Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 15 June 2007 (→Edit that Sparked Controversy: Deleting section on edit that sparked controversy. This is all dealt with via the RfC, and can be accessed via the RfC.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Vandalism warnings

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

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

Thanks

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

"Mother" and abortion

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the delay replying to you. I have been somewhat preoccupied with other things.Ferrylodge 08:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

<Moved below by reviewing admin>

Decline reason:

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

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

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

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

Bishonen says that I have committed "userspace harassment." This is untrue. Userspace harassment is "placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space." I did nothing of this sort at KC's user space. KC never asked me to leave, and we were in the middle of a conversation, when out of the blue came Bishonen with a harassment accusation and a block threat. I would not be blocked right now but for politely and briefly denying Bishonen's harassment accusation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

Hello Ferrylodge sorry about the late reply, I've had a look at the discussion, and I don't like what I see, especially comments that orangemarlin made, their demeaning and disrespectful. Don't let these small obstacles deter you, keep your chin up. Hope everythings resolved --McNoddy 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks McNoddy.  :-)Ferrylodge 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "their demeaning and disrespectful", you mean "they're". If you're going to insult me, please use correct English. And McNoddy. Before you comment, why don't you read everything first. I don't demean anyone. Ever. Orangemarlin 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean leaving comments like that, you get the picture. Its a matter of opinion and I express my mine. Proper English, don't be such a dork at least you understood what I meant you dork--McNoddy 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So is this matter resolved?

I was about to comment on the blocking issue, but the first comment on this page seems to indicate that you and KilllerChihuahua have made amends. Anyways, I've personally deecided to live with the fact that Misplaced Pages is not fair. (No human endeavor will be.) Someone needs to write an essay about that.

-- trlkly 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi trlkly, no it's unfortunately not resolved. The first comment on this page is merely one of my many futile attempts to be friendly and respectful with KillerChihuahua. It's never reciprocated. A few minutes ago, she called me "inane."Ferrylodge 06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've just filed a "Request for Comments" regarding the administrator who blocked me.Ferrylodge 06:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you've placed it under General user conduct, and the issue is with a block, which is an administrator function, it is in the wrong place. KillerChihuahua 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So thoughtful of you.Ferrylodge 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You've deleted the original RFC on me!

Ferrylodge, you're not supposed to delete and overwrite Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen...! Please start from scratch and create a new RFC called Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2. I'm reverting RFC/Bishonen. Sheesh, I'm very proud of that RFC...! I hope you read it, I should think it would give you food for thought. Anyway, don't delete it, please.

By reverting you, I don't mean to ruin the work you've done . All you have to do is go to the history tab of RFC/Bishonen, open your own latest version, copy the text in it, and paste it into the new page you create, RFC/Bishonen 2. Just ask if you're unsure how to do this. And, er, good luck. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Done.Ferrylodge 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nail on the Head

You hit the nail on the head with your last post on the RfC talkpage. You were never convicted for 'running the stop sign'. You were pulled over for running a stop sign (the warning), and then you were ticketed/convicted (blocked) for disobeying the order to 'stay in your car'. Then, in court, your defense was that you hadn't run the stop sign to begin with. The judge doesn't care if you ran th stop sign or not, because you were never ticketed for running the stop sign.

Perhaps if you reflect on this analogy, the entire sequence (and why people responded the way they did) will make more sense to you.

I posted here because I wasn't sure whether or not you had removed the RfC from your watch list.

peace in God. Lsi john 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC from my watchlist. I will not reply further there. Lsi john 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Misplaced Pages Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Misplaced Pages articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wikinorms_copy1

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Bugs, I have responded, although it would have been handy to know which article of the 35 we are talking about. Cheers.Ferrylodge 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)