Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Case Opened on 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

edit

Statement by Ferrylodge

edit
Clerk note: I have copied here all of Ferrylodge's statements, including responses to some non-parties' statements that are now on the talkpage. Thus, the word "below" will now need to be interpreted as "on the talkpage" in some instances. The format may be slightly confusing, but I thought it best to keep all of the same party's comments in one place. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am unblocked for purposes of appeal.[1] Upon request of KillerChihuahua (KC),[2] FeloniousMonk banned me from Wikipedia on 21 September 2007.[3] Different methods of dispute resolution had been proposed by other editors, such as simmering down or a Request for Comments (RfC).[4] [5] [6] However, KC bypassed those other methods. KillerChihuahua stated: "I doubt that an Rfc would be of any help, because in the few previous instances I have seen of community input, Ferrylodge showed himself resistant to the concept that he could possibly have erred at all."[7] Actually, I have often admitted mistakes, including 22 minutes before KillerChihuahua's statement to the contrary,[8] and also the day before.[9]

I have never been to ArbCom. Also, no one has ever brought an RfC on me. I started editing Wikipedia in 2004, and became more active in 2006.[10] I accumulated 5523 edits to Wikipedia articles, and edited 540 pages.[11] I tried to make Wikipedia more informative and neutral, including edits to controversial as well as uncontroversial topics, creating new articles, reverting vandalism, and participating in Featured Article Review.[12] I have been a volunteer Wikipedian, unconnected to any organization. I have been blocked three times. Background about the previous three blocks is important for understanding the present dispute, but I will see if this appeal is accepted before describing that background, which is summarized at my talk page.[13]

KC has often been uncivil. She has asserted that my words are "bullshit" and "pathetic",[14] that my words are "inane,"[15] that my behavior served no purpose "unless your purpose is to convince others that you are congenitally dense,"[16] that I am "naive and disingenuous,"[17] that I am a "spammer,"[18] et cetera. Therefore, at 17:03 on 20 September 2007, I asked KillerChihuahua to stop posting at my talk page,[19] pursuant to Wikipedia policy.[20]

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.[21] FeloniousMonk banned me less than 24 hours later, for "attempting to harass other users."[22] I responded to KC's initial ban proposal at the CSN.[23] Other people subsequently showed up at the CSN, but I had no opportunity to answer most of them because a ban was imposed less than a day after my announcement that "I will be travelling on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (September 21-23) and therefore will not have internet access."[24] The ban discussion --- such as it was --- is archived.[25]

I agree with editors such as Gatoclass that KillerChihuahua failed to demonstrate "harassment" in her ban proposal.[26] I also agree with the other editors and admins who have expressed further concerns about the fairness of these banishment proceedings, including Ali'i,[27] B,[28] JavaTenor,[29] Dean Wormer,[30] Zsero,[31] Agne27,[32] Nick,[33] Banno,[34] and Crockspot.[35]

If this appeal is accepted, I hope someone (e.g. FeloniousMonk) will identify instances of alleged "attempted harassment" that are viewed as most serious. Perhaps we could address them before addressing less serious accusations by KillerChihuahua and others.

Response to KillerChihuahua

edit

I am permitted to offer a short response here. I would like to emphasize that I have acknowledged wrongdoing regarding the first and third of my three blocks, and I have also sought to avoid recurrence of the second block by not visiting KC’s talk page since June of 2007 (except to notify her of this ArbCom request). Again and again, I have apologized for my most recent 3RR block, during which I was banned.[36] [37] I apologize again right now for that 3RR violation. I will not respond here further to all of the vague accusations against me, except to deny them. KillerChihuahua urges arbiters to “at least” see the last section of an RfC talk page from June of 2007 which involved the accuracy of an RfC Summary.[38] I would like to state for the record that KC’s blatantly incorrect RfC summary was ultimately corrected by another editor.[39] Also, I would be glad to accept 1RR for awhile, in reponse to my 3RR violations for which I have repeatedly apologized. I also very strongly object to KC's criticism below of a rough draft of my ArbCom request that was at my talk page;[40] I changed every aspect that KC now criticizes, prior to submitting the ArbCom request here. Even if I had not made those changes at my talk page, that would hardly support a ban for harassment, and would not support the unfair manner in which the ban was implemented at the CSN. Please note that the entire CSN was abolished yesterday.[41]

Response to Severa

edit

This ArbCom page is not a page for discussion, and is not for trying to prove a case at this time. However, some commenters below are making accusations that were not made in any RfC or at the CSN, or were made at the CSN after I was banned. I strongly object to this procedure, which gives me no chance to respond. At the risk of having this deleted, I must say something now about Severa’s accusation below regarding an edit summary that said “killing the Chihuahua.”[42] To the best of my recollection, I have not revisited that edit summary since January of 2007; as I explained then,[43] it was a play on words not meant to threaten anyone, and was no more threatening than KC's user name. I apologize if anyone was offended (please note KC has not apologized for her uncivil statement about "harping" that preceded my edit summary). To the extent that I am in a position to demand anything right now, I demand an opportunity to respond to the other new accusations below that I have never before been given an opportunity to answer.

Response to Thatcher131 and Isotope23

edit

Please note that B is an administrator. And even if B were not an administrator, it would be wrong to ban me without even an RfC since June, after a CSN discussion of less than 24 hours prior to the ban, with multiple objections by multiple editors during the CSN, and with accusations to which I have never been given an opportunity to respond. Isotope23 wrote below that an explicit statement of intent on the part of an administrator would pretty much cancel out the WP:BAN and thus the necessity of ARBCOM accepting this case. Isotope23 also wrote below that, absent an explicit statement of intent by an administrator, ARBCOM should not accept this case. So, in other words, there is no possible scenario in which the ARBCOM should accept this case? I hope we can get this done here at ARBCOM instead of going to some other forum, because there clearly is a big dispute here, we could end up right back here again, we have at least three several admins who say that this case should be accepted here (i.e. B, and Penwhale according to my understanding, plus Kirill, Y, Blnguyen, and perhaps others), and ARBCOM can bring closure to this unwieldy dispute in a more structured way than any other forum.

Response to Y

edit

"Y" stated below that the indefinite block was imposed by a participant in the controversy (i.e. FeloniousMonk). Here is an example of the participation. KillerChihuahua has urged below that arbiters “at least” see the last section of an RfC talk page from June of 2007 which involved the accuracy of an RfC Summary.[44] FeloniousMonk was deeply involved in that controversy, accusing me of “throwing around inflammatory accusations”, accusing me of making "personal attacks", and accusing me of “continually fanning the flames”.[45] Please note that, despite FeloniousMonk's participation in that controversy, KC’s blatantly incorrect RfC summary was ultimately corrected by another editor back in June.[46]

Response to Andrew c

edit

I have no response now to Andrew c’s main comment below, other than to deny his allegations, and to note that he provides no diffs. Regarding Andrew c’s additional comment that “Y came along and edited the protected page,” Andrew c neglects to mention that Y speedily corrected his error.[47] Thus, Andrew c’s comparison of Y to FeloniousMonk is inapposite. FeloniousMonk told me in June: “I suggest that you avoid throwing around inflammatory accusations like ‘KC's … summary is blatantly false.’ They constitute personal attacks.”[48] FeloniousMonk never corrected that error. Never mind that KC started using that phrase “blatantly false summary.”[49] And never mind that KC’s incorrect summary was ultimately corrected by another editor.[50] I hope FeloniousMonk will visit this Arbitration Request to defend the lifetime Wikipedia ban that he has imposed on me.

Response to Penwhale

edit

Penwhale, I would like to respectfully ask that you please clarify your comment below (of 16:48, 11 October 2007). You urged that “discussion can be done again and this time around with a longer period of discussion.” However, it is unclear from your comment where you believe that discussion should preferably occur. My understanding is that --- subsequent to your comment below --- you indicated your belief “that this case needs to be accept”. Would you please kindly clarify this point in your comment below? I think it would be horrible if this case is not accepted here. I have already been through an extensive RfC in June regarding alleged harassment, and then I made a very extensive statement in September at the CSN regarding alleged harassment. Thus, I exhausted every remedy that was available to me, and so ARBCOM is now the appropriate venue. I appreciate your willingness to unblock me, but (as you know) I am already unblocked for purposes of these ARBCOM proceedings. Moreover, if ARBCOM refuses to hear my case, I respectfully request that you not unblock me. If ARBCOM refuses to hear my case, I will leave Wikipedia permanently, rather than being dragged through further endless proceedings.Ferrylodge 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Orange Marlin

edit

I am permitted to offer a short response here, although this ArbCom request page is not a page for discussion, and is not for trying to prove a case at this time. Orange Marlin refers below to the RfC that I brought in June regarding accusations that I had harassed KC. That RfC is listed above as a step in dispute resolution that I have tried. Because Orange Marlin and others have referred to that June RfC below, I would like to now briefly address it. I was blocked in May 2007 by Bishonen, for alleged harassment of KC at KC's talk page, although KC had not asked me to leave her talk page; I was blocked immediately after saying, "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment."[51] Sandstein answered my unblock request by saying, "While a block was, in my opinion, not appropriate for the final message you left per se, it is acceptable in the present circumstances for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua."[52] I subsequently brought the RfC against Bishonen regarding her harassment charge, which is the only RfC that I have ever initiated against anyone (though I did once join an RfC launched by someone else). Bishonen notified others about the RfC,[53] and various participants including Orange Marlin proceeded to abuse the RfC, for example by posting images of food,[54] for which Bishonen thanked them.[55] Neither I, nor the editor who joined me in the RfC, agreed with the outcome,[56] but I dropped the matter rather than immediately appealing to ARBCOM. I have not written anything at KC's talk page since then, except for notification of the present ARBCOM proceedings.[57] The September CSN was no fairer than the June RfC. That is why I am now appealing my harassment ban to ARBCOM, and I respectfully request that my case be accepted.Ferrylodge 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

edit

I see that Ferrylodge has focused primarily on maligning me, which is at first glance completely irrelevant to whether his ban is appropriate. My character has nothing to do with this. However, it highlights the issues. This is typical Ferrylodge. Rather than address the issue at hand, he engages in character assassination of the person or person he perceives as his enemy, or opposition, by misrepresenting others. He does not attempt to work towards consensus with others, but rather works to attack and undermine those with whom he disagrees - and I have evidence that this is deliberate and malicious. He edit wars across multiple articles, using this technique to castigate or drive away those who disagree, This has been effective. One editor left the project altogether rather than deal with the type of venomous allegations which are Ferrylodge's preferred method of interaction, and others have been driven away from "his" articles. He wages POV wars designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, and he maligns those opposing him to make it appear that it is a personal matter on their part, rather than a policy matter on his.

I could easily spend considerable time and effort correcting and defending myself against his various allegations, above. I chose at this time to ignore them completely. Should this case be accepted, I will of course not allow such smears to go unchallenged.

His response to the CSN thread was to post 1867 words, of which over 1500 were attacking and misrepresenting me, and to a lesser extent others. Ferrylodge seems incapable of recognizing that there is anything wrong in his habit of ad hominem attacks, and shows great stamina in pursuing and maligning those who attempt to offer constructive criticism, or with whom he disagrees. It is this to which I refer when I say he seems resistant to the concept that he could possibly have erred. He shows no desire at all to adjust his behavior and work with others, I have no doubt this factored into FeloniousMonk's decision to block. This is his technique also when edit warring - he seems incapable of focusing on the content, not the contributor. His attacks are so outrageous that frequently his trolling works, and editors spend their energies refuting his statements and attempting to correct his interpretation of their views. I do not believe it is a lack of comprehension on Ferrylodge's part; as stated before, I have evidence that this is deliberate and malicious.

This follows the pattern seen in his earlier block for harassment. Having edit warred across multiple articles, he moved to harassing me on my user page, was warned, continued, and was blocked. He took this to ANI, where a thread of 13,412 words with input from multiple editors resulted in a near-unanimous verdict of The block was just, get over it. Getting no joy there, he filed an Rfc against the blocking admin, where some 30 editors supported views which were variations on The block was just, this is a frivolous Rfc. It does not surprise me that in his initial draft for this request for ArbCom, Ferrylodge presented (presumably as an example of how reasonable he is) that he "...dropped the matter rather than going through a time-consuming and disruptive arbitration at ArbCom"[58] Also typical is his initial naming of "Ferrylodge v. FeloniousMonk", indicating his mindset of Me. v Them.

I suggest arbiters read the Statement from Andrew-c, Bishonen's post, and as recommended by Bishonen, the RfC brought by Ferrylodge, most especially its talkpage or at least the last section on the RfC talkpage.

Does CSN have problems? Undoubtedly. Was this case a bit of a train-wreck? Very probably. Will unblocking Ferrylodge "fix" CSN? Nope. Ferrylodge chose to use the CSN board as yet another venue for attacking and escalating rather than treating concerns of others with any hint of serious consideration, and he was blocked. Had I taken this to ANI I have no doubt the result would have been the same, with the exception that the block would not be questioned on the basis of the "lynch mob" or "brokenness" of CSN. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

edit

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

edit

Temporary injunction (none)

edit

Final decision

edit

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

edit

Community bans

edit

1.1) This Committee reaffirms the authority of the community to ban users at its discretion. Where such bans affect established contributors, a period of discussion and consensus-building should precede the ban (or, in emergency situations, follow it).

Passed 6 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Right of appeal

edit

2) Any user considered to be "banned by the community" may appeal to the Arbitration Committee, which may overturn any ban that has been improperly imposed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

edit

3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

edit

Ferrylodge

edit

1) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion ([59], [60]), but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics ([61]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's ban

edit

2.1) Following discussion on WP:CSN, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed under a community ban, after a brief discussion from which a consensus was not clear ([62]).

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

edit

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ferrylodge to be unblocked

edit

1.1) Since an appropriate degree of discussion and consensus building did not take place, the Committee determines that Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not subject to a valid community ban. Ferrylodge may be unblocked by any administrator at the conclusion of the case.

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge restricted

edit

2.1) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing.

Passed 6 to 1 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Community urged

edit

4) The Committee urges the community to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

edit

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge&oldid=1138653639"