User talk:Anythingyouwant

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 ⁸⁰⁰ 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 Wikipedia has) if it were to improve the article; I don't see that yet in this instance. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 [KC] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:

“ Sandstein has denied my unblock request, but he admits I should not have been blocked for the reasons given by Bishonen. Nevertheless, Sandstein says the block was appropriate for "disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." This makes no sense whatsoever.

Before being blocked I had already said that "I am glad to be done posting on this page."

I am very upset about this, even though it is only a 24-hour block. Please do not expect me to continue at Wikipedia if I can be arbitrarily blocked by irresponsible administrators for arbitrary reasons. Thank you.

”

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Edit that Sparked Controversy

There is no consensus for a reverted edit that I made in the RCOG article (hereafter the “reverted edit”). Therefore, I have not changed that RCOG article unilaterally back to my previous version, because that would be against consensus.

This reverted edit was reverted by KillerChihuahua (KC) who not only disagreed with it, but also said (in her edit summary) that the edit was disruptive. I disagree with KC that the edit should have been reverted, for reasons already explained at the RCOG talk page. I also disagree with KC that this edit was disruptive, and I will now fully and carefully explain why, for the record. This edit that KC reverted was clearly not redundant to any previous edits made anywhere else at Wikipedia, and thus this edit was not made by me in bad faith as part of any disruptive “edit war”.

This discussion of RCOG’s position on “choice” started at the article on fetal pain, and I moved it to the RCOG article for valid reasons. At the fetal pain article, KC wrote: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice."[1] I therefore investigated and learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the RCOG article. At the RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info,[2] [3] [4] in addition to RCOG’s abortion stance. When I was at the fetal pain article and decided to move to the RCOG article, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.[5] [6] I did not sneak over to the RCOG article in order to try to avoid objections at the fetal pain article.

KC has elsewhere cited five diffs that she says prove this controversial reverted edit was virtually the same as several contested assertions I had made previously. Here are KC’s five diffs: diff (1) in the fetal pain article, diff (2) in the fetal pain article, diff (3) in the RCOG article, diff (4) in the RCOG article, and diff (5) in the RCOG article.

None of these five previous edits cited by KC is the same (or virtually the same) as the later reverted edit that sparked this controversy. Both KC’s diff (1) and diff (2) show where I inserted a cite to support another editor’s assertion that RCOG is a “pro-choice group”. KC pointed out very clearly at the fetal pain article that she did not think RCOG was a “pro-choice group” even though she thought RCOG could have a “pro-choice position” on particular issues:

“ The way you have it phrased, they are a "pro-choice group" - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.[7] ”

There is no uncertainty or ambiguity here that KC argued RCOG can have a pro-choice position on an issue, even while RCOG is not a “pro-choice group.” KC’s contested diffs (1) and (2) were contested because they stated RCOG is a “pro-choice group” and not because they stated RCOG took a pro-choice position on a particular issue. Therefore, KC’s diffs (1) and (2) are not pertinent to the reverted edit that sparked this controversy. The reverted edit deals specifically with RCOG’s position on a particular issue, and does not assert that RCOG is a “pro-choice group.”

Now let’s jump ahead and look at KC’s diff (5). KC’s diff (5) is none other than the reverted edit that sparked this controversy. Obviously, then, KC’s diff (5) is not evidence that the reverted edit was the same or virtually the same as any previous edit.

That leaves KC’s diff (3) and diff (4). Both of those diffs show me editing the RCOG article to say that, “RCOG takes a pro-choice position that abortion ‘is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.’” KC argues that this is virtually the same as diff (5) which sparked this controversy and which said, “RCOG takes a pro-choice position against ‘reduction in the time limits for abortion.’” In reality, diff (5) is radically different from diffs (3) and (4).

In diff (5), RCOG addresses what the governing law should be, and thus diff (5) is a statement of political conviction. Prior to the edit shown by diff (5), KC had argued that “abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.”[8] In other words, KC was arguing that RCOG was just following the law when it said abortion investment and workforce are essential. Severa made virtually the same argument: that RCOG's characterization of abortion as essential does not convey any “political conviction.”[9] In stark contrast, diff (5) shows RCOG opposing a change in the law to reduce the time limits for abortion, and thus does indeed convey a political conviction about what should or should not be legal in the UK.

The reverted edit, which is one and the same as KC’s diff (5), is very different from KC’s diffs (1)-(4). I hope that this explanation will clearly show to an objective person that the reverted edit which sparked this controversy was not like any other edit I ever made, and thus was not an example of edit-warring or bad faith or disruption.

This is not splitting hairs. By analogy, suppose someone makes edits at an article on Venezuela, to say that Venezuelans have a pro-US position about American music and culture, an anti-US position about American politics, and a pro-US position on oil sales. Those are three different issues. If someone gets reverted on the first issue twice, it’s not any offense at all for someone to then make the last edit once. That’s basically what happened here at the RCOG article. And so I deny that I was being in any way disruptive, as KC alleged in her edit summary at the RCOG article. And I also deny her accusations of edit-warring and bad faith. And I believe that all of these accusations (edit-warring, bad faith, disruption, and all the rest) have been part of a malicious smear, based on KC's pro-choice bias, designed to portray RCOG (which is cited in other Wikipedia articles) as a neutral organization.Ferrylodge 06:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This disputed edit, and the subsequent argument, indicates that you are pursuing a novel synthesis from published sources, in pursuit of your self-declared agenda. This is usually interpreted as soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for toning down your previous rhetoric. The "subsequent argument" to which you now refer is not an argument for re-instating the disputed edit. It is an explanation of why the disputed edit did not amount to edit-warring or bad faith or disruption.

Regarding the disputed edit, you argue that it was original research. As I already mentioned, this edit was in response to a request by KillerChihuahua: ""Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice'". Therefore, I made the disputed edit, which shows that RCOG opposed legislation to reduce the time limits for abortion in England. That is quite obviously a pro-choice position. You are free to disagree. In any event, I made this edit only once, and have not tried to reinstate the edit.Ferrylodge 13:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Possible Request for Comment Regarding a User

Bishonen is an administrator who warned me about harassment at the talk page of KillerChihuahua (KC). At 02:16 on 28 May 2007, Bishonen warned me to leave KC’s talk page immediately, even though KC had never requested that I leave, and Bishonen also threatened to block me if I so much as denied at KC’s talk page that I had harassed KC. I did deny it. Subsequently, Bishonen blocked me, and my unblock request was rejected by Sandstein. Sandstein agreed with me that the block was “not appropriate for the final message" that I left at KC’s talk page before the block, but was appropriate “for the purpose of disengaging” me from the dispute I was having with KC. My block log does not reflect that the block was a cool-down block (which is discouraged) rather than a block for harassment.

First Request: I would please like my block log to be supplemented to acknowledge that the harassment warning by Bishonen at 02:16, 28 May 2007 was unjustified, because (by that time) I had not done anything approaching “harassment” of KC. There are no diffs of anything like harassment on my part, leading up to the harassment warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007. This first request of mine involves nothing whatsoever after 02:16, 28 May 2007. This first request of mine should be granted regardless of whether my second request is granted, and vice versa.

Second Request: I would please like my block log to be supplemented in order to acknowledge that the block was deemed appropriate (by Sandstein) for purposes of disengagement, and not because my final message before the block amounted to harassment. Bishonen's entry in my block log is thus misleading. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block." I also request whatever additional or alternative action would be appropriate in response to Bishonen's unjustified warning of harassment at 02:16, 28 May 2007.

Regarding my first request, Wikipedia defines harassment here, and it is a very serious charge. I did not come close to user space harassment at KC’s talk page, during the time period leading up to 02:16, 28 May 2007 when Bishonen’s warning occurred. KC and I were arguing at her talk page about whether I had made improper edits at a particular article (i.e. the RCOG article). I ended up not being very polite at KC’s talk page, and so did she, but this was not anything resembling harassment on my part. The worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to Bishonen’s warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007 was when I said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again.” KC had just accused me of disruption as well as bad faith and edit-warring. So even assuming that I had made bad edits at the RCOG article, there was no harassment by me at KC’s talk page leading up to Bishonen’s warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007. And in fact my edits at the RCOG article were proper (see this comment which is hereby incorporated by reference in case my edits at the RCOG article are deemed relevant, and this linked comment also shows KC to have been malicious, IMHO).

Note: I have made attempts to find a resolution or compromise at the talk page of Bishonen, and at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Wikipidia guidelines say that, "before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." Ferrylodge 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You were harassing KC. Why should your record be expunged? Because you were mistreated? From what I read, you were most certainly harassing KC. Your block was justified. Orangemarlin 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're requesting expunging of your record, when the evidence suggests that you are guilty of the harassment charge. The more mature approach would be to accept the block, move on to show that you are a valued member of this project. Orangemarlin 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment is a serious charge, and all indications are that you were pretty much guilty of it. But guilt or innocence is not the germane issue herein--Bishonen made a judgement call that is supported by the community. Your attacks on the admin is not going to get you far, especially since Bishonen is a respected member of the community and you seem to be in a long attack mode. Once again, I recommend you relax, take a time out, and come back in a mature manner. It's important to note that if you had respect of the community, your charges would be taken seriously. But your immature rantings (yes, they are immature) do you a big disservice. Orangemarlin 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw the discussion also, Orangemarlin, and I have to say that your comments to Ferrylodge are patronizing, belligerent, and off-base. Is attacking Ferrylodge or calling him names your idea of maturity? Regarding Bishonen, I can't imagine why you say her actions--in this case--have "community support." Can you provide warrant for that? If the “community” has been talking about it, why hasn’t Ferrylodge been involved? Has he been tried and found guilty in absentia? If so, I would like to know by whom. Or do you mean that Bishonen is so absolutely impeccable that she can make no error in judgment and, therefore, has the universal tacit support of the community for all she does, and she has been such a terrific boon to Wikipedia that no one dare question her judgment? (If that is your argument, I doubt even Bishonen would support you.) Or, do you mean that in this case her actions have your support? Have you perhaps confused yourself with the “community”? Regardless, her actions--in this case--do NOT have my support, and I am part of this “community.” As far as I can see, she jumped the gun, she acted rashly, and I would like to see her actions in this case reviewed by an impartial group of her peers. She is self-described as "Bishzilla," and that speaks to me of hubris. And while in the short term, hubris is invariably going to lead to at least small errors in judgment, in the long term I honestly can not imagine why someone who is so informed by hubris that she calls herself "Bishzilla” is an admin in the Wikipedia “community.” Finally, regarding the discussion between Farrylodge and KC, the suggestion that Ferrylodge was abusive in that case is simply rediculous.LCP 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, if you post here, please do not post in the middle of my comment. You can post between or after comments (assuming your posts are not rude or insulting). I have moved your comments accordingly.

You do not address facts. As you so aptly put it, you and your friends think that "guilt or innocence is not the germane issue."

I probably won't be at Wikipedia much longer, so you can save yourself some time by not engaging in further "rantings" here at my talk page. Thank you.Ferrylodge 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)