferrylodge banning

 * The one and only deviation to the pattern I will lay out below is the day that Ferrylodge was blocked. On that day (Fri, Sep 21):
 * FM edits 10:31, 10:49, 10:49, 10:51, 10:55, 10:56, 11:18 (7:31, 7:49, 7:49, 7:51, 7:55, 7:56, 8:18 western)
 * ON edits regarding the ban 14:03 (11:03 western)
 * FM blocks FerryLodge at 14:23 (11:23 western)
 * FM notes the ban on FL's talk page and CSN 14:24, 14:26, 14:28 (11:24, 11:26, 11:28 western)
 * ON replies at 14:38 (11:38) in support of the ban, then edits for the rest of the afternoon defending the ban on CSN and FM's talk page.
 * In other words, he drove home or to an internet cafe for lunch, blocked FL, and back to work.
 * This instance is the one and only time FeloniousMonk has edited during the business day, other than the mutual vacation, since February.

Workday Evidence

 * Times are given eastern/western.
 * Prior to on or about February 1, FM was regularly on during the business day, though this is hardly conclusive. It's only interesting in that if you're going to stop editing and create a sock puppet, 2 months is probably a safe time for checkuser data to disappear, I would think/assume.
 * There is a strong correlation between work schedules. I am listing every day that meets a boundary condition (FM leaves late, ON gets in early, OM leaves late, FM gets home early).  I am not cherry picking these in any way.  Aside from the day of the block and the vacation mentioned above, this is a complete list of days where there is possible overlap.
 * FM's latest workday edits in the morning (after 11:00/8:00):
 * On Thu Sep 20, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:36/8:36. ON's first was 13:13/10:13.
 * On Tue Sep 11, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:32/8:32. ON's first was 13:19/10:19
 * On Tue Sep 7, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:32/8:32. ON's first was 14:29/11:29
 * On Thu Aug 30, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:42/8:42. ON's first was 13:50/10:50
 * On Thu Aug 23, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:31/8:31. ON's first was 13:14/10:14
 * On Wed Jul 18, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:01/8:01. ON's first was 15:12/12:12
 * On Mon Jul 16, FM's last edit in the morning was 12:32/9:32. ON's first was 13:54/10:54.
 * On Thu Jul 12, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:25/8:25. ON's first was 16:49/13:49
 * On Fri Jul 6, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:26/8:26. ON's first was 15:02/12:02
 * On Mon Jul 2, FM's last edit in the morning was 11:30/8:30. ON's first was 14:21/11:21
 * On Mon May 28, FM's last edit was 12:16/9:16. ON did not edit that day.
 * On Thu Aug 30, FM's last edit in the morning was 12:12/9:12. ON's first was 13:50.
 * ON's earliest workday edits in the morning (before 12:30/9:30) are below. Note that if ON edited early in the morning, FM did not edit, or, at least, edited much earlier:
 * On Apr 27, ON edited at 12:12/9:12. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On May 25, ON edited at 11:54/8:54. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 6, ON edited at 11:41/8:41. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 18, ON edited at 11:52/8:52. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 12, ON edited at 11:33/8:33. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 13, ON edited at 11:23/8:23. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 14, ON edited at 12:30/9:30. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 27, ON edited at 12:30/9:30. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jun 29, ON edited at 12:26/9:26. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Jul 9, ON edited at 12:40/9:40. FM's last edit was at 10:35/7:35.
 * On Jul 23, ON edited at 12:28/9:28. FM's last edit was at 10:45/7:45.
 * On Jul 24, ON edited at 12:06/9:06. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Aug 16, ON edited at 12:20/9:20. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Aug 17, ON edited at 12:15/9:15. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Aug 29, ON edited at 12:29/9:29. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Sep 17, ON edited at 12:22/9:22. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Sep 18, ON edited at 12:20/9:20. FM did not edit that morning.
 * On Sep 19, ON edited at 12:31/9:31. FM did not edit that morning.
 * ON's latest workday edits in the evening ... there isn't anything you can conclude here as there isn't enough of a body of evidence to go on:
 * On Sep 25, ON's last edit was 21:03/18:03, FM did not edit until after 1:00 am/10:00 pm
 * On Aug 20, ON's last edit was at 21:02/18:02, FM's first was 12:14 am/21:14
 * On Aug 16, ON's last edit was at 21:53/18:53, FM's first was at 12:05 am/21:05
 * On Jun 5, ON's last edit 21:11, FM did not edit
 * On April 23, ON's last edit was 21:18, FM did not edit
 * FM's earliest workday edits in the evening
 * FM's earliest edit on a weekday afternoon was 20:12/17:12 on July 24. OM's last edit that afternoon was 15:00/12:00.
 * On Aug 31, FM's earliest edit is 21:46/18:46. OM's latest was 14:44/11:44.
 * On July 11, FM's earliest edit is 21:52/18:52. OM's latest is 19:33/16:33
 * On May 29, FM's earliest edit is 21:52/18:52. OM's latest is 18:12/15:12
 * On Apr 27, FM's earliest edit is 21:38/18:38. OM's latest is 20:12/17:12
 * I have carefully scanned their edits and at no point does FM edit after ON gets to work or does ON edit after FM gets home.
 * I don't think the afternoon is meaningful as far as proving anything (it doesn't disprove anything, but it doesn't prove anything). But in the morning, on about 20% or so of the total workdays since ON's account was created, FM has edited late or ON has edited early but on not one of those was there overlap.

Conversation

 * ON has posted seven times to FM's talk page six times - four either fixing editing issues or talking to someone else -, , ,.
 * and were actually addressed to FM, both of which are amusing taken in the context of them being sock puppets.  Neither got a reply from FM.

Mutual editing

 * FM did not edit from Tues morning April 17 2:23 / Mon night Apr 16 11:23 until Fri night Apr 27
 * ON created his account on April 18 and his very first edit 14:05, 23 April 2007 was to Talk:Intelligent design, which was one of FM's last pages edited.
 * His third edit was to create . Months later in September, ON and FM would jointly edit war with  over having a notability tag in this article.  Strangely, nobody but the three of them (two of them, whatever) seemed to care.
 * With his next edit, he then reverted some POV at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism back to FM's version.
 * He edited two more articles - both them ones FM had edited. In one of them - William A. Dembski?, he said he was replacing removed articles.
 * Anyway, this continues - I bore you with it all, but you can see his entire contribution history, scroll down to the bottom of it, and his early edits are all picking up where FM left off.

The return of FM

 * On Friday, April 27, ON says "Sources provided are acceptable, Salon, etc, as was noted by a number of admins when they where previously discussed at Template_talk:Dominionism."  The discussion he was referencing was one that FM had participated in (most recent edit)
 * ON continues at Template talk:Dominionism. (Three edits).  FM continues the conversation that night.
 * On Monday, April 30, ON reverts Sternberg_peer_review_controversy to FM's version.
 * On Tuesday, May 1, ON reverts Creation-evolution controversy to FM's version.
 * On May 1, FM and ON again revert to each others' version of Sternberg_peer_review_controversy


 * Beyond the above, there are obviously plenty of times where the two edited mutually, but the above are the early (and meaningful) examples., though I would be remiss in not pointing out

FNMF

 * 19:59, 10 September 2007 - Will Beback asks FeloniousMonk to look into the potential that blocked sock user FNMF has returned
 * 00:20, 11 September 2007 - FeloniousMonk promises to take a look and offer his opinion tomorrow -
 * 17:14, 11 September 2007 - Odd nature tags FNMF and BCST2001 as sock and puppeteer, respectively ,
 * 19:56, 11 September 2007 - This strikes Jmh123 and Will Beback as odd - they wonder whose sockpuppet Odd nature is ,
 * FeloniousMonk never does offer his opinion on the matter

FM aka ON violated WP:SOCK in !votes

 * ON has participated in three and only three AFD discussions in his time here. All three are ones in which FM also participated.  There are only two other AFDs that FM has participated in since ON became a member
 * FM !voted in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism, an AFD opened by ON. ,
 * Both !voted keep in Articles for deletion/Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity - ,
 * Both !voted keep in Articles for deletion/Free Speech on Evolution - ,
 * Both !voted to keep Intelligent design listed as a featured article in Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive2 - ,

FM aka ON abused administrative privileges by blocking Ferrylodge

 * Per the diffs above, ON offered support as if another user both before and after the block.

FM used sockpuppetry to violate 3RR on Creation-evolution controversy

 * 00:49, 1 May 2007, 01:42, 1 May 2007, 14:00, 1 May 2007, 20:11, 1 May 2007

Ferrylodge was not allowed to answer accusations at Community Sanction Noticeboard (CSN)
I (Ferrylodge) was only allowed to comment at the Community Sanction Noticeboard (CSN) during a window of several hours in the middle of the CSN discussions, and therefore I had no opportunity to answer numerous CSN allegations that resulted in my banishment from Wikipedia. This is shown by the following timeline: 17 September 2007 – Ferrylodge was in Washington Post article, later cited to help justify banishment from Wikipedia.

15:11, 20 September 2007 - Ferrylodge violated 3RR at Stillbirth article.

16:45, 20 September 2007 - Mastcell blocked Ferrylodge for 3RR at Stillbirth article.

17:03, 20 September 2007 - Ferrylodge asked KillerChihuahua to stop posting at Ferrylodge's talk page. 22:49, 20 September 2007 – Mastcell recommended dispute resolution be pursued after 3RR block.

23:32, 20 September 2007 - KillerChihuahua began CSN discussion to ban Ferrylodge.

00:45, 21 September 2007 - Ferrylodge requested unblock to participate at CSN.

03:05, 21 September 2007 - Mastcell made good faith attempt to unblock Ferrylodge to participate at CSN.

03:52, 21 September 2007 - Ferrylodge stated that he was still unable to edit CSN.

05:57, 21 September 2007 - Ferrylodge made his first statement on CSN, while stating "I will be travelling on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (September 21-23) and therefore will not have internet access."

16:19, 21 September 2007 - Ferrylodge made his last statement at CSN.

18:23, 21 September 2007 - FeloniousMonk banned Ferrylodge.

20:48, 21 September 2007 - Mastcell apologized for lingering autoblock of Ferrylodge. 22:03, 21 September 2007 - Vote on banning Ferrylodge began at CSN after he was already banned.

16:02, 22 September 2007 – Voting and commenting at CSN on Ferrylodge came to an end.

03:28, 6 October 2007 – CSN nominated for deletion.

20:30, 8 October 2007 – Ferrylodge unblocked for purposes of appealing to ARBCOM. 

23:04, 9 October 2007 – Ferrylodge posts for the first time at Requests for Arbitration.

03:18, 11 October 2007 – CSN abolished.

Ferrylodge has apologized
I have apologized for the two 3RR violations that have earned me blocks here at Wikipedia. I have suggested a 1RR limitation for awhile, due to my two 3RR blocks. I have also apologized, for example, about an edit summary in January 2007 regarding “killing the chihuahua.”

Banning Ferrylodge is opposed by various administrators
Administrator B has stated, “I am an admin and yes, I am willing to overturn the block - I firmly believe the ban is incorrect both on the facts of the case and on the process that was followed.”

Administrator Y has stated, “Ferrylodge did do a lot of very useful mainspace editing, and that by banning a user like him we are harming the project.”

FeloniousMonk shouldn't have banned Ferrylodge and explanation from him has been requested
FeloniousMonk banned me for "harassment," even though FeloniousMonk was involved in the brief discussions at the CSN, and even though FeloniousMonk had previously made related false accusations against me.

I stated in my arbitration request that I would like to address specific accusations of alleged harassment that are identified by FeloniousMonk as most serious, “before addressing less serious accusations.” FeloniousMonk has thus far not identified such specific instances of alleged harassment.Ferrylodge 03:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge had reasons for asking KillerChihuahua to stop posting at Ferrylodge’s talk page
At 17:03 on 20 September 2007, I asked KillerChihuahua to stop posting at my talk page. Later that day, KC filed her initial ban proposal on the Community Sanction Noticeboard (CSN), while complaining about my having asked that she stop commenting at my talk page.  Here at this arbitration, KC continues to criticize me for my "request to not post on his talk page."

Wikipedia policy gives great latitude to an editor to remove comments from his or her talk page. I also had an additional reason for taking this step: KC’s incivility. She has asserted that my words are "bullshit" and "pathetic", that my words are "inane," that my behavior served no purpose "unless your purpose is to convince others that you are congenitally dense," that I am "naive and disingenuous," that I am a "spammer," et cetera. A person who unapologetically uses such language anywhere at Wikipedia has no right to post at the target's talk page.Ferrylodge 16:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of frivolous accusations against Ferrylodge: psychoanalysis
Both KillerChihuahua and Severa now present evidence to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia because I objected to being psychoanalyzed. Pleasantville is the editor who has a habit of psychoanalyzing. During these ARBCOM proceedings, she has called me a “sociopath”, and urged another completely calm editor to “turn the emotional thermostat down.” Severa and KillerChihuahua are presenting evidence of an exchange last month where Pleasantville asserted that I was “extremely anxious,” and I merely objected.  ARBCOM can take a look at that exchange with Pleasantville, to see how inaccurate some of my accusers (and the evidence they are presenting) are.Ferrylodge 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead's accusations of "forum shopping" are wrong
At this main Evidence Page, Bobblehead presents evidence that he incorrectly says supports the notion that I have “forum shopped” regarding Fred Thompson. Bobblehead says that I tried to change the pertinent Manual of Style (MOS) while I was falsely claiming that I was doing so in regards to “John Edwards” instead of “Fred Thompson.” Bobblehead is wrong.

If you look at the diff that Bobblehead presents as evidence, you can see in the very first two comments that I was discussing Fred Thompson at the MOS, so plainly I was not concealing my concern about Thompson at the MOS. The reason I was discussing John Edwards at the MOS is because the MOS itself uses John Edwards (and not Fred Thompson) as an example. The example of John Edwards had been repeatedly cited at the Fred Thompson talk page, and I specifically said at the Fred Thompson talk page that I was planning to go over to MOSBIO to discuss John Edwards. Once I did go over to MOSBIO, I specifically announced at the Fred Thompson talk page that I had done so.  There is no way that I could have been more open and forthright.

Bobblehead also contends here at the main Evidence Page that I denied at MOSBIO that I “was there about the Fred Thompson edit war,” but actually I never denied that. On the contrary, I specifically said that I was at the MOSBIO as a result of a suggestion made at the Fred Thompson talk page. I also said at MOSBIO that I wanted to focus on John Edwards rather than Fred Thompson (because Edwards rather than Thompson is mentioned in the mosbio).Ferrylodge 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Odd Nature does not show misconduct by Ferrylodge
Odd Nature was rude and uncivil to me on October 8, when he wrote at my talk page: "Please don't waste the community's time. Oh noes [sic], not a Draft Request for Arbitration!! Another abject waste of the community's time and patience." Apparently, ARBCOM's acceptance of my appeal indicates that Odd Nature was not only rude and uncivil, but also wrong about whether the request was a waste of time.

At the main Evidence Page, Odd Nature's evidence includes referring to other people who say that I have done wrong, and also includes Odd Nature's own specific allegations that I have done wrong --- I will refer now to the latter. The only specific allegations by Odd Nature, at the main Evidence page, that I have done anything wrong is apparently a long series of diffs following the statement that "FerryLodge used his replies at WP:CSN to repeat and continue his harassment of others." That long series of diffs presented by Odd Nature includes the following:. I urge people to click on any of those diffs, to see that there is not the slightest trace there of any wrongdoing by me. In other words, Odd Nature's only specific allegations of wrongdoing amount to nothing.Ferrylodge 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

“I can't wait to watch you being fucked”
Sometimes, bad editors drive good editors away from the Wikipedia project, such as Orangemarlin who recently said to the administrator B, “I can't wait to watch you being fucked.” B contributed to this arbitration, but has now left the project. I am proud to say that Orangemarlin voted to ban me from Wikipedia, after harassing me with comments like “your immature rantings (yes, they are immature) do you a big disservice.”

Of course, the fact that I have not fled Wikipedia due to harassment from the likes of Orangemarlin does not prove that he is a good guy. Likewise, just because Severa left Wikipedia for a period of time does not prove that I am a bad guy. Nevertheless, Odd Nature, Killer Chihuahua, and Severa all assert at this evidence page that I should be banned from Wikipedia because Severa chose to leave Wikipedia for a period of time. Severa’s break, in and of itself, does not prove anything. Sometimes editors become frustrated when they are not able to own an article, sometimes they have a thin skin, and as KillerChihuahua has noted, sometimes editors use “claims of having been wronged to attempt to gain leverage over others." Ferrylodge 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles I've worked on related to abortion and reproduction
KillerChihuahua and Severa allege wrongdoing by me at the articles concerning RCOG, Fetal Pain, Pregnancy, Stillbirth, Mother, and Abortion. Even if their allegations were correct, most of my Wikipedia edits in this reproduction-related area have been on other articles rather than those six: Roe v. Wade (511 edits), Fetus (297 edits), Abortion in the United States (143 edits), Intact dilation and extraction (123 edits), Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (117 edits), Gonzales v. Carhart (110 edits).

For example, I brought the Roe v. Wade article through a Featured Article Review, at the end of which I was praised for “brilliant work.” Today, Severa added an allegation to this Evidence page of wrongdoing by me on Roe v. Wade.  She cites two “problematic changes made to the Roe article,” which she disagreed with.  Those two matters were successfully addressed during the featured article review, and I strongly object to the conversion of a minor content dispute into grounds for banishing me permanently from Wikipedia.

Incidentally, Severa alleges below that "Ferrylodge has had 3 blocks for 3RR since December 2006." That is false, as is much of the other evidence. I have had only two blocks for 3RR at Wikipedia, the first in response to Severa's own 3RR violation (see summary of my blocks). Also, no one has ever brought a Request for Comments (RfC) about me.Ferrylodge 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Citicat is making unsubstantiated allegations
Here at this Evidence page, Citicat cites a total of four article edits that I made, as evidence of my wrongdoing. Those four edits are as follows:   Frankly, I do not see anything whatsoever wrong with any of them. People are building a case against me out of thin air. Also, I agree with Citicat that “Other actions should have been attempted before banning.”Ferrylodge 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua presents very incomplete and misleading evidence
KC and I had a controversy at the RCOG article. I’ve already described the ensuing harassment block in the summary of my three blocks. KC is now saying below that the RCOG incident illustrates me editing against the consensus that “RCOG was not a 'pro-choice' organization.” But none of the three diffs that KC cites  say that RCOG is a “pro-choice organization.”  Rather, those three diffs say that RCOG took a pro-choice position on a particular issue. KC omits to mention that she suggested making this distinction, between being a pro-choice group on the one hand, and having a pro-choice position on the other hand:

You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.

Turning now to what KC calls a “womb war”, her evidence is again very incomplete and misleading. Please note that KC has not allowed me to discuss her email to me of September 14, which is very relevant here. KC is saying below that I edited against consensus on September 15 here, but  this diff shows that I was merely restoring the Pregnancy article to a previous version. Likewise, KC cites this diff from September 18, but again this diff shows that I was merely restoring the Pregnancy article to a previous version. As my edit summary said on September 18, “An ongoing discussion … is continuing at the talk page,” and consensus had not been reached. I very strongly object to KC describing this matter as though I was the one warring for changes to the Pregnancy article. KC is also now citing this diff from September 19 at the Mother article as evidence that I warred to insert the word “womb” into that article, but this diff shows that I was restoring that word rather than warring to introduce it. KC now repeatedly seeks to create the false impression that I was introducing changes into articles, whereas I was actually restoring longstanding language that others were seeking to change without consensus. KC now accuses me of “forum shopping”, even though I had no control over which articles other editors would choose in order for them to change from longstanding consensus versions. As it happened, the next article chosen by those other editors was the Stillbirth article; as the editor Zsero put it, I “tried to revert the unilateral attempt to change ‘womb’ to uterus…[and] tried for a compromise that would include both words.” KC insisted in the most insulting way to change the Stillbirth article from its longstanding version without consensus, and falsely accused me of being a “spammer.”  More detail about the Stillbirth controversy can be found at the CSN discussion.

Finally, regarding what she calls the “Fetus image on abortion,” KC says below that I edited against consensus and engaged in personal attacks. KC asserts that there has been a consensus that the abortion article should not contain any image of what is aborted. KC overlooks the distinction between an image of an intact fetus before it is aborted, versus a dismembered fetus after it is aborted. The discussion last month, to which KC refers, involved an image of a fetus before it is aborted, which is most certainly not any type of “shock image” of the kind that had previously been discussed at the abortion article. is the image that I was proposing to include in the article. I do not wish to get into a long discussion of abortion here, but I do acknowledge asserting that Andrew c ridiculed the notion of fetal pain, and I think supports the assertion.Ferrylodge 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence in response to that of Tvoz
To put things in context, it should be noted that Tvoz and I were featured together in a Washington Post article on 17 September.  The evidence that Tvoz now presents below is similar to her comments at the Community Sanction Noticeboard (CSN) of 21 September, to which I responded at the CSN on 21 September 2007.   Later on that same day (21 September 2007) I was banned from Wikipedia.   The next day (22 September 2007), Tvoz commented further at the CSN.  Tvoz now cites four alleged misrepresentations by me that supposedly bolstered my own position, and she says below that I have “refused to apologize or retract to my satisfaction....”  I was unable to satisfy Tvoz because she commented at the CSN after I had already been banned from Wikipedia. I will try to satisfy Tvoz now.

Regarding the first of my alleged misrepresentations, Tvoz footnoted a proposition here. I apologize for assuming that Tvoz agreed with the proposition that she was footnoting. However, it was not an unreasonable assumption, and I deny having acted in anything but good faith.

As to the second of my alleged misrepresentations, Tvoz suggested here that I “go over to John Edwards and make as passionate an argument there.” I apologize for not realizing that Tvoz did not want me to make that identical passionate argument anywhere else but at the John Edwards article, such as at the mosbio. And I deny that I was seeking to change the mosbio merely to bolster my position in a content dispute. If one encounters a stupid style guideline, in the midst of a content dispute, I do not see why it is necessary to remain silent instead of objecting to the stupid style guideline. Apparently, Tvoz finds my response to Bobblehead unpersuasive, but I do not know why.

The third of my alleged misrepresentations was here. I wrote that the “article has again been edited (by Tvoz) to reinsert this material.... I would urge all editors to please work by consensus, and not insist on inserting material into the article when it has been removed and rejected by multiple other editors.” I did not mean to imply that Tvoz was the only editor who had reinserted that material, and I tried to clarify this point here. I apologize for not having been crystal clear in the first place, and I do not understand why my clarification was inadequate. Tvoz also says below that “there were more editors supporting the inclusion of the wording than its removal.” Tvoz neglects to mention that the material was new, and that there had been no vote, so I do not know how many editors were on each side. Even if she is correct about the numbers, nevertheless multiple editors were opposing inclusion of that new material, and discussion was ongoing. Under those circumstances, I do not believe it is appropriate to jam new material into an article; ultimately the material in question was not included in the article. I deny having acted in anything but good faith there.

Regarding the fourth of my alleged misrepresentations, Tvoz says below that I “disingenuously said that some editors don't know what wikistalking is, and that he wasn't making accusations.” I was not being disingenuous at all, and I would like to know what evidence she has that I was being disingenuous. Tvoz now claims below that she showed up at other articles that I edit merely because they are “an interest” of hers. However, she previously stated: “it's possible that you'll see me editing other pages that you also edit, and commenting on their talk pages, to try to rein it in.” My own policy at Wikipedia has been honesty and neutrality, and I make no apologies for that whatsoever.Ferrylodge 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not have any response to Tvoz's further statement of 24 October that she made here at this page. I tried to respond as well as I could to her first batch of allegations that she made here at this page.Ferrylodge 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence in response to Severa's
See the talk page.Ferrylodge 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

''I hope these responses illustrate that the allegations made thus far have very little substance. If I have not achieved that goal, at least I tried my best. Limitations of time and space counsel against responding to every word said below, but I will do so upon request.''

FerryLodge was not denied the ability to respond to his community ban

 * Mastcell unblocked Ferrylodge to respond to WP:CSN:
 * FerryLodge then commented at WP:CSN to the proposed ban 9 times:
 * FerryLodge ended his participation in the discussion prior to the ban being instituted:
 * FerryLodge used his replies at WP:CSN to repeat and continue his harassment of others:

There was overwhelming support for a ban

 * At the time FeloniousMonk instituted the ban, the community was 14:4 in favor of a ban:
 * A summary of opinions after ~35 hours of discussion showed support for a community ban ran at 15:1:
 * At 48 hours when the discussion was closed total support for a community ban of FerryLodge was 22 in favor and 7 opposed:

Proposed alternatives to the ban missed the problem

 * The proposed alternatives to the indefinite ban, indefinite probation with 0RR or an indefinite topic ban on political, pregnancy and abortion related articles do not address FerryLodge's pattern of harassment of KillerChihuahua that prompted her to seek a ban: User:Tvos presented additional evidence of harassment by FerryLodge:, as did Severa who said it was to the extent that she left Wikipedia and Andrew_c stated he had avoided editing articles on which Ferrylodge was active for the same reason. That's 4 editors claiming harassment by FerryLodge. FerryLodge's long standing pattern of harassment documented at in a RFC at Requests_for_comment/Bishonen_2 and the response to it was endorsed by many respected editors. Topic bans are a remedy for biased editing and chronic 3RR violations, not harassment.

FeloniousMonk did not violate policy or convention by instituting the ban

 * FeloniousMonk had no previous involvement with FerryLodge prior to his comment regarding a community ban at WP:CSN:
 * At both WP:AN/I and at WP:CSN it is a common practice that admins institute a community ban that they've commented on.
 * FerryLodge has presented no actual evidence that supports his claim that FeloniousMonk was too involved to act on community support and institute the ban: Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence

FerryLodge supporter User:Ali'i was incivil, harassed FM, others

 * Incivil, harassing FM for instituting the ban:
 * More incivility/trolling when called on it:

Evidence presented by User:KillerChihuahua
Ferrylodge habitually edit wars against consensus and then escalates to personal attacks when things don't go his way.

Ferrylodge engages in multiple campaigns on multiple fronts at the same time, spreading disputes across multiple articles and talk pages. He shows a pattern of chronically harassing others via character assassination and personal attacks which rely heavily upon misrepresenting his "opponents" views and statements. He sometimes repeats the precise same vicious accusations - I am speaking here of repeatedly making the same accusation against the same editor with the same diff as "evidence", not merely repeating himself. He reposts the same attack. He also continues to attack other editors well after the initial dispute.

This is no effort to discuss and resolve disputes; this is a campaign to malign and disparage those he disagrees with in an attempt to damage their reputation; hurt, harass and intimidate them into withdrawing from what he has made into a highly personal and damaging conflict. According to their own statements, this has worked with Severa, who left the project, only coming back when Ferrylodge was banned; and Andrew c, who avoided articles on which Ferrylodge was active. I also found myself avoiding those articles, solely because of Ferrylodge's hostility.

I have attempted to keep my evidence brief. I have therefore necessarily omitted many details as well as entire "campaigns". I trust the following will give an indication of the issues.

The RCOG incident
On Fetal pain article, where a number of editors disagreed with the edit on the talk page and in edit summaries: On RCOG article: Ferrylodge protested that there was no consensus that RCOG was not a "pro-choice" organization because there was no discussion on Talk:RCOG - which is accurate but misleading, as all the discussion had taken place on Talk:Fetal pain.
 * Ferrylodge edits against consensus
 * 04:13, 24 May 2007 - this was adding a cite to the disputed content, as added two edits before by Stadler981 at 22:24, 23 May 2007 Dispute proceeded on talk, with Ferrylodge stating the cite supported labeling RCOG "pro-choice" and other editors disagreeing to varying degrees.
 * 22:39, 24 May 2007
 * (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007 Edit summary "Wikilinking abortion and pro-choice." but this is where the "pro-choice" was first added to this article
 * (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007
 * (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007
 * Ferrylodge pursues matter to my talk page, culminating in block for harassment
 * User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_10
 * Ferrylodge tendentiously argues his case across multiple venues
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252
 * Requests for comment/Bishonen 2
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259 regarding Ferrylodge edit warring for his Rfc summary of "No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge." which he has since referred to mulitple times, the most recent in bringing this ArbCom case, by saying "I would like to state for the record that KC’s blatantly incorrect RfC summary was ultimately corrected by another editor." Note that his edit summary was blatantly false; mine was modified by Lsi_john to appease Ferrylodge, with my full support. Yet he smears me by referring to this in this manner. He continues also to disparage Bishonen regarding the entire incident.

The womb war

 * The edit war (15 through 20 September 2007)
 * On Pregnancy: 15:42, 15 September 2007 Ferrylodge replaces "woman" with "mother", "uterus" with "womb" and "fetus" with "baby"
 * 15:47, 15 September 2007 partial revert by Ginko100 ("womb" to "uterus")
 * 21:12, 15 September 2007 further reverts by Jim62sch ("baby" to "fetus"), , ,
 * Talk:Pregnancy begun 16 September 2007 by Ferrylodge: Ferrylodge argues for "womb" (as well as "mother" instead of "woman", "baby" instead of "fetus" and other terms). Consensus does not support these edits.
 * 12:12, 17 September 2007 Extensive reverts by 68.163.233.17, citing talk page ("mother" to "woman", "womb" to "uterus" and "baby" to "fetus")
 * 03:31, 18 September 2007 Partial revert of "mother" by Ferrylodge
 * 18:24, 19 September 2007 Reverted by Tvoz
 * On Mother: 14:34, 19 September 2007
 * Talk:Stillbirth begun 14:13, 20 September 2007 by Ferrylodge. He received no support and was criticized for forum shopping by several editors (myself included.)
 * On Stillbirth, 20 September 2007:, , ,.
 * Ferrylodge personalizes dispute, escalates to violating WP:NPA
 * when I referred to "womb" as "vulgar" in an edit summary, and to clarify I posted the definition link to the meaning of vulgar I was using (commonly used language), he removed it with the edit summary " Please do not post at my talk page, KC." - then proceeded to post on his talk page that "she said that I was trying to insert a "vulgar" word into the article. It astounds me that an admin can get away with such incivility, and I find it very difficult to respond in a constructive way to her personal attacks" - which is typical of his tactics, for I must either ignore his misrepresentation of my statement, or ignore his request to not post on his talk page - which surely he learned in his block for harassment would be harassment, as that is precisely what he was last blocked for. In short, he's using the "lessons learned" not to be a better Wikipedian, but to game the system so that he is "innocent" and I am "doing wrong." This is so blatantly misleading it constitutes lying in order to smear me. I am not the only editor he uses these tactics against.
 * On Talk:Motherhood, in a discussion begun by User:Pleasantville concerning biological motherhood:
 * Ferrylodge accuses Tvoz of wikistalking Tvoz had responded to Pleasantville supporting Pleasantville's idea. She had not addressed any remarks to Ferrylodge. She protested.
 * 10:48, 19 September 2007 Pleasantville requested that Ferrylodge "maintain a civil tone"
 * 14:07, 19 September 2007 and again, after further edits from Ferrylodge, Pleasantville requests civility from Ferrylodge
 * 14:31, 19 September 2007 Ferrylodge escalates his attacks, calling Pleasantville "condescending", accusing her of "psychoanalyzing, and pretending that my tone is not civil"
 * 14:54, 19 September 2007 Pleasantville requests that Ferrylodge "relax and talk"
 * 16:19, 21 September 2007 On the CSN noticeboard, Ferrylodge stated that this was his only interaction with Pleasantville, and that "What I do know about Pleasantville is that she is a very unkind editor." citing this interaction as evidence!


 * 16:47, 20 September 2007 Ferrylodge was blocked for 3RR on Stillbirth
 * 17:03, 20 September 2007 Ferrylodge makes unblock request, which consisted primarily of a series of attacks against me, which included the "vulgar" accusation.
 * 22:55, 20 September 2007 ElinorD corrected two of his attacks, stating "And Ferrylodge, KillerChihuahua has already pointed out that "vulgar" has more than one meaning. Nor did she imply that you were "congenitally dense". She said that your behaviour served no purpose, "unless your purpose [was] to convice others you are congenitally dense." That's quite different"
 * 23:10, 20 September 2007 Ferrylodge continued his attacks on me

Fetus image on Abortion
This has been discussed at least 6 times, and the consensus is that images of fetuses are not appropriate. This is now in the FAQ for the article (with links to disucssions). This question was raised again by a drive-by editor on 16 August 2007 in Talk:Abortion#Images_of_Abortion. Again, strong majority favored no images. Ferrylodge supported inclusion of images. During this dispute, Ferrylodge engaged in personal attacks and repeatedly edit warred against well-established and current consensus.
 * Ferrylodge edits against WP:CON
 * 04:08, 19 September 2007 Talk:Abortion: Ferrylodge states his intention to add a POV tag because his image is not supported
 * 04:23, 19 September 2007 Abortion: Ferrylodge adds image of fetus to Fetal pain section of article
 * 06:32, 19 September 2007 Talk:Abortion: Tvoz objects to image
 * 15:58, 19 September 2007 Abortion: Image removed by Lion's Heart with edit summary "Take out POV image. POV problem solved. This was proposed on the talk page, but they just went ahead and added it anyway, w/o consensus. Allow discussion. Don't force your hand."
 * 17:26, 19 September 2007 Talk:Abortion:I commented that the image was not only against consensus, but added in a completely inappropriate section (Fetal pain)
 * 21:21, 19 September 2007 Talk:Abortion:Andrew c with edit summary "can't we lighten up a bit?" attempts to lighten the situation with a little gallows humor
 * Ferrylodge escalates to violating WP:NPA
 * 15:01, 20 September 2007 Talk:Abortion: At this point, Ferrylodge attacked both Andrew c and myself, accusing us of ridiculing the notion of fetal pain. His only possible "evidence" for this is my agreement with the removal of the image, and Andrew's attempt to lighten the mood. "I think it should be clear that admins here such as Andrew c and Killerchuhuahua ridicule the notion of fetal pain, and are determined to make sure that their pro-choice POV is fully reflected in this article" This is a personal attack due to our not supporting this inappropriate image against long established consensus. Ferrylodge is attempting to intimidate us into not opposing his unsupported and inappropriate addition. He underlined his position by adding a POV tag to the article.
 * 15:11, 20 September 2007 I responded. This is the "bullshit" edit summary. I stand by that assessment. To accuse Andrew c of POV, and to further smear him with the allegation that he has "ridiculed" fetal pain, due to one light comment on the talk page, is to misrepresent Andrew's post in the worst possible light - indeed, in such a light that I cannot in good faith believe that Ferrylodge could have so badly misinterpreted Andrew's action, and find this to be a deliberate attempt at character assassination and intimidation. It is bullshit of the worst order: deliberate and malicious personal attack on another editor. I have no explanation as to why I was included in this attack, as I had merely agreed with the removal of the image which had nothing to do with fetal pain and had no support for addition.


 * 16:47, 20 September 2007 Ferrylodge was blocked for 3RR on Stillbirth (see The womb war, above) ending this edit war as well as that one.

This arbitration is about Ferrylodge's ban
Aloha. This request for arbitration is supposed to be about Ferrylodge's ban. If Odd nature feels like I erred in some way (as noted above), I would request he not muck up this page. If he feels that strongly about it, I would request he start the dispute resolution process with me. I would request though he stops calling me a "FerryLodge supporter". I am a supporter of Wikipedia, and no one editor.

Also, I would also remind Ferrylodge to stick to the topic as well. This isn't an arbitration against KillerChihuahua, et al., nor is it (or shouldn't be) against Ferrylodge. It should be a look into whether or not the ban was valid and in-policy.

Bans are supposed to be a last resort

 * Requests for comment/Ferrylodge (see how that's red?)
 * To the best of my searching, no mediation involving any of the disputes.
 * A topical ban/revert limit was proposed, and had some support (in various states of enthusiasm), even by those originally in favor of the total ban. &againIPMyself Including from KillerChihuahua at one point ("If the community wishes to give a topic ban, I selfishly would be happy enough, as if he's off the pregnancy and abortion articles I won't have to deal with him any more..."). But it was brushed aside in favor of what is supposed to be a last resort. Ferrylodge has stated for the record that he would cooperate with a topical ban or a revert limit.
 * You can see the position on this point I raised at the time.

Ferrylodge can be a constructive editor
Ferrylodge has been contributing since April 29, 2004. He has over 8,500 edits, including over 5,500 mainspace contributions. To list every diff where he has been constructive would require me to include thousands of diffs (well over the prescribed 100 limit for this page). And why push someone off the project entirely when it is only really the abortion/"womb"/mother/reproductive rights/etc. articles on which he has been allegedly "disruptive". A look through his mainspace edits shows productive editing (especially on topics not related to abortion). 

More concrete examples (where he has been invaluable dealing with U.S. politics)...


 * Ferrylodge almost single handedly built District of Columbia vote in the United States House of Representatives. Here is the article Ferrylodge started and built (minus one minor edit by User:Patrickneil) A quick look at the current history shows Ferrylodge as being the main contributor on this important U.S. politics article.


 * Also, Ferrylodge has helped fix up Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution as can be seen by looking at the history.


 * Also, Ferrylodge almost single handedly built Legal Tender Cases: Here's the article as started solely by Ferrylodge. You can see his impact in the full history.

Ferrylodge has long met definition of "disruptive editor"

 * Ferrylodge has been engaged in ideologically-motivated editing of same range of abortion, pregnancy, and politics-related articles since December 2006, meeting "is tendentious" criterion of definition of a disruptive editor.
 * Ferrylodge continues to press issues despite opposing consensuses, meeting "Rejects community input" criterion of WP:DE, and spreads editing campaigns across several articles at once with goal of "exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles" as outlined in fourth criterion.
 * Example 1: Added "pro-choice" description to RCOG article although another editor had already objected to such a description at  Fetal pain. Added "pro-choice" to RCOG twice more despite concerns from 2 more users (myself included).
 * Example 2: At Talk:Pregnancy, advocated addition of image he hadn't gained consensus for at Talk:Fetus, and, when 3 editors (myself included) agreed the image was no more appropriate at Pregnancy than at Fetus,  he responded by suggesting that a series of anatomical drawings of pregnant women be removed from the article, describing them as "pro-choice."  Five minutes later, he went ahead and removed the diagrams, and did so three more times, after they were restored by myself and Gillyweed.    He then tried to have the images deleted on Commons.
 * Example 3: Inserted "womb" into Stillbirth 4 times starting at 13:01, 20 September after making comments regarding term's apparent disuse at both Talk:Abortion and Talk:Pregnancy on Sept. 16. 6 editors gave reasons for or commented on disuse of "womb" in the period prior to 13:01, 20 September.
 * Example 4: Changed "Freddie" to "Fred" at Fred Thompson 7 times in 24-hour period.
 * The Roe v. Wade Featured Article Review, which Ferrylodge has pointed to as an example of positive involvement on Wikipedia, was initiated by me to try to constructively address problematic changes made to the Roe article by Ferrylodge himself in January (the two examples of problematic edits I highlighted at the FAR were both introduced into the article by him ). I tried bringing this to the attention of the FAR reviewer when Ferrylodge became involved in the FAR.

Ferrylodge has history of incivility toward other editors

 * Ferrylodge has conducted himself in a manner consistent with the "Campaign to drive away productive contributors" criterion of WP:DE. He generally does not let matters rest, even when consensus is against him, and this has "exhaust[ed] the general community's patience" and pushed some editors to their limit (including myself, who avoided Wikipedia entirely for 2 months, and Andrew c, who was driven away from Ferrylodge-frequented articles for a time in March).
 * Ferrylodge has a habit of personalizing disputes, focusing, sometimes single-mindedly, on the contributor, not the content:
 * Example 1: Opened RfC against Bishonen on June 5, despite being advised against such by ALoan on May 29, who also recommended first testing the waters on A/NI. Ferrylodge went to A/NI on May 30, where most agreed Bishonen's block was justified, but Ferrylodge still proceeded with the RfC.
 * Example 2: Inserted himself into a minor dispute which arose between myself and an anonymous editor on Vaccine controversy, although the dispute did not involve him, and he'd never edited the article in question.
 * KillerChihuahua said in her RfArb statement that Ferrylodge has a history of deliberately misrepresenting others and I can provide one possible example of this. At Talk:Pregnancy, he made it out as though an image had been objected to earlier at Talk:Fetus only because of the subject's marital status/gender, when I'd said I found the wedding band distracting (among other issues with the image), and SheffieldSteel that the "hand of a white, male, married adult" did not help him determine the fetal model's size. Ferrylodge persisted with this representation of our statements even after I'd attempted to set the record straight.
 * Ferrylodge has a history of incivil remarks, namely, calling Swatjester "vapid", stating to me "My regard for you is I'm sure as [low as] yours for me, probably a lot lower" and then "What a fine bunch you people are" to the room at large in one post, telling Pleasantville to "stop condescending and psychoanalyzing" after she said "Please try to adopt a more civil tone. You seem to be extremely anxious about this", stating to me "Your bullying is not going to intimidate me from using common sense and neutral information at Wikipedia", and, when asked what he learned from the RfC, "That you can pretty much get away with murder at Wikipedia, as long as you have a big pack of people to back you up."

A ban would be a last resort

 * Ferrylodge has had 3 blocks for 3RR since December 2006. This has been going on for 10 months now — plenty time to learn how to edit constructively and cooperatively.
 * Musical Linguist tried reaching out to Ferrylodge after the Bishonen RfC but he declined the offer. Ferrylodge is careful to note he is sorry for his "most recent 3RR block" and "two 3RR violations", meaning he's sorry for the InShaneee block in Dec. 2006 and the FeloniousMonk block in Sept. 2007, but not the Bishonen block from June 2007 — the one precipitated by repeated posting on KC's talk page after being asked to stop. I don't think ArbCom's decision should hinge upon Ferrylodge's contrition, but, the fact that he has yet to acknowledge the error of his conduct in this and many other instances — let alone apologize for it — is worth noting.
 * A topic ban, 0RR, or 1RR would only address half the issue. It might stop the edit-warring on certain articles but it would not guarantee that Ferrylodge would be civil to other editors in the future.
 * Concerns over Ferrylodge's conduct predate the CSN request by months and so it — or the Community Sanction Noticeboard itself — should not be the sole focus of this ArbCom case.

The RfC/Bishonen is a useful illustration of Ferrylodge's argumentation technique
This RFAr doesn't offer any attempts at previous dispute resolution between Ferrylodge and his critics/opponents, and no request for comment on Ferrylodge has been undertaken. I suggest that the arbcom can somewhat make up for this shortfall by reading the request for comment on myself which Ferrylodge brought in June 2007, and which illustrates his manner of argumentation when in conflict. Note especially the discussions on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Ferrylodge has forum shopped
This is partially mentioned in Severa's evidence for Ferrylodge meeting the definition of a "disruptive editor", but I figured I would show evidence that his disruptive editing is not confined to pregnancy and stillbirth sections. During the great name dispute for Fred Thompson, in addition to the 7 reverts Severa mentions above, Ferrylodge also expanded his content dispute beyond the boundaries of the Fred Thompson to other articles and WP:MOSBIO following the edit protection of the page to the wrong versionTM. After Fred Thompson was edit protected, FerryLodge went to the protecting admin's talk page and asked how he can make sure that the wrong version is not saved. After Mercury/Navou pointed out "wrong version", Ferrylodge created an edit protected article request on the talk page. When that was rejected by User:CBM, Ferrylodge made an appearance on CBM's talkpage to request a reconsideration (which is fine).. An hour later, Ferrylodge appeared on the talk page for Bill Clinton questioning how his name was presented there, which he reverted 5 minutes later. He then proceeded to WP:MOSBIO, trying to change the MOS, but claimed he was doing so in regards to "John Edwards" and followed that with his first post ever on the talk page for John Edwards. When Italiavivi called him on this, Ferrylodge denied he was there about the Fred Thompson edit war.

Ferrylodge violated WP:SOAPBOX not just on many occasions, but as a matter of course
Ferrylodge has an agenda supporting a change in abortion law, and the basis of a majority of his edits were to influence others to his position, often by attempting to show unborn children as "person-like" as possible as early as possible. He has shown no interest in adhering to WP:Neutral point of view ("One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases.") Ferrylodge will often use flimsy reasoning to remove edits he disagrees with, such as a grammatical or spelling errors Or will claim the other editor "does not have consensus" to make a change Ferrylodge disagrees with, despite there being no consensus reaching discussion on the matter.  In this edit on Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge correctly removes a POV edit by another editor, but writes in the edit summary "Sorry, I have to revert this." and goes on to say "The best way to show the decision was corrupt . . . " clearly showing his own non-NPOV.  Citi Cat  ♫ 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That there are several administrators who are willing to unblock Ferrylodge
I expressed dissatisfaction with the block on Ferrylodge's talk page soon after it was implemented. I did not follow up on this because Ferrylodge indicated to me in an email that he did not wish to pursue the issue further at that stage. It is my belief that, had the discussion been allowed to continue, a more suitable solution would have been found. It should be noted that my support for unblocking Ferrylodge would have been conditional on his agreeing to limitations on his editing, as agreed by the community.

Administrator B indicated that they were willing to unblock Ferrylodge at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Administrator Y indicated that they were willing to unblock Ferrylodge at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

That dissatisfaction with this block led to dissatisfaction with the Community Ban process
This case was mentioned in the nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard; it was also mentioned several times in the discussion,,,,,.

That there were "irregularities" in the community ban process
Another fairly moot point, with times taken from Ferrylodge's Block Log: There followed considerable discussion on the issue. By this point it was clear that the CSN discussion was irretrievably muddled. Ferrylodge had been blocked, but not banned, and the discussion continued for several days. FeloniousMonk eventually replaced the community ban tags, but it was not until after Ferrylodge indicated to me in an email that he did not wish to pursue this case further that his name was added to the list of banned users.
 * Ferrylodge was unblocked for the purposes of participating in the CSN discussion, by MastCel 13:05, 21 September 2007
 * FeloniousMonk blocked Ferrylodge again at 04:23, 22 September 2007, placing community ban tags on his talk, but without also closing the discussion and adding his name to the list of banned users
 * I Removed the tags, because the discussion was on-going.
 * Subsequent to the block, a section was added to CSN seeking votes to endorse the block by User:Jossi,
 * This "votes for banning" section was closed by User:Ryulong,
 * Ryulong then also closed the discussion,.
 * However, discussion of the ban proceeded beyond even this point
 * Ryulong realises that the discussion is ongoing, and removes the archiving boilerplate.

Ferrylodge has repeatedly misrepresented edits and comments without acknowledgment or apology
In a 10-day period of time, Ferrylodge misrepresented comments and edits by me on 4 occasions to bolster his own position and his own edits; each time I pointed it out to him, and each time he denied it, defended his own comments, refused to apologize or retract to my satisfaction if at all. His refusal to acknowledge these errors or misrepresentations continued with sarcastic denials at the CSN where one might think he'd present himself in a more conciliatory manner, and on his talk page here, after the CSN discussion was well underway.


 * On September 9, here, he erroneously claims that I  had previously "urged" that Thompson's name be rendered in the way that he preferred and used that erroneous claim to bolster his own position and justify his multiple reverts; I pointed out  that he misrepresented my edit;  he neither retracted his comment nor apologized for it as an error. In fact, he continued arguing his misinterpretation of my edit at the CSN.


 * On September 10 he tried to get agreement to modify the relevant section of the WP:MOSBIO guideline to support his position on Fred/Freddie Thompson, but entitled that talk section "John Edwards" and neglected to specify that he was making his policy edit suggestion because of his  interest in how Fred Thompson's name was rendered, as per Bobblehead's evidence above regarding forum shopping with which I concur;  in the middle of the argument Ferrylodge claimed  here that "Tvoz suggested I visited here, and I have taken up her suggestion", including this diff of mine which says something quite different; I was not at all suggesting that he try to reword  MOS policy to conform to his position.   When I pointed out that he was again misrepresenting my comments, he ignores the comment and does not apologize or rescind it.  This misrepresentation is important because I think changing policy or guideline wording should never be done to bolster one's position in a content dispute - especially in a stealth manner - and his prominent and incorrect claim that he was doing so at my suggestion is putting words in my mouth that I never said - this is unacceptable, and I've yet to receive an apology. In the CSN, when I spelled this out, he brushed it off as "splitting hairs" and "incredibly slight imprecision" - completely ignoring my reason for raising the matter.  This is more misrepresentation and an unwillingness to acknowledge that he might be wrong, let alone an apology for using my name in a matter I specifically disagree with. I consider this to be egregious and potentially damaging to me.


 * The third instance of his misrepresentation of my edits came on Sept 15, where he implied that I was edit warring by saying   "The article has again been edited (by Tvoz) to reinsert this material" (I only reinstated it once - Ferrylodge reverted it twice that day) and that editors should "not insist on inserting material into the article when it has been removed and rejected by multiple other editors" which while a correct statement of how things should be done, was factually incorrect for this particular instance (there were more editors supporting the inclusion of the wording than its removal). I pointed out to Ferrylodge that he had misrepresented me for the third time, asked him to correct his comment on both counts. No apology for misrepresenting me was given, and although he edited his comment here, he did it in a way that didn't really address my objections. When I raised this at CSN, his response was  "Tvoz piles on with alleged misrepresentation #3" - again unable to acknowledge his own error or apologize for it, even when saying that he corrected his language, which he only did partially and without apology.


 * The fourth instance occurred on Sept 19, when Ferrylodge, at first by innuendo, falsely accused me of wikistalking because I edited and commented on Mother, a subject I have almost 25 years of experience and interest in, and other topics where he also edits such as Abortion  which is an interest of mine  (for example see  and )  and millions of other people;  I objected to the accusation, and he disingenuously  said that some editors don't know what wikistalking is, and that he wasn't making accusations.  Meanwhile I brought the conversation to his talk page ("Your accusation of wikistalking" section head) and asked him to point out where I was harassing him or disrupting anything - which as another editor also pointed out is the key point in identifying wikistalking.  A few days after the CSN was well underway and this very matter was being discussed by a few editors, he came back to his talkpage and neither apologized nor rescinded his accusation - instead he changed my header to "Wikistalking", said he wasn't accusing me of anything yet went on to accuse me of following him around and suggesting harassment by citing WP:HAR.  How is that not another accusation of wikistalking?  This is all false, and his attempts to wriggle out of his false accusation rather than just apologize - at the time when this was being discussed as part of the reason he should be banned - are more indication of his unwillingness to admit error or accept criticism.

Taken together, and adding to it his continuation of the misrepresentations at CSN, this reveals a pattern, and I am only focusing here on that 10 day period. On a content level, Ferrylodge's edits often express his POV, rather than a neutral approach - I saw this frequently on the subjects of reproduction and political candidates. But as for behavior, he reverts repeatedly while accusing others of edit warring, uses sarcasm, innuendo and bully tactics, and edits tendentiously, often making disingenuous arguments. I am not commenting on the CSN process here, only providing evidence that this editor's behavior and unremorseful attitude toward other editors, even in these proceedings, are inappropriate, uncollegial,  and counter-productive to the work we do in building an encyclopedia. Apologies if the format is not quite right or my comments too long - brevity is not my strong point (meaning, you should have seen the earlier draft). Tvoz | talk 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Ferrylodge's misrepresentations continue
Paragraph by paragraph to his reply:
 * 1) Contrary to his claim above, the September 17 Washington Post article does not provide any context for my evidence. The first three incidents, , and my objections took place before the article was published  - I can't see into the future.  The fourth , Ferrylodge's false wikistalking accusation, was two days after the article appeared, so perhaps the article influenced him, but not me.    Ferrylodge is correct that the evidence I am providing is what was presented at the CSN, and he responded to all of it at CSN with further misrepresentations and no acknowledgment of error or apology, which I included in my evidence here. He had ample opportunity to do so, but instead took a defensive attitude, denying wrongdoing. And contrary to his claim above, "I was unable to satisfy Tvoz because she commented at the CSN after I had already been banned from Wikipedia.", I made only one response to him at CSN after his ban was instituted, and that was to reply to his mischaracterization of why I was participating in that action. My 3 other post-ban edits were replies to Zsero, so Ferrylodge's claim here that he was unable to satisfy my concerns because of the ban is incorrect.
 * 2) First, there was no proposition being footnoted - I replaced a weak source with two stronger sources. The language they supported was not in contention at that point regarding the word order, and when it came into contention  Ferrylodge attempted to use that earlier replacement of footnotes as an argument to bolster his position, by saying I "urged" that wording: "That is also how Tvoz previously urged that it be done here. So I could please do without the outrage and indignation, Tvoz, when I have merely advocated doing what you yourslef previously advocated." I didn't urge it or advocate it -  I only provided better sources for the birthname. We were not discussing the way the name would be rendered, which is what the content dispute later became.  Even if it had been a "reasonable assumption", when I told him an hour later on Sept 9 that it was a misrepresentation, he had no response, and he did not correct himself or apologize.   This was not good faith at all, as he claims here, and he continues to misrepresent it.
 * 3) This is laughable. I was, with irony, asking if he planned to "go over to John Edwards" to make an argument with the same degree of passion  against the name Johnny Reid "John" Edwards as he had against Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson - it was a rhetorical question. I didn't suggest that he go anywhere, and he misses the point again here, which I had pointed out to him at MOSBIO, and again at CSN,  that it was a misrepresentation that I think is damaging to me to say that I suggested he have the policy rewritten to match his position in the content dispute.   He apparently thinks it's ok to do that - I don't - and it was my name being bandied about by him to support his action. A simple correction at that time by him would have been enough - but he seems unable to acknowledge this even now.
 * 4) The clarification was inadequate at that time again because it didn't include an acknowledgement or apology for misrepresenting my edits for the third time in less than a week which was part of a pattern. And his calling it "piling on" at CSN hardly makes me think that his belated apology now in this arbitration can be taken seriously.
 * 5) Ferrylodge obviously accused me of wikistalking and continues to do so in his reply to me in this arbitration. What is disingenuous is to claim that he was merely trying to educate me on what wikistalking is, because "some editors don't know", when he knows that I've been editing here for over a year with now over 8000 edits and am well versed in basic policy. And when I called him on his accusation he didn't apologize or rescind it - he tried instead to pretend he wasn't accusing me of anything, which is blatantly ridiculous.  And he goes on here to only partially quote me regarding  his editing; the full quote is "I'll continue to edit whatever pages I please, and having seen what I and several other editors have identified as appearing to be POV-pushing, it's possible that you'll see me editing other pages that you also edit, and commenting on their talk pages, to try to rein it in.".  The "it" being his POV-pushing which is the salient point that he omitted above.  That's not wikistalking, which is defined by  harassment - watching out for POV pushing and reining it in is not harassment. (The "reining in" on Mother consisted  of two comments -  and  - in support of two other editors' positions,  on Talk. Hardly harassment.)  The point:  no apology for his false accusation has been forthcoming, and he continues to imply that I was wikistalking him, including on September 24 on his talk page,  and  after stating at the CSN on September 21 that he was not making such an accusation.  So, is he accusing me of harassing him by wikistalking or not?

Again, it is not each individual incident, but the pattern of behavior that does damage to the project, and his reply to my evidence only provides more of the same misrepresentation. Tvoz | talk 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's activity on Fred Thompson was predominantly positive
I have only observed Ferrylodge on Fred Thompson, and his activity there has been predominantly constructive. As I see it, his conflict with Tvoz (documented above) arose from a conflict of personalities and political perspectives in which both editors were acting in good faith but saw things very differently. Ferrylodge has had a tendency to get provoked, but that should not result in his permanent banishment, in light of his constructive contributions to Wikipedia. A few examples from Talk:Fred Thompson:


 * Addressing a possible copyright violation:


 * Responding with civility to an uncivil, politically-motivated editor and calmly handling the related content discussion:


 * Another content disute handled appropriately:  After the dispute was resolved, the editor he was working with (Anappealtoheaven) responded: "Ok. Nothing is ever perfect but you have done a fine job to compromise and be fair at the same time. Thank you Ferrylodge."

Ferrylodge has been a very productive editor
In the month before he was blocked he made nearly 700 mainspace edits. Almost all were accepted by other editors. Even in some of the contentious articles mentioned in this arbitration, most of his edits were accepted by those who are now complainants against him.

His last 50 edits involved 18 separate articles. For each of those articles I examined in some detail each of his edits to determine if they were accepted or rejected by other editors. I generally limited my examination to the most recent 100 edits in each article. In most cases, Ferrylodge had also made edits prior to the most recent 100.

Stillbirth
    The word "womb" had been in the article since February 2006, long before Ferrylodge edited the article. On 19 September 2007 an editor (not involved in this arbitration) changed the two instances of "womb" to "uterus". On 20 September 2007 in a two hour period Ferrylodge tried a mixture of "womb" and "uterus", but other editors developed a new consensus for "uterus" and not "womb". Is it so wrong for an editor to defend what had been the consensus and not immediately recognize that a new consensus had formed?
 * edits rejected

I would add that all of Ferrylodge's edit summaries are civil, while one of KillerChihuahua's summaries is uncivil: (Ferrylodge I have no idea why you are so in love with the word "womb" but please stop this silly campaign to use an inaccurate and non-specific vulgar term. Write a poem or something. "Ode to the womb)

     These edits involved the legal definition of stillbirth in Canada, the United States, and by the World Health Organization and are still part of the article today. I submit that these edits are more substantial than a short content dispute about "womb" or "uterus".
 * edits accepted

Ferrylodge copied to the lead section a sentence written by Andrew c, who is now a complainant in this arbitration. Does this not demonstrate that Ferrylodge can work with other editors? Andrew c later moved this Ferrylodge edit up higher in the section, demonstrating that even a complainant found Ferrylodge's edit was constructive.

Abortion
   
 * rejected

       In this sequence, Ferrylodge proposed new language which was accepted as consensus. Later, KillerChihuhua and another user defended the consensus by reverting to the Ferrylodge language. Andrew c improved the language, and Ferrylodge defended Andrew c's language by reverting a non-consensus change. This is another example of Ferrylodge and two complainants working together.
 * accepted

   

Parker v. District of Columbia
No apparent controversy. Ferrylodge made 9 edits. For five of the edits Ferrylodge interacted with another editor with typical back and forth to improve the language.

District of Columbia home rule
10 edits. No apparent controversy. After his last 5 edits, which ended at the time of his block, nobody else has edited the article.

Mother
Ferrylodge reverted 6 instances of vandalism, made two minor edits, corrected a factual error, then ran into the "womb" vs. "uterus" change. "Womb" had been in the article since 2007, then an editor changed it to "uterus", Ferrylodge changed it to have both words, then several edits late Bishonen changed it to "uterus" alone.

Legal Tender Cases
Ferrylodge created this article. The majority of the last 100 edits are his. Several other editors worked with him. There is no apparent controversy.

1993 Clinton health care plan
Ferrylodge was a major contributor. 40 of the most recent 100 changes were his. Tvoz and Andrew c were contributors. There was no apparent controversy.

Pregnancy
Ferrylodge made 24 edits of the 100 on the history page I examined. There was no apparent controversy. I spot checked several of his edits and all still exist in the article as of today. Overlapping his last few edits was a minor wording change. The word "mother" had been in the article since 2005. An editor began to change "mother" to "woman" and similarly "father" to "man". Ferrylodge changed some of the wording back to "mother" and "father". There were several editors other than Ferrylodge making several changes in both directions. None of the changes appeared to be edit warring, but rather were good faith attempts to improve the article. After Ferrylodge's last edit, other editors continued to change back and forth among mother, woman, father, man, and parent. To this day, the article still has both "woman" and "mother".

Felony
Two edits by Ferrylodge are still in place today.

Roe v. Wade
Ferrylodge made 23 of the 100 edits examined. A spot check showed that his edits are still in today's article. Several edits:      showed that Ferrylodge defended consensus even when he personally disagreed with it. E.g. "I disagree that the recently deleted sentence was argumentative, but I'm outnumbered."

Constitution (political)
Made one edit - a reversion of vandalism.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Made 13 edits. No controversy.

John Rutledge
5 edits. No controversy.

Fetus
16 edits. No apparent controversy. Spot check shows edits still in article, though some were later rearranged.

Misdemeanor
1 edit. Still in article.

Political positions of Fred Thompson
Made 47 edits in most recent hundreds. No apparent controversy. One mini-dispute resolved by Ferrylodge making three edits to reach satisfactory wording.

Coker v. Georgia
6 edits. All accepted without change.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Made 50 of most recent 100 edits. No apparent edit-warring but extensive interaction between Ferrylodge and Andrew c, with what appear to be good faith attempts by each to improve the wording to the satisfaction of both. In one edit summary, Ferrylodge recommended, "You may want to additionally cite and quote the AMA." In the next edit, Andrew c did exactly as Ferrylodge recommended. No editor has changed Ferrylodge's last 12 edits.

Summary
I examined approximately 350 of Ferrylodge's edits in greater or lesser detail. For some, I read the diff, and read the diffs of following editors, or compared with the current article. For others, I merely read the edit summaries. All of Ferrylodge's summaries were civil. In several cases, he defended the consensus even though he personally disagreed. Very, very few of his edits were rejected. He repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to work with other editors to achieve mutually agreeable wording. In the one short edit war, he defended what had been the consensus only to have the consensus rapidly change to new wording.

Community bans
A community ban is a ban which no admin is prepared to overturn. Discussion of what would be overturned or not tended to run over the archive threshold of WP:ANI, which is why I (among others) proposed WP:CSN. The demise of WP:CSN changes nothing; we simply discuss it in a different place. Any admins proposing unblocking? I see none. In the absence of any such, this is a community ban. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has demonstrated good will and restraint during these proceedings
Ferrylodge was unblocked on October 8 so that he could participate here, with the conditions that he was only to edit arbcom-related and relevant user pages, or be reblocked. While he is physically able to edit any article he pleases, he has chosen to abide by the conditions set upon him. This suggests that he has the ability to abide by restrictions that may be placed upon him (such as topic bans) and will do so in good faith.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.