Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2

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


 * Ferrylodge asked for my support in this matter, and the reason I have decided to support him is that I think he has a right to due process. While it is fair to address his behavior after the block warning was given, all that matters--in this case--is what preceded the block warning. The other stuff is another issue and should be dealt with elsewhere. The reason I support due process is that--as excellent as she may be at other things on Wikipedia--I wonder if Bishonen (aka “Bishzilla”) doesn’t have a tendency to jump the gun. For example, to date I have left only one, brief comment on Bishonen’s Talk page, and yet she warned me off of leaving any others--because several OTHER people had written at length. In other words, her warning to me was unwarranted--especially since, even including her Talk page, I have logged very, very little text in this conversation. I also wonder if it seems odd to anyone else that a user who blatantly vandalizes a page would receive only a warning and yet, in this case, someone who was earnestly trying to improve an article was warned off, blocked, and permanently labeled for being in a conversation that, at worst, could be characterized only as mildly sarcastic. Now, I want to be clear, I am not saying that Bishonen is bad or evil or bad-intentioned. I am interested in Ferrylodge getting due process to determine if Bishonen acted prematurely. And that is the central question in this conversation.LCP 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Due process was in the AN/I. I suppose this then is an appeal?  When this fails, then what, an RfAr?  Assuming that such an RfAr were even accepted, what if that appeal fails?  Having wasted valuable time and computer processing time does Ferrylodge then storm of Wikipedia and write an anti-wiki blog?  Do you know what "frivolous" means?  Given its frequent use to modify "lawsuit", I'm sure Ferrylodge does.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(Break)
Added a section break. Not because it needs it, but just because it's easier to have a little edit button, than having to edit the whole page. Anyways, I feel it necessary to make a few things clear: I hope that's the last I'll need to talk of this to you.
 * 1) This is not a court of law. "Due process" is taking things a bit far.
 * Reply to LCP: It isn't a court of law, and my point was that referring to "due process" implied some sort of trial. It's an exaggeration. The name of the game is 'dispute resolution'. It really didn't need to be so adversarial. Incidentally, he already got a review in AN/I. And trust me, I've seen quite a few blocks overturned if they were deemed questionable. But my comment was about your choice of nomenclature. Again, it entirely misses the point of the process.
 * 1) In 'certifying' the RfC, you aren't just protecting his right to said "due process". You're asserting that you also believe fully in it, and have similarly tried honestly to resolve your own dispute with her. The whole point in having two people certify an RfC is so that these things aren't filed frivolously.
 * Reply to LCP: You may very well be right in this one. I may be mistaken in the point. Technically, the RfC can simply be seconded by someone else who has tried to resolve the dispute. Of course, you weren't involved with the original dispute, so you obviously had no ability to attempt resolution there... And your single goal since the block seems to have been to start the process of RfC, rather than spirit or intent of RfC... So, I suppose it's possible that you would have been a valid choice to second the claim, if you had any association with the original dispute, or if you'd ever tried to resolve the blocking-dispute instead of trying to force it to an escalated process, or... uh... do I need to continue?
 * I have no idea of what you are trying to communicate here. Your text is incoherent.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tut-tut...you know as well as I that if you strike "start" and insert "support" in its place the whole thing makes perfect sense.  Did you really try to "resolve" or did you try to escalate?  I think the latter is the pretty obvious answer.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You might be a bit more believable when accusing her of tending to "jump the gun" if you hadn't already done so yourself. Your own link which you cite is dated after you jumped to conclusions here and here. For the record (and feel free to correct me on this, bish, if I'm wrong), the 'bishzilla' name was originally used by someone who created it as an attack account for harassing her. Rather than simply having it entirely removed, she instead usurped the name and used it as a playful avatar of sorts, to lighten people's moods and deal with people who might otherwise be offput by admins. Rather than being the sort of monster you seem to have assumed, 'Bishzilla' has never done anything but good. I can personally attest that I've been pulled back from foaming at the mouth and telling people off, simply because I got a friendly note from bishzilla lightening my mood, and letting me calm down a bit. Perhaps if you didn't assume that bishonen was some sort of self-identified ogre, then you wouldn't have treated her the same. At any rate, that's certainly "jumping the gun".
 * Reply to LCP: I honestly don't know how to state this any more plainly. Prior to supposedly trying to 'resolve' this problem, you already established that you were pre-judging her based on a comedic alternate account, without bothering to actually do any research before drawing harsh conclusions. How can that be considered anything but "jumping the gun"? Well, I don't know much about Bishonen, but I know that 'Bishzilla' is an accursed name. Talk about hubris! Man, speaks volumes about her! huh? facts? why should those matters? Seriously, the fact that you alternated between villifying her and saying that you don't know much about her hardly qualifies as an excuse. If nothing else, admitting that you know little about her is a perfect reason to not pre-judge her! (Honestly, if I were to say, "KC is pompous and arrogant. I mean, everything he is and does condones vile atrocities. I'm not saying (s)he's evil. Just that KC is arrogant. I don't know them well, so I can't say they're bad, though", would you really take that seriously? Let alone proof that everything I said about KC after that would be entirely neutral and assuming of good faith?)
 * I have never said or implied--or thought, "I know that 'Bishzilla' is an accursed name." Please stop putting words in my mouth. Bishzilla sounds like "Bitchzilla," and that hardly says, "I am intersted fair-play and collaboration." Instead, it means "I will do to whomever I please what Godzilla did to Tokyo." Or do you think a "bitch" and Godzilla are good and helpful things, having qualities that one would want in an admin?
 * Apart from that, you make a good point when you say, "Prior to supposedly trying to 'resolve' this problem, you already established that you were pre-judging." I stand corrected.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...ever read WP:NPA. You might want to.  You were doing great with the debating tactic of mentioning what you're not going to say...up until those last two sentences.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) As for her response to your message to her, I'd love to know which part in specific you think was so out-of-line, especially considering the fact that things were explained pretty cut and dry. And the fact that she was apparently expected to simply assume from the beginning that she must have made a mistake.
 * Reply to LCP: True. KC did not leave a formal request for Ferrylodge to desist. Granted, KC did see the warnings left to Ferrylodge, and never said, "Oh no, I don't mind!". And, granted, Ferrylodge did delete Ferrylodge's comment from their talk page, and wisely opted to not engage in petty arguments. But, um, yes... just because a person immediately deletes content... that in no way, whatsoever, implies that said content isn't wanted. Uh huh. Sure. Yup.
 * Sarcasm? Really? It's not even good sarcasm. Its not even funny.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is inherently funny? Oh, by the way, it's "it's" not "its".  Do stay with the program.  Cheers.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Also, you can't see why a vandal would get a warning? Well, in this case, that's what Ferrylodge got as well. At least, at first. But if Bishonen warns a vandal to stop their behaviour, and they keep doing it (as in, three more times), then, um, the chances are pretty good that she'll impose a block. (minor clarification) I see I may not have been clear with this one. I was referring to your not understanding why a vandal would only receive a warning, while Ferrylodge received a block. My point was that he, too, received a warning. If you still believe I've mischaracterized your vandal comment, then please tell me.
 * 2) Incidentally, you might not really know what the "central question" really is in this case. Again, you aren't supposed to be 'finding out' if Bishonen acted prematurely. If you certified the RfC, then you should be trying to prove that she did, and that you tried civil and good-faith attempts to resolve the matter. What's more, I think it's pretty clear that Ferrylodge not "getting it" is really a more central issue here. And I should hope the results of the RfC will show that. Bladestorm 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to LCP: Again, I don't think you necessarily realize just what the central issue really is by now. First off, yes, the fact that you prejudged Bishonen based on 'Bishzilla' very much made you an inappropriate mediator. But so did the fact that you approached this from a position that Ferrylodge couldn't have done anything wrong. From the position that RfC is a good thing. (RfC, rather, is a sign that, unfortunately, more informal methods didn't work. Resorting to RfC should be pretty close to the end of the lists of things to try. It shows a deficiency in the system.) The very fact that you called for "an impartial review of Bishonen's actions" but not "Bishonen's and Ferrylodge's actions" very clearly illustrates the problem.
 * Ok, Dad. Does this mean I don't get to use the car?LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Old enough to drive? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I question the value of your analysis of my helpfulness. If you intended to say, "you have not been helpful to me or Ferrylodge", then I'm not surprised. If, however, anyone else believes I've been generally unhelpful, then you'd be surprised how surprisingly quickly I can clam up. Bladestorm 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep on putting words in my mouth? I really don't get it. I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Next time you want to put words into my mouth, please just re-read what I said and assume that I meant what I said, no more and no less.LCP 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to whom? You? If your reputation were at stake, wouldn't you want "due process"? Due process in this context simply means that FL gets his impartial review. LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reputation of an alias? Huh?  See, that's why we don't out people here, even if we know who they are; you can always create a new alias and start over while in "real life" nothing happens to your reputation.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Where does it say that? Maybe I missed it. I don’t have lots and lots of free time to give to learning the finer nuances of Wikiguidelines. What I do know is that I signed a section titled, "Users certifying the basis for this dispute {Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}." I did try, in good faith, to resolve the dispute. That is different from what you suggest.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to another user who resorted to name-calling. And if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that while I expressed an opinion, I did not presume I was correct. I said, “I would like to see her actions in this case reviewed by an impartial group of her peers.” Being direct and forceful is not the same as "jumping the gun." Regarding the name "Bishzilla," it does leave me with a bad impression. But as I stated above, I do not have a personal history with “Bish.” I also stated, “I am not saying that Bishonen is bad or evil or bad-intentioned.” And personally, my natural tendency would be to give her the benefit of the doubt. I have heard people say good things about her, and I think I’d rather have her as ally than an adversary. Nevertheless, I couldn’t care less what you think of “Bish.” Your support of her appears to me to be sycophantic, and it does not impress me or concern me.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Breaking news: I'm quite certain that your support of FL neither impresses nor concerns anyone here; at least it is unlikely to impress anyone positively. Oh, before you share your impression of me, should you be so generous as to acknowledge my existence, I can assure you that said impression concerns me as much as the flatulence patterns of killer apians. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She stepped in and gave a warning where I could not see warning was called for. KC herself had not even yet ask FL to desist. But as I have implied several times, I do not presume to judge this situation. I have an opinion. I have clearly left it to others to decided what is appropriate. So frankly, I don’t know why you are attacking me.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did NOT say that. Please go back and re-read what I actually did say and stop arguing strawmen.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are again making assumptions that are contradicted by what I wrote. Someone who tries to resolve a dispute may be simply a mediator. And while I admit that, being put off by Bishonen and “Bishzilla” myself, I have been an imperfect mediator, I have NEVER called for anything more than an impartial review of Bishonen’s actions. Please re-read what I wrote for #1 and #2. You are repeating yourself.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your entire message is characterized by misreading and false assumptions of what I wrote. And where I wrote in good faith only to clarify what thought and I saw as my role, you wrote only to take an adversarial position against me. You have not been helpful.LCP 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I hope you like the slang better than the “lawyer-speak”.
 * LCP 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have confused "slang" with "dialect" - and there is need for neither, this being the English Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to lack depth in your understanding of English. Slang: “2: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech” .LCP 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I stated precisely what I meant, and I am well aware of the dicdef of both dialect and slang. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And you stated it correctly. The removal of vowel sounds creates an orthographic representation of a dialect, or if you prefer, a vernacular.  By the way, the vernacular (or dialectical form of this specific vernacular) for "and" is 'n, not n', and LCD failed miserably on the representation of verb forms that would be used by this particular vernacular. But, who  am I to argue linguistics with LCD, after all, two tries and he translated this "Peppe Nappa è una maschera della Commedia dell'arte, come Pulcinella o Arlecchino., ma giocate così?" properly.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * LCP, I have a simple question for you:
 * Do you feel that you truly tried to find a resolution, between Bishonen and Ferrylodge, which would help them avoid this RfC?
 * By this I mean a real resolution, as in a compromise or solution, where both of them would be satisfied with the result. That is the definition of tried in good faith attempt to resolve the dispute.
 * I ask this, because I did try to help resolve the dispute, and failed. I tried to help Ferrylodge avoid this RfC. And if your purpose for posting on Bishonen's page was simply to re-state Ferrylodge's non-negotiable demand, then I stand by my assessment that you did not try in good faith to reach a resolution.
 * Based on your comments here, you wanted him to have his day in court. Which means, you were fulfilling the technical requirements of an RfC, and not actually attempting to help resolve the dispute. And that is not in the spirit of the required failed dispute resolution steps for an RfC.
 * If you can say that you truly tried to resolve the problem and avoid an RfC, then I will retract my remarks above, and apologize.
 * As for what this RfC is and is not for:
 * "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste ."
 * Lsi john 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john, No one is ever “satisfied” with a “compromise,” so I don’t agree with your definition “tried in good faith.” Also, I think your “simple question” ignores what I have already stated above and begs the question. As I see it, when all else has failed, the RfC is a legitimate part of the resolution process. And as you said, you had already tried to work things out, and it didn't work. And as I already stated, when I came into the conflict, we were already at the point where the RfC was the next logical step--on the road to resolution. I did support the RfC as FL's "day in court," but I did not do so lightly or in haste. It did seem to me that Bishonen acted rashly in giving the warning and that her behavior should be reviewed. Did I imagine that the process would create such an imbroglio? No, I did not. For my naiveté, I am culpable. I imagined that the matter could be discerned quite easily by more experienced Wikipedians. And as a matter of fact, I still do not understand what the firestorm is about. It seems to me that the discussion should focus only on the issue Andrew c raises and be in the tenor he exemplified. Unlike you perhaps do, I do not equate “close scrutiny” with censure. I trusted the process and assumed that if Bishonen had acted appropriately, the RfC would reveal that. In other words, I saw the RfC as the only resolution left that could result in a resolution. If Bishonen were in the wrong, she would be correct, FL would be vindicated, and everyone would have to accept the outcome. If Bishonen were in the right, she would be vindicated and FL would have to accept his consequences. I supported FL, but I did not see how, apart from advancing the process, that was material. Finally, I don't require an apology even if we do not agree about the fairness of your assessment. In marked contrast to some other Wikipedians, I think you’ve communicated clearly and behaved admirably, and don’t think our disagreement is a bad thing.LCP 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your reasoning is that you were not involved from the beginning. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to either start over, from the beginning, or not jump on board at all. The fact that Ferrylodge had not gained any support, by the time it reached RfC as the next step, is a clear indication that it should not have gone to RfC.
 * Following the logic you used. We would now go to ArbCom with this, assuming Ferrylodge chooses to find an editor to support him (though I'm unfamiliar with the requirements for ArbCom, its the concept I'm about here).
 * However, as you have acknowledged your situation and understanding, it is not my intention to beat on you about this. I merely post here for closure. Lsi john 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone cares to communicate with me further regarding this matter, please contact me via my talk page. I will not be watching this discussion any longer. If further comments are addressed to me, please do not assume that silence is consent.LCP 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

break2
(edit conflict) - I want my own edit button!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * At this point I have no opinion of whether FL owes B an apology. Regarding issue of wasting time, however, you state above, "Sometimes due process runs out." In other words, not everyone gets a hearing. Those who didn't have the time didn't have to participate. Everyone here has chosen to participate, and I don't see how you can punish Ferrylodge for the choice you made to spend time here.LCP 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept the time consequences of my choice to edit on wikipedia. I also accept the time consequences of my choice to stand up for what I believe is right. That does not exempt Ferrylodge from owing an apology, for creating the situation which led to us choosing to spend time addressing it. And, suggesting that he owes an apology is hardly punishment. Lsi john 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I misread what you wrote. I put words into your mouth! When you said you agreed with Orangemarlin, I thought you too were suggesting sanctions beyond an apology.LCP 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Not the way I read it, but Sandstein is welcome to address that for himself. To me, it appeared that Sandstein only addressed the content in response to Ferrylodge's claim that the content did not constitute harassment. But, Bishonen did not block for content. The harassment that Bishonen blocked for was defined in her warning, as: "any further posting on KC's page". Ferrylodge chose, not once, but three times, to disregard that. And, due to his edit-summary, which indicated that KC was 'not to delete the post', after she had deleted his previous 2 posts, I believe his last post actually was harassing in nature. Lsi john 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In essence, Ferrylodge is complaining about something that never happened. He is trying to re-define the reason for the block as due to harassing content, but he was not blocked for 'content'. Lsi john 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john, your quote is inaccurate, but that seems par for the course here. This is what the edit summary said: "Please do not delete this comment."


 * And if this diff had shown me apologizing profusely to Bishonen and KC, and sincerely begging their forgiveness, would you still consider that to have been "harassment" on my part? I doubt it.Ferrylodge 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge, as tempted as you might be to respond to individual comments, my suggestion is to limit your responses to actual questions that might be asked of you. An RfC is an opportunity to receive feedback from the community. The best advice I have, for someone involved in an RfC, is to read the feedback and try to learn from it. The more tempted you are to point out that someone is 'wrong', the more likely it is that you are wrong, or at the very least, the more it indicates an intollerance for anyone else to be wrong about you.
 * Take this opportunity to see how other people view you and your actions. Then decide if thats how you want to be seen, and make any necessary corrections. Its not our 'fault' if we see the wrong Ferrylodge. We only get to see what you've shown us. I certainly won't tell you not to post, but I'd recommend against it. Lsi john 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to LCP
I just want to express my appreciation to LCP regarding this RfC. I am not an expert on RfCs, and this is the first one I've ever started (I previously participated in one started by someone else). However, my understanding is that LCP's certification of the dispute didn't necessarily mean that he was complaining with me: "you don't need two people complaining, you just need a second person to endorse your complaint. You know, to agree that it has merit, and also to contact" the subject of the RfC.

LCP volunteered to do all this, and I'm very grateful. Unfortunately, when he did contact the subject of the RfC, the subject of the RfC said: "I'd appreciate it if ... LCP didn't post on my page anymore." Anyway, it's the effort that counts.Ferrylodge 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * [/bishonen waves her waiver ] "Unfortunately", is it ? And LCP calls it my "warning" to him. You guys aren't very careful with words, are you? If you want this RFC to keep going after the 48 hours are up, you should post and link to that statement of mine more prominently, say under the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", because it's actually my waiver of the need for any further/better dispute resolution attempts from you and LCP. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Okay, I'll do that.Ferrylodge 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ROFL. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclined to Let it Drop
I'm inclined to let this matter drop without seeking arbitration, because it's already been time-consuming enough. I agree with Zocky that, "Accusing people of harassment, even when the accusation is justified, isn't good for much. Being coldly and officially polite works better." And here the accusation was not justified.

In her response to this RfC, Bishonen began, "Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua on her page, ." If anyone will bother to look at those three diffs, they will see that it's a huge stretch to call anything in those diffs "harassment", any more than KC's accusations against me were "harassment"..

Harassment is an inflammatory and serious charge. The RfC already spells out Wikipedia's definition of user space harassment, and those three diffs don't come close. Any argument at a talk page between two parties is bound to include statements that are somewhat annoying to both of the parties, but that does not justify a third party in taking sides and accusing one of the parties of harassment.Ferrylodge 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have learned nothing from this Rfc, and remain adamantly convinced your assertions are correct, and that you are completely in the right. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think I've learned quite a bit from this RfC.Ferrylodge 21:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One hopes one of those lessons was about WP:Wikilawyering. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could clarify; what did you learn from this Rfc? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.Ferrylodge 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll tell ya what, I won't even be offended by that comment. I actually started out trying to help you. You've learned nothing here. And that's rather unfortunate. You don't even know what harassment is. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks FL. That was very well written.  Orangemarlin 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john, perhaps you would be more persuasive if you would be more accurate. You did not start out trying to help me, as you claim.  You started out by calling me “weird” at Bishonen’s page.  And you started your “outside view” in this RfC by calling me “incoherent.”  If the standards for “harassment” that have been applied to me were instead applied to you, you might well already be blocked.


 * You say in your outside view that “I asked him what outcome he hoped to accomplish and he indicated that he had not considered an outcome, only mediation.” In reality, you asked, "What do you hope to accomplish by pursuing RfC, MedCab, or ArbCom or whatever else?" and I clearly replied: “A simple acknowledgment that I was not lying or harassing anyone would be sufficient.”  Again, accuracy does not seem to be your strong suit.


 * In your outside view, you also accused me of having misquoted you at Bishonen’s page. I quoted you here.  The quote is exactly what you said here.  I would thank you to please not accuse me of misquoting you.


 * Your charge of misquoting you is all the more galling because you have had no compunction about misquoting me here. And then when I called you on it, you actually criticized me for noting your misquote.


 * You also accused me in your outside view of making “disingenuous” efforts to resolve this whole thing, followed by more accusations, e.g. saying that my reaction to the block was based on “ego”, and criticizing me for showing “no remorse for posting harsh and disrespectful comments on KillerChihuahua's page.” You completely overlook KC’s inappropriate accusations of bad faith, edit-warring, and disruption to which I was responding.


 * I could go on and on, but my point is that if you want peace, you should seek justice.Ferrylodge 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * It appears you have overlooked my first post here, which was, in fact, an attempt to help. In my second post, which you cite, I agreed that asking Bishonen to help you file AN/I and RfC against herself was wierd and a bit extreme (given that you hadn't even really tried to work it out).


 * I then came to your page and tried to help here. And subsequently here, I recommended that you "Go read what you've written to Bishonen. Don't write anything else right now, just go read it." (Highlighting added for clarity here) . Instead, you went to her page, misquoted me, here by saying "Lsi john suggests (at my talk page) that I explain to you precisely what I want, in hopes of avoiding unnecesary hoops". I never said that, nor suggested it. You inferred it and misquoted me as suggesting it. I had specifically suggested that you were only to read, and not type on her page.


 * In response to your charges that I have misquoted you: I haven't misquoted you, but I am sorry that you believe that I have. The fact is, I didn't quote you at all here. I summarized your edit comment from here, which was "Please do not delete this comment.", as instructions that Killerchihuahua was 'not to delete the post'. Perhaps there is some relevant disctinction between your exact wording and my summary which I fail to grasp. Perhaps the word 'please' changes things from your perspective. It doesn't from mine. Even polite harassment is still harassment.


 * I'm also sorry that you feel that this was criticizm. In fact, it was friendly advice, unrelated to the specifics of your post. The reality of it is, I was attempting to help prevent you from making more of an ass of yourself than you already have. And, it was encouragement that you read what was being written, take it to heart, and learn from it.


 * You have completely bungled the entire situation. You have summarily rejected all of the friendly (though sometimes harsh) criticizm, as being biased. You have failed to recognize that some of the comments have contained partial agreement (or at least understanding) of your position. Hopefully some day you will see that you are responsible for creating this situation and you will be able to learn from it. Sadly, it does not appear that today is that day.


 * Peace in God. Best of luck to you. Lsi john 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john, this will be my last comment directed to you. That you will not acknowledge what appear to be plain facts is very unsettling.  If you will look here you will see that I did not quote you, much less misquote you.  A quote requires one of the these things (") or one of these things ('), and you will not find either one at that link.  When I said, "Lsi john suggests (at my talk page) that I explain to you precisely what I want, in hopes of avoiding unnecesary hoops" I was not quoting you, or misquoting you.  Perhaps I was misunderstanding you or misinterpreting you, but there was plainly no quote or misquote involved.  In contrast, you purported to quote me here.  You used apostrophes to surround the statement "not to delete the post."  You were not summarizing, you were misquoting.  If you want to summarize in the future, I suggest that you don't use quote marks or apostrophes.  Good night.Ferrylodge 01:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ferrylodge, you state above that what you have learned is "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". Are you comparing your one hour block with murder, and saying that Bishonen "got away" with the block because a "big pack" of people backed her up? Has it occurred to you that no one has endorsed your view, that numerous people - one presumes that aforementioned "big pack" of people = have endorsed Bishonen's, and Phaedriel's, etc? Has it occurred to you, in short, that you may in fact be in error? That there is something you did not learn from this Rfc? KillerChihuahua?!? 06:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry KC. I could take criticism seriously if it were well-considered and thoughtful, but very little of this criticism has been that.  I just cannot take it seriously when people unquestioningly agree that this is harassment.  Asking you for a diff to support you accusations was not harassment by any stretch of the imagination.  I'm sorry that I cannot take this more seriously.Ferrylodge 06:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge, this is not harassment. I certainly never cited it as harassment. Are you suggesting that since I agree with you that this post is not harassment that you can take my criticizm seriously? Are you ignoring the fact that nobody is liked by everyone? Surely there is one person on wikipedia who doesn't like Bishonen and would have loved to jump on your bandwagon? Where are they? At least one person who didn't know Bishonen before this RfC commented on it. Why didn't they rush to support you?


 * Mate, it boils down to this. You were told 'do not post again'. You were told that if you post again, 'it will be considered harassment'. You posted 2 times, KC removed your post and then you posted a third time with a message indicating that it was not to be removed. Harassment was defined for you and you posted anyway. You got no support here, because you didn't give us any reason to support you.


 * If a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop, and tells you to "stay in the car", and you start to get out, and the cop repeats "stay in the car or you're going to jail". Does it really matter why you want to get out of the car? No. You simply do what he tells you, and you keep your happy ass in the car. If you disregard him and get out, you should expect to go to jail.


 * Refusing to accept that anyone here has provded any constructive criticizm for you, and that they are all simply a pack of lemmings, following Bishonen, is unfortunate. And, like the myth, you are incorrect.


 * Lsi john 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised. I didn't think that anyone would ever agree with me that this is not harassment.  Thank you Lsi john.  Perhaps you will one day recognize that neither is this.  Even if I were to agree that your traffic stop analogy is accurate, the fact that the person gets out of the car does not prove that he was guilty of running a stop sign.Ferrylodge 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. You were not convicted of running the stop sign. You were convicted of getting out of the car. You have tried to convince the judge that the initial traffic stop was unwarranted, but that isn't relevant. The fact is, you got out of the car (resisting arrest). Period. And, when you figure that out, you will have learned from this. It doesn't matter whether you had drugs or not, if you resist arrest, that charge stands on its own merit. Happy Editing. peace in God. Lsi john 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john, the statement of the dispute for this RfC says: "even assuming arguendo that the block was proper (e.g. for violating a command from an administrator to cease posting), that block should not be characterized in the block log as being for harassment, because no harassment occurred." To use your analogy, if the policeman pulls me over for vehicular homicide, and tells me to stay in the car, and I get out for some reason, that does not mean I'm guilty of homicide.  This may be many horrible things, but it is not homicide, and it is not harassment.  Peace.Ferrylodge 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And thats why you've learned nothing here. It was, in fact, harassment, by definition of the warning you got to stop posting. The warning you got said "Yo DUDE, if you post one more time on that user's page, it will be considered harassment." - (paraphrasing for clarity.) You posted, not once, not twice, but thrice more. Therefore it was MULTIPLE and REPEATED harassment, AFTER the warning. The comment in the block was correct. The comment in the block was NOT related to your original harassment. You are lawyering about the wrong thing and you are the only one who doesn't seem to see that. Lsi john 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (removed from watchlist).


 * A Wikipedia administrator obviously is not entitled to say: "If you utter one more word then it will be considered homicide/burglary/grand theft auto." Likewise, a Wikipedia administrator is not entitled to say: "If you utter one more word then it will be considered harassment."  That goes double if the admnistrator is warning someone who did not in fact already do anything remotely approach "harassment."  This seems obvious.


 * I previously asked you a question, Lsi john, and you never answered: if after Bishonen's warning I had responded by "apologizing profusely to Bishonen and KC, and sincerely begging their forgiveness, would you still consider that to have been 'harassment' on my part?" You never answered that.Ferrylodge 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing comment by FL
I'm not trying to add insult to injury (or maybe I am), but when FL added this RfC to the archive, the summary was ''No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge. So when one reads it, they see that Bishonen was accused of making false charge of harassment'', and then they read the no conclusion, no agreement about harassment part which clearly implies it is still up in the air regarding Bishonen's user conduct. However, I believe that the RfC clearly shows that there was unanimity that Bishonen did nothing wrong, and that there was broad agreement regarding the harassment charge. Seriously, how can it be stated that there was no agreement or conclusion regarding this RfC. Every single signature was in some way siding with Bishonen. Would someone care to change the Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive? Or should we discuss here what it should say before we post? Thanks.-Andrew c 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew c, first of all, my sense is that it is highly improper to continue a discussion thread of an RfC that has already been closed and archived. But since you have done so, I will respond here.  As you can see here, I agreed to closing and archiving this RfC with the stipulation that I dispute any suggestion of harassment.  Therefore, there was no agreement about the harassment charge.Ferrylodge 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge added the RFC to the archive? For goodness sake. And you're the one to talk about "highly improper"..? Somebody else stick a neutral archive template top and bottom and a factual summary in the archive. Please. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Already on it - I've changed the summary here and am going to template now. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What, may I ask, was improper about me archiving this RfC? And what is proper about continuing this discussion after it has been archived?Ferrylodge 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'm about done with dealing with your nonsense. Bishonen may have the patience of a saint, but I don't. After motion to close was made, seconded and accepted, you edited the description of the Rfc, then archived with a blatantly false summary of the outcome. There is no way under the sun anyone with enough intelligence to learn to type on a computer can actually believe that 0 (zero) support for Ferrylodge's view vs. 8 to 23 supports for views which are all variations on This is a frivolous and nonsensical Rfc with no merit is a no consensus. It is a resounding condemnation of your view as inaccurate and this Rfc as frivolous or worse. In short, you wasted time and effort on your edit war for unsupported OR, which you dragged to my talk page; you ignored an administrators' warning to cease - not once but three times, complete with a sneaky insult via link; you wasted everyone's time on one of the longest threads I've ever seen on AN/I, where the clear consensus was Deal with it, you have no legitimate gripe; you thereupon filed this travesty of an Rfc and after close to 30 people once again made it clear you are beating a dead horse, this Rfc is utter nonsense, you have the gall to close with a false summary? There is no explantion you can give which could justify your actions, because I don't believe in demonic or alien possesion. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]:::Technically speaking, the page wasn't archived until KC just archived it. Next, I chose this place to discuss this matter because we are not adding more to the main RfC page (just discussing closing process) and this is still the best place to reach the most number of people involved in the RfC, assuming some people still have it on their watchlist. And it appears that my assumption was right. And I have not been scolded by any one else for posting here instead of elsewhere. I hope you understand now why I posted here. As for closing procedure, you should read Deletion process and note Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion presents a conflict of interest and should be generally avoided; if necessary, contact someone uninvolved to perform the close.. Hope this explains things.-Andrew c 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't explain things. KC is no more qualified to close this discussion than I am.  And I am tired of your nonsense, Andrew c.


 * KillerChihuahua has edited the summary of this dispute. It previously read:


 * "No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge."


 * Now it reads:


 * "Unanimous rejection of assertions made, with solitary exception of person bringing Rfc."


 * The edit summary says:


 * "Correction. This is ridiculous - about 30 ppl have told you your Rfc is basically nonsense, and you continue the "fight" in archives? Get another hobby, Ferrylodge."


 * This is a continuation of rudeness and incivility on the part of KillerChihuahua. I agreed to close this RfC, and now I'm being accused of needing another hobby.  KC's summary is blatantly false, and misleading as well.  Neither of the parties who brought this RfC have rejected the assertions initially made.  And they are not the only ones who have agreed here that at least some of Bishonen's diffs purportedly showing harassment do not actually show harassment.  I would now suggest withdrawing my consent to close this RfC, and begin arbitration, except that KC and you, Andrew c, have wasted enough of my time.  This RfC is archived, so people will always be able to see for themselves how rude, malicious, and abusive KC has been.  And that's quite enough for me.Ferrylodge 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, since the matter is closed, please refrain from making any more comments of this nature. They are extremely unhelpful, and if continued may lead toward action against you. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Please note my first comment in this section: "Andrew c, first of all, my sense is that it is highly improper to continue a discussion thread of an RfC that has already been closed and archived."Ferrylodge 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)