Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Non-party statements before the case was opened

[edit] Statement by uninvolved User:B

I am pleased to see that Ferrylodge is appealing this ban. This is an appalling example of the lynchmob mentality of the community sanction board. The initial ban proposal was made at 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC). The block was made at 18:23, 21 September 2007. That's less than 24 hours later and horribly inappropriate.

Ferrylodge had been blocked for an unrelated 3RR when the ban proposal was made and was unable to respond until well into the lynching. As pointed out above, to what extent there is harassment, it is largely mutual and KillerChihuahua is by no means an innocent party in the matter. This diff [1] is over the top and the fact that there was no opportunity for rebuttal and meaningful discussion of KillerChihuahua's assertions before the final course of action was de facto decided makes it difficult to have respect for this process. The person who actually imposed the block, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs), is himself a participant in the discussion.

To sum it all up, the process was horribly bad. I strongly encourage arbcom to reverse this ban. --B 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comments below, yes, I am an admin and yes, I am willing to overturn the block - I firmly believe the ban is incorrect both on the facts of the case and on the process that was followed. I don't know how to make that any clearer than to say what I said above. Obviously, out of respect for our processes, I will not take such an action because two wrongs don't make a right, even though process was clearly abused in this case, but if this were an "old style" community ban, I would be willing to overturn it. I'm not sure what relevance this has in this case since this is not an "old style" community ban. --B 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Orangemarlin

Since I'm a stickler for neatness, I decided to utilize the Party2 section. Ferrylodge is engaging in a pseudo-wiki-lawyering to attempt to reverse his community ban based not on the facts of the case, that is, a long history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, sad attempts to attack varous admins utilizing wiki procedures that wasted the community time, and rude personal attacks. Ferrylodge is trying to show a small procedural issue that is subject to interpretation.

The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2 is the one action by Ferrylodge is that clouds any attempt to give him good faith and to even consider that he should be a part of this community. Specifically, his comments about closing the RfC were at best argumentative, but more probably rude. He was denying the fact that the vast majority of the community spoke, and essentially said to him, "this was a waste of time, there's nothing here." A full read of the RfC tested the patience of many editors. KillerChihuahua, though I am not capable of reading her mind, observed the same patterns over and over again, and felt the need stand up to his editing.

I'm glad he's gone. His usefulness to this project was never relevant. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by ConfuciusOrnis

This is an utter waste of time. Ferrylodge contributes nothing and should have been shown the door a long time ago. I urge arbcom to reject this, and would like to applaud FeloniousMonk for his action.  – ornis⚙ 11:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ali'i

Aloha, ArbCom. I will admit that I hadn't spent time editing with Ferrylodge on abortion related articles (where it is alleged he was most disruptive), but I had seen him edit various political articles such as Fred Thompson and Preamble to the United States Constitution. And so I had always seen Ferrylodge as a constructive editor (although admittedly one with an opinion, but not an axe to grind). He has been very helpful in reverting vandalism where seen, and doing a lot of "the little things" that needed to be done.

So I was surprised when I saw Ferrylodge brought to the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, especially by someone I respect as much as KillerChihuahua. I thought, oh this must be a mistake. But it wasn't. And after reading the proposal, I responded against the ban. [2] In the course of the ban proposal, many people voiced other options rather than an outright ban (topical ban, revert limits, etc.). However, these other options, along with those of us who objected to the ban, were tossed aside and Ferrylodge was banned, enacted by an involved participant, less than 24 hours after the proposal was brought forth, with no other formal dispute resolution steps even being tried. As I stated on the sanctions board, "The top of this page reads, "Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution." This isn't the type of case that should really be handled by the community sanction noticeboard. I know some of you have said, "I don't think dispute resolution would work", but you never bothered to try the next steps. Bans are supposed to be a last resort." And now he's still being mocked along the way.[3]

So now having looked back through about his last 1000 edits (about the last six weeks or so), I know that I was correct in my assumption. Ferrylodge is a helpful contributor who engages in discussion, and was "banned" out-of-process, and out of policy. I humbly ask ArbCom to take this case, and look into the ban. I think something may need to be done (whether a topical ban, etc.), but the ban seems wrong.

Now, I must also apologize for my harsh language directed mostly at FeloniousMonk after the ban was enacted. I don't want anything I said held against Ferrylodge. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Pleasantville

I have no experience with Wikipedia's quasi-legal system, so I have no opinion on how the banning of Ferrylodge varied from the ideal version of the process. But I strongly disagree with the characterization of the process as any kind of "mob." The idea of me forming a mob with Swatjester or Jossi is pretty laughable. Rather, what seemed to me to happen was that a diverse group of editors converged quickly but repeatedly to the same conclusion.

Other than that, I said what I had to say in the CSN process(es) and have nothing to add at present. --Pleasantville 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved Citicat

To preface, I've had a very negative experience in content disputes with Ferrylodge. That being said, I feel it would be the correct action for ArbCom to review this situation, based on the rapid resolution of the proposal at CSN (and what appears to be the inherent flaws in that process), and my opinion that a much better outcome could be found. I think the truth clearly lies between User:Ali'i who states that "Ferrylodge is a helpful contributor who engages in discussion", and User:ConfuciusOrnis who states that "Ferrylodge contributes nothing". Ferrylodge has potential to be a very positive contributor, but to this point has been overwhelming involved in pursuing the goal of pushing his point of view. Other actions should have been attempted before banning. CitiCat ♫ 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved KWSN

This is grossly unacceptable. What was said here is extremely relevant. There was no chance for anyone to even participate in the discussion. Scratch that, there was no discussion. There was a vote. The ban should not stand period based off the CN "ruling". However, if ArbCom finds a reason to ban, then I personally will have no complaints. Please accept a ban review. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Odd nature

The complaints of Ferrylodge and his supporters that he was denied due process is specious; it does not match the facts. The discussion was opened at 23:32 20 September by KillerChihuahua: [4] The block enforcing the ban was placed at 18:26 on 21 September by FM: [5] That's nineteen hours of discussion. Many bans have been put in place with far less. Ferrylodge had ample opportunity to comment before the ban but instead chose to use it to continue the personal harassment that prompted the proposed ban and announce he was leaving for the weekend. The community then had another 48 hours to discuss the ban, and the result was a 4:1 consensus in favor of the ban. [6] Clearly sympathetic admins were not comfortable unblocking him, either. The proposed alternatives to banning he and his supporters are on about were for 3RR and NPOV parole, not the behavior that prompted the filing: harassment.

The community showed a 4:1 consensus in favor of a ban, no admins were willing to unblock him, and many community ban discussions at WP:AN/I and WP:CSN have run far shorter then the 19 hours before a block and the 48 hours of additional discussion afterwards. There's no reason for the Arbcom to override the community's decision. But if they do decide to taken this case, I suggest they review the incivil behavior of Ferrylodge's supporter User:Ali'i at FM's talk page. Odd nature 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Rocksanddirt

I recall the WP:CSN discussion, and if the user had been the least bit concillatory or presented anything exulpatory towards his behavior I would say that an arbcomm review of the community ban would be appropriate. As it turned out, nothing to explain, exuse, or rememdy his disruptive, harrassing, personal attacks was presented in approximately 72 hours of discussion either by the user or those who disagreed with banning. I recommend arbcomm endorse the community ban by rejecting an appeal at this time. --Rocksanddirt 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by LCP

I have seen both Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua make positive contributions to articles and discussions. And at different times, I have found myself indebted to both. All that I have been able to discern about the relationship between Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua is that they share a mutual animosity. Because I respect both Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua, I do not intend my comments here to detract from either of them. I am also not writing to opine about the timeframe in which the ban was enacted. I am writing to say that while I do not understand all of Ferrylodge’s rhetorical decisions, and have on at least one occasion been bewildered by an issue he has chosen to pursue (“womb”), I have seen him make positive contributions to even contested pages, such as the Abortion page. Although I have not followed his Wiki-career closely and have noticed that he is sometimes notably defensive (as I see it), I can say that over the past year I have not seen him lash out without provocation. Because of this, I give him the benefit of the doubt even when he is perusing issues that I do not understand or that are not dear to me (e.g., “womb”). I think his presence on Wikipedia has net positive effect.LCP 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Andrew c

This shouldn't be about the CSN process. It may be broken, but the community is taking that under consideration at a deletion discussion. I do not believe anyone here is asking the ArbCom to review the CSN, so I ask that the ArbCom take that into consideration (that the issue of Ferrylodge's ban is separate from the CSN, which the community is working on improving).

This also shouldn't be about KillerChihuahua's or anyone else's conduct (unless someone is asking the ArbCom to sanction KC, but again the issue of other user's conduct is separate from the issue of FL's ban. If someone wishes to seek sanctions against another user, they can start mediation processes further down the rung).

Normally, when a user asks to be unbanned, they take responsibility for the past negative actions and maybe even apologize for that. They also normally try to reassure the community that they won't act that way in the future, and that they would even accept limited editing access (1RR, parole, topic bans) or ask for mentorship. In this RFAR, Ferrylodge has not reassured me that anything at all will change in his editing if unbanned. He has remained defensive and gone on the attack aiming at other editors.

Just look at "Summary of my three blocks". He has shown no understanding of the significance of Bishonen's RfC (that Bishonen clearly acted in good faith, had community support, and that the RfC was frivolous). He can't help to point out how he still thinks Severa should have been blocked back in December of last year (blocks serve to disengage, and are preventative, not punitive). Even when he apologized for the most recent 3RR, he goes on to say that KC was acting worse and that he still believes his edits were justified (as opposed to acknowledging that edit warring is harmful, and reverts are not the way to build consensus).

FL has not owned up to the disruptive behavior that multiple, unaffiliated admins all recognized. I would ask that the ArbCom dismiss this request, and let FL cool down. In the future, if he wants to pursue a second chance, by acknowledging his past harmful and disruptive behavior, and by accepting mentorship or other typical steps taken during a second change, then the community should seriously consider that request. But these are all steps that can be examined by the community, and do not require the ArbCom.-Andrew c [talk] 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reponse to Ferrylodge re:Y

If we are going to go there (that FeloniousMonk should never have blocked because he had a minor run in with Ferrylodge at the end of the RfC), we should also disclose information about User:Y. FL, Italiavivi, and Tvoz were edit warring at Fred Thompson, and the page was protected by Mercury. However, Y came along and edited the protected page to restore FL's preferred version. This action caused criticism from myself, B, and some participants on Talk:Fred Thompson. Under the logic that FeloniousMonk should never have blocked, I'd submit that Y should not have been the one to unblock. There was still debate going on at User talk:Ferrylodge whether FL should simply e-mail arbcom, or whether we allow an unblock. Consensus had not been reached, and Y had arguably abused admin tools in the past to support FL. Just thing to keep under consideration. However, this isn't that big of a deal to me. If Mastcell had unblocked, I wouldn't have minded (or better yet, Yamla). Just seems like discussion could have gone a little longer to make sure Yamla was on the same page. -Andrew c [talk] 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record, I was not edit warring on Fred Thompson. The disagreement had to do with placement of Thompson's birthname, and I reverted once to the placement recommended by MOSBIO, and one more time when the birthname was completely removed by Ferrylodge. Ferrylodge, on the other hand, reverted 7 times in that day. This was discussed in the CSN action. Tvoz |talk 02:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I "abused admin tools" at Fred Thompson in defense of the subject. I didn't know Ferrylodge then. Furthermore, I did not unblock Ferrylodge. I did it merely in order to allow him to defend himself - he's not currently free to edit any articles under the terms of my unblock. -- Y not? 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved Arknascar44

It should be noted that I have never have had any disputes or interactions with Ferrylodge (talk · contribs)

From the opinions stated here in this case, I see two arguments; one that says that Ferrylodge was harassed and perhaps even bullied by administrators, and one that states that the user's past actions are enough to solicit an indefinite ban. I tend to agree with the latter for several reasons. Firstly, Ferrylodge has consistently engaged in edit wars, insulted other editors, and otherwise caused general disruption for quite some time. This, IMO, at least, merits a block of some duration, but probably not indefinite. Factoring in, though, the fact that they show no signs of feeling sorry for their disruption, this then merits an indef block in this situation. In addition, Ferrylodge has yet to apologize for their actions, and furthermore has turned this case into an avenue to insult and demean the users who blocked them instead of a polite request for an unbanning. In my humble opinion, this is not the correct path to take when one is already on very thin ice, and for this reason, I suggest the Arbitration Committee reject this case, and that Ferrylodge remain banned. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Severa

The issue with Ferrylodge runs a lot deeper than the most recent 3RR block. It's been ongoing for more than nine months now, and, frankly, I'm surprised it took this long to come to a head, because other disruptive editors I've encountered were never given such a long leash. B's "lynchmob" comment is especially inappropriate, because it suggests that the CSN request arose suddenly from a vacuum, which is as far from an accurate description of the play of events as could be possible in my mind.

The CSN request was the direct result of Ferrylodge's long-term contravention of policy and habitual incivility toward other editors. There is a reason I made a total of zero edits for the month of August 2007; Andrew c was driven from editing articles Ferrylodge frequented for a time.[7] In short, Ferrylodge fits the definition of a disruptive editor, committed to editing articles to conform with and promote his perspective of the world. He doesn't let up: he came in edit-warring on Stillbirth in January and that's the article on which he earned his most recent 3RR block. It's surprising to me that an out-of-the-way, uncontroversial article like "Stillbirth" could be made into ground for the debate over abortion. But, really, Ferrylodge works by casting his net wide, waging the same battle across several articles at once, and thus systemically exhausting the patience of anyone who tries to intervene. If he isn't successful in one location, he just packs up the battle and moves it elsewhere, in the hope that he'll have better luck there. The RCOG dispute is just one example of this phenomenon. In that case, Ferrylodge went ahead and inserted the description "pro-choice" into the article on RCOG,[8] although another editor had already objected to the addition of such a description at the article Fetal pain.[9] At Talk:Pregnancy, he advocated the inclusion of an image which he had earlier failed to gain consensus for at Talk:Fetus, and, when 3 editors (myself included) agreed this image was no more appropriate at Pregnancy than it was at Fetus, [10] [11] [12] he responded by suggesting that a series of perfectly neutral anatomical drawings of pregnant women be removed from the article, describing them as "pro-choice." [13] Five minutes after making this suggestion, he went ahead and removed the anatomical drawings from the article,[14] and did so three more times, after they were restored by myself and another user. [15] [16] [17] He then tried to have the images deleted on Commons.[18]

Ferrylodge's style of interaction with other editors is confrontational and he has a habit of personalizing disputes. I first encountered him in December 2006, when he came to Abortion,[19] which ended up leading to his first block for 3RR. I was accused of "request[ing] that [he] be blocked,"[20] although I'd only reminded him to watch out for 3RR in an edit summary,[21] and the blocking admin, InShaneee, confirmed that he had acted indepedently.[22] Another example is when he apparently went out of his way to insert himself into a minor dispute which arose between myself and an anonymous editor on Vaccine controversy, although the dispute did not involve Ferrylodge, and Ferrylodge had never edited the article in question.[23] Jimmuldrow has also accused Ferrylodge of "shadow[ing]"[24] (and, incidentally, Bishonen's was not Ferrylodge's first RfC). As for incivil comments which Ferrylodge has made, the AN/I thread is a good example, but these two stick out most to me: "My regard for you is I'm sure as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower...And you are dishonest and misleading, as usual" (directed at me) and "I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester" (directed at Swatjester). Yes, "vapid" is rather tame, but if KC is to be criticized for not pulling any punches with "inane" or "naive and disingenious," then Ferrylodge should rightly hold himself to his own standard. I'm not going to defend the use of "B.S." in an edit summary, but, granted, it reads a lot more mildly to me than "killing the chihuahua."

In the aftermath of the Bishonen RfC, Musical Linguist tried reaching out to Ferrylodge,[25] but his response was to basically dig his heels in even further and reiterate statements made during the RfC.[26] Have the other editors involved ever made errors in judgment on Wikipedia? Most probably. But, when shown the significant issues present in his editing record, Ferrylodge doesn't see anything amiss. I get the impression that he perceives the issue as lying exclusively with everyone else and that this is why he isn't likely to be any more amenable to change in the future. We can go in circles a few more times, but, after nine months of the same, are we really going to arrive anywhere we haven't visited before? We've been through all our options. Our policy is not to bite the newcomers, but Ferrylodge is no newcomer, and he has had almost a year to learn the ropes on Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General ramble by Nick

I've not looked into the whole history surrounding the decision to take the issue to the Community Sanction Noticeboard, rather, my concern was the haphazard way the ban was rushed through, the user was blocked at certain points and in my view, not able to defend himself satisfactorily from the points that were made. If the process had been allowed to develop slowly with comment from all the parties, a ban might well have been avoided, or if the outcome was to ban the user, then there would be a legitimate discussion to back up the decision, as it is, there was a majority to ban, but I don't believe overall consensus to do so.

I would like to see the committee investigate whether there was sufficent evidence and a pattern of behaviour serious enough to warrant a permanent ban from the project, and also to have a look and see if the discussion on the CSN was sufficent to make such a drastic action as a permanent ban. In my view, if the guy is as much of a nuisance as was made out, there was no need to rush the whole process through, I'm quite sure consensus would have emerged for a community ban.

Just a general comment and not directly relevant to Ferrylodge, I don't wish to appear overly "process wonkery-ish" about this whole area, if a user is sufficently disruptive, they should be banned, but I don't think it does the project any favours to rush through a ban, let the process run for long enough that any discussion can't be considered a "lynching", make sure everything is legitimate and don't give troublemakers any more reason to cause problems, any ammunition, so to speak, to use against use any of our editors.

[edit] Comment by Thatcher131

I do not believe the issue of how the ban was imposed has any special relevance. By definition, a community ban is one that no administrator is willing to overturn. If no admin is willing to overturn Ferrylodge's ban, then consensus obviously exists now, regardless of how one feels about the process or forum originally used to gauge consensus. Are there any admins willing to unban Ferrylodge? If so, then Arbcom should hear the case to prevent bad feelings between admins on either side of the question. If there are not, then there really doesn't seem to be an issue to Arbitrate. Thatcher131 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved Isotope23

I've had no involvement in this situation other than taking a look at it after noticing this request, but I think Thatcher131 is spot on here. Ferrylodge was unblocked to participate here. Excepting that and ignoring the CSN involvement behind FeloniousMonk's block, if there are no admins who would be willing to unblock Ferrylodge for the purpose of returning to general editing then there really isn't much more to say. If there is an admin willing to assert here that they would unblock him, then this should probably go forward.--Isotope23 talk 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Ferrylodge

I'd simply say that B's statement that ARBCOM should overturn this ban is different that B stating they would be willing to overturn your block unilaterally. Perhaps they would, but my point is 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, at least in my opinion. Beyond that, I'd simply say that an RFC isn't a requirement for an indefinite block (which is a de facto ban if nobody is willing to overturn it). If you are indefinitely blocked and no admin is willing to overturn that block, there really isn't much more to discuss here.--Isotope23 talk 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Ferrylodge

It is simply my personal opinion that if an admin is willing to unblock you, it basically renders the ban moot and there is no reason for arbitration. If no admin is willing to do that, maybe the committee will want to review the grounds for the initial block, but the more I've thought about it, that sort of review could just as easily be carried out at the admin noticeboard like any other indef block review. In short, I think there should be a review of the block, but on further reflection I'm just not convinced arbitration is necessarily the next logical step for that review. --Isotope23 talk 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Penwhale

This case is eerily similar to one of the requests below in that a ban was endorsed at CSN only after a few hours of discussion. But like B said above, due process isn't given here, so I will unblock just so that discussion can be done again and this time around with a longer period of discussion, other issues notwithstanding. Unlike B, I believe that process was abused (and I say this because there are 2 such cases right now on RfAq requests).

Also... Since we have multiple issues with CSN discussions closed too speedily, shouldn't we do something about it...? Never mind, apparently I missed the party altogether. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved User:Y

Disclosure: I unblocked Ferrylodge temporarily in order to participate here

I would also be willing to unblock. I strongly believe the following things:

  1. The indefinite block was imposed by a participant in the controversy after a radically truncated discussion
  2. Whatever his misdeeds, Ferrylodge did do a lot of very useful mainspace editing, and that by banning a user like him we are harming the project
  3. There are remedies much finer than decapitation that would address the concerns expressed.

On the basis of the above, I urge the Committee to accept this case for review. -- Y not? 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification (December 2007)

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction).[27] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [28]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire"[29]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.-Andrew c [talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things.[30] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If FerryLodge were to edit the abortion-related parts of the Romney article in a disruptive fashion, an uninvolved admin could indeed ban him from the article, but he is under no blanket ban. You can ask any uninvolved admin to review FerryLodge's edits or post a request at Arbitration enforcement and if the admin decides a ban is needed, FL will be notified and the ban logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Ferrylodge has returned to editing abortion-related articles and is pursuing the same very narrow ends which he's pursued for a year. On Roe v. Wade, he reintroduced commentary on a poll,[31] which he has singled out in this manner since January 2007.[32][33][34][35][36] At Talk:Abortion, he continues to advocate the addition of an illustration of a fetus,[37] although adding such an image to the article himself in September lead to an edit war.[38][39] The point is that the ArbCom decision applied specifically to articles related to pregnancy and abortion, and, even in its wake, Ferrylodge has not moved on from pursuing the same narrow, highly specific goals that he pursued earlier on articles like Abortion. I believe this warrants appraisal. -Severa (!!!) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One quick note on this topic... how is Ferrylodge discussing things on the article talk pages "inappropriate editing" as outlined in the Arbitration Committee remedy? Isn't discussing things on the talk page in a civil manner exactly what we are all supposed to do on heated topics? I haven't followed Ferrylodge much since the case closed, but I am yet to see how he has been inappropriately editing. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
See this diff. He reinserted commentary on the Harris poll that he added to several other articles a year ago (see the diffs above). Instead of letting old matters drop, and moving on, he's still focused on making the same sorts of edits to abortion-related articles as ever. -Severa (!!!) 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Report violations of Arbitration sanctions at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to that page. -Severa (!!!) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)FYI, I am not going to respond to Severa here. For discussion of the Harris poll issue, people can see the talk page discussion here. Also see here (Andrew c requesting earlier today that I be banned due to talk page comments).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More clarification requested

The remedy states, "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Does the "interpreted broadly" clause (or the remedy in general) include talk pages in areas related to abortion, or simply the articles themselves? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption. Thatcher131 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Thatch. --Ali'i 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Like Kirill said earlier, case-by-case scenario. Although the zap would be swift... - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of previous ruling (Ferrylodge)

In a previous ruling it was decided that a given editor, User:Ferrylodge, would be subject to an indefinite restriction regarding articles relating to pregnancy and abortion here. There has been recent discussion here regarding whether that restriction would apply to articles in the broader "political" sphere as well, specifically regarding a current presidential candidate. Would the previous restriction apply in this case or not? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally Arbitration decisions mean what they say. Obviously this does not immunize the editor against administrative action that might be taken for disruptive editing of other articles, but such action has to be justified according to the usual standards and means for dealing with disruption. You may wish to ask Arbcom for a modification or extension of the prior case. Thatcher 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent block

Not sure if it needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans or not, so I'm coming here to ask. FL has been blocked for 72 hours for 3RR violation on Mitt Romney.-Andrew c [talk] 13:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be logged, since it wasn't under a remedy of the arbitration committee, but I'll defer to the arbitrators if they still want it. Mahalo, Andrew. --Ali'i 14:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to clarify/expand remedy from Ferrylodge case (February 2008)

Link to original case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Notification of involved users:

[edit] Statement by MastCell

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) was identified as having "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." He was placed under indefinite sanction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Recently Ferrylodge has taken what I consider to be a very disruptive tack on Talk:Abortion. I posted diffs and details here at WP:AE, because I believe that his behavior represented a continuation of his disruptive and tendentious approach to abortion-related articles sanctioned in the ArbCom case. My filing was reviewed by User:GRBerry, who raised the very sensible issue that the sanction applies to "articles" and likely not to associated talk pages.

Talk:Abortion and associated pages are contentious under the best of circumstances. Based on the diffs and evidence in my AE report, I believe that Ferrylodge is disrupting these talk pages with tendentious, circular arguments, presumptions of bad faith, extensive wikilawyering, and the like. I'm asking, therefore, that the sanction from his case be amended to read: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any page which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." This would include talk pages, WikiProjects, and the like, though presumably somewhat greater latitude would be provided on these pages than in article-space. I believe this extension is justified based on his lengthy history and ongoing behavior. MastCell Talk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to GRBerry: No, there are no previous logged Blocks&Bans. Still, Ferrylodge has constantly been testing the limits of his sanctions. For example, here at WP:AE 2 admins (AGK and Rlevse) found his conduct disruptive - in fact, AGK banned him from Roe v. Wade - but he was let off the hook with yet another promise to reform, though his tactics had played a role in driving a very valuable contributor off Wikipedia. That pattern has repeated itself long enough. At some point, a critical mass of disruption is achieved here, and I think we're at that point. MastCell Talk 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to Ferrylodge: I'm asking a very specific and straightforward question about an ArbCom case here. I'm not interested in defending myself against your attempts to distract, impugn, or muddy the waters. The reasoning behind my edits is discussed in depth on the relevant article talk pages. If you have a problem with my conduct, then please follow dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to NCdave: Since we have a long history of failing to get along well, I don't think it's constructive to follow me around and inject yourself into unrelated disputes. MastCell Talk 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by GRBerry

In interpreting the case, I noted that the committee explicitly chose the passed wording over a prior version that said "article or other page". The other difference was that the prior version was "is banned" and the passed version is "uninvolved administrator may ban". I don't know which difference the committee was focusing on.

There has been a prior request for clarification on this issue, which no committee member responded to. It is logged at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision#More clarification requested. Thatcher then said "The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption." I too am certainly going to allow more freedom in discussion venues (talk pages, XfDs, and the like).

I also note Kirill's comment earlier today on the Macedonia case: "'Page' (as opposed to the narrower 'article') applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Since Thatcher (who has more WP:AE experience than I) and I are reading the tea leaves differently, clarification may well be in order even if expansion isn't.

There is currently nothing logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans. GRBerry 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on the more complete clarification response in the Macedonia case above, the current report was closed out without action. I take no position on whether expansion is in order. GRBerry 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ferrylodge

I’ve responded to Mastcell at the Arbitration Enforcement proceeding that he initiated, and at the pertinent article talk page.

I hope that any further decision or clarification by ArbCom in this matter will be prospective only (which may be Mastcell’s intent anyway). I also hope that my comments at the pertinent talk page will not be viewed in isolation, but rather ArbCom should be free to review the behavior of all involved people, including "trusted members of the community."

Mastcell does not object to any article edit that I made. He objects to my talk page comments. And Mastcell is not denying that those comments followed up on a false statement that he had inserted into the article text, with an accompanying footnote in which Mastcell cited a POV newspaper editorial that did not even support the false statement that he was inserting into the article text. As far as I know, Mastcell does not deny any of this, but rather he deems all of this context irrelevant. It is very relevant. Unlike Mastcell, I did not disrupt the article text at all, and no one accuses me of having done so.

At the corresponding article talk page, Mastcell made numerous false allegations and personal attacks against me. He falsely accused me of “quote-mining a primary source” and of using “ a series of quotes from primary sources to advance your opinion” and “massag[ing] the primary sources” and “violat[ing] WP:SYN to mine quotes from a primary source” and trying to “set aside WP:NOR.”

I respectfully submit to ArbCom that all of these wiki-lawyering accusations by Mastcell were blatantly false. I do not see how ArbCom could agree to Mastcell’s present request without examining whether those accusations by Mastcell were indeed blatantly false.

It is tendentious for an Admin to make a stream of false accusations at an article talk page, while also inserting false material and POV footnotes into the article text. You may disregard these assertions of mine because Mastcell is a “trusted member of the community.” However, I urge you to please look at the facts. The discussion at the article talk page became heated, and Mastcell was as much a part of the heat as myself, if not more so. I was responding to irresponsible edits by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) in the article text, and responding to irresponsible accusations against me by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) at the article talk page. I have tried my best to avoid causing what even the most biased person might consider disruption of any article text covered by the Arbcom decision, and no one accuses me of having done so.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to Mastcell: The title of the request you made here at this page says that you are interested in "expanding" the remedy in my case. You're requesting that the language of the remedy be amended, and you've supplied ArbCom with more expansive language for them to adopt. So please don't pretend that you are merely asking a "specific and straightforward question" about the meaning of a previous remedy. You are seeking an amended and expanded remedy, and you are relying on a long list of "diffs and details." However, when I mention details that are not on your long list, you now accuse me of trying to play, distract, impugn, and muddy the waters. This is the kind of counterproductive wikilawyering that I referred to in my statement above, and I'm asking you politely to please ease up.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: A few minutes ago, Mastcell made this reversion. I am totally flabbergasted. I do not understand it, see no justification for it, and feel compelled to mention it here. Please judge for yourselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to Strider12: While I appreciate Strider12's kind words, I do want to set the record straight a little bit. As I have explained,[43] I have not said that the secondary sources in question (Science, New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly) are "unreliable" or "conflicted with the transcript". I have simply claimed that a quote from the hearing transcript will provide MORE info than is provided in those publications. I still believe that to be true, and still believe (as does Strider12) that the quote from the hearing transcript should clearly not have been removed from this Wikipedia article,[44] because the quote provides further notable and neutral info, because it narrowly addresses the precise matter discussed by the secondary sources, because it is available for free at a reliable online source, and because it fully complies with Wikipedia rules regarding use of primary sources.[45] Nor do I believe that it involves original research, or synthesis, or quote-mining, or POV, or any of the other nasty things that have been attributed to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Zsero

Regardless of whether this specific decision was meant to include talk pages, having looked at the edits to which Mastcell objects, I see nothing disruptive in them. Now I haven't been at all involved in the history of that page, so I don't know how it might seem to someone who is involved, but the essence of Mastcell's complaint seems to be that in making a perfectly valid edit, Ferrylodge cynically assumed that someone would revert it, and got his response in first, so to speak. Mastcell seems to be claiming that this lack of AGF was inherently disruptive, and that Ferrylodge was under an obligation to pretend that he expected his edit to be accepted in good grace, simply because it was true, and only to respond once it was in fact reverted. The fact that his prediction seems to have been fulfilled would seem to me to vindicate him. And in light of his past treatment, especially the lynch mob back in September (my disgust at how he was treated caused me to withdraw from WP for several months), I think he's entitled to anticipate opposition to anything he does on that page, however valid, and to defend his edits as if they had already been challenged. At least that's how it appears to this utterly uninvolved editor (I only knew about this action because I had Ferrylodge's talk page on my watch list from when I made an edit to it way back when). -- Zsero (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by NCdave

Sorry for the late participation; I just noticed this.

Like Zsero, I also can see no evidence at all of disruptive editing by Ferrylodge. I went to Ferrylodge's contribs, and read more of his contributions for myself. I did not read them all -- he's been a very prolific contributor for several years, on many topics. But what I found was consistently careful, well-written, well-sourced information from a thoughtful and careful contributor who obviously knows what he's talking about. Ferrylodge has diligently sought to make constructive contributions, in the face of tendentious POV-pushing by MastCell, IronAngelAlice, and a few others.

Note that MastCell's ally, IronAngelAlice, is a one-topic editor who has a history of abusive behavior using multiple accounts. Her previous ID was permanently blocked for it, and this one was blocked for a week, but she's at it again.

MastCell is also trying to get another excellent contributor, Strider12, banned. Strider12 and Ferrylodge are the two editors who have made the most constructive, well-sourced contributions to the abortion-related articles. I am truly appalled. NCdave (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Strider12

I'm hesitant to even comment as I'm afraid my "taking sides" will be used by MastCell to further her attacks on me. But, here I go...

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know any of the history of Ferrylodge or why s/he was banned. As I saw it, Ferrylodge did nothing except point out that the cited sources (from pro-choice leaning publications) conflicted with the transcript and invited others to comment and edit. But apparantly knowing Ferrylodge was under a ban, MastCell was quick to start alleging that he was being disruptive.

I can also say that I had asked on several occasions on the abortion mental health talk page what the full context of the Koop "miniscule" qoute was because it was out of sync with all the other published statements he had made. No one provided the full statement and question until Ferrylodge provided it. Therefore, I consider it a contribution.

But I was also unsurprised by MastCell's wikilawyering to minimize the significance of this proof that the phrase was actually used by Congressman Weiss and misattributed to Koop. In this case Ferrylodge was demonstrating from a primary source (congressional transcripts) that the secondary sources relied upon by MastCell were not reliable regarding this particular fact.

In many similar cases, when I have supplied material from reliable secondary sources, including multiple peer reviewed studies of the highest quality, MastCell and/or others encouraged by MastCell have deleted them with no justification other than that the findings and opinions of experts who disagree with their small set of preferred sources should not be included without their consent..."consensus"...which is never to be given. In my view, this unrelenting pattern of deleting reliable sources is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption 1. In my view, it is MastCell and his/her cohorts whose deletes s/he defends, who is disruptively deleting material from this article.

It has been my experience that MastCell has a long history of trying to suppress my contributions regarding abortion and mental health, and most of this time there have been no abortion critics participating in the conversation except myself. My take on this complaint is that MastCell is upset that Ferrylodge came in with evidence that supported my concerns and that Ferrylodge appears to be a threat to his/her attempts to portray Srider12 as always wrong.

Fundamentally, this argument is not about editors or contributions, it is about the most contentious issue of the day, abortion, and the belief of some editors that any fact or source that does not contribute to the whitewash of the abortion/mental health effects is suspect and should be dismissed, minimized, or obstructed with demands for "consensus".--Strider12 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by other user

[edit] Clerk notes

  • By convention and long practice, the term "articles" in Arbitration cases should be read as "pages" meaning article, talk, wikiproject, template, and any other page. I happen to be otherwise occupied and taking a break from WP:AE for a while, but I would have no problem applying and enforcing the ban you propose. Thatcher 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you notice that Kirill said the opposite this morning in a different request for clarification? (Diff in my statement.) GRBerry 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I can probably find diffs that say the opposite, from various Arbitrators over the last 18 months. I can deal with either a broad interpretation or a narrow one, but having both is pretty annoying. If there were two alternative proposals for voting that differentiated between page and article that would be definitive, but I rather suspect it is due to imprecise drafting of the proposed decisions. I guess we either need a vote on this case or a general clarification of Arbitration policy. As far as I am concerned, narrowly limiting probation to articles invites just this sort of problem. Thatcher 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrator views and discussion

  • References to "any article" are generally meant to include talkpages. I will try to make sure that any ambiguity on this score is avoided in future decisions. Not commenting on the other issues as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the past, the term "articles" in a restriction has been ambiguously used to mean both mainspace article pages, and "any pages". In general therefore (and since disruption on a mainspace page can often move to disruption on a talk page or other related project page), the Committee is willing to look at replacing the term "any article" by "any page" in a ruling where this may have been the intent, or where it may be a better choice as an extension and clarification. It would usually be reasonable to check first the original evidence to see what type of conduct existed at the time, and whether it was likely to be the then-Arbitrators' intention that a ruling apply to only mainspace. But this is only one factor. Even if that was the decision then, it is open to amendment now. Cases only come to Arbitration if serious, and often therefore rulings have a certain degree of "end of dispute" intention to them. I haven't yet read the original case so this is basic guidance only for now. Basically, "as Newyorkbrad said". FT2 (Talk | email) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge (April 2008)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

[edit] Statement by MastCell

I recently requested review of the Ferrylodge decision, which found that Ferrylodge was subject to indefinite sanctions and could be banned from any "article" relating to pregnancy or abortion which he disrupted. I believe that Ferrylodge was disruptive at Talk:Abortion; however, there was some dispute as to whether the sanction extended to all namespaces, or merely article-space.

The previous request is here. It was archived by a clerk at a point where two Arbs had opined, seeming (to me at least) to indicate that the sanction should apply across all namespaces. However, the AE request which started it all was closed without action based on the recent Macedonia clarification. I'm a bit confused.

I'd like a clear finding about whether Ferrylodge's sanction applies to all namespaces, or only to article-space. If it applies narrowly to article-space, then I'd like to request that the Committee formally extend the sanction to all namespaces, as Ferrylodge's disruptive editing has always been most prominent in talkspace. While the specific thread which led to my request has become dormant, the underlying issue remains, and Ferrylodge has in the past temporarily improved his behavior when under scrutiny only to relapse when the scrutiny is lifted. Therefore, I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces.

Given the extensive degeneration and misdirection evident at my prior request, I'll state upfront that I'm not going to respond to attacks, criticism, deflection, specific content issues, etc in this request. I want to keep this focused on the specific amendment I'm requesting. I will provide more detailed evidence of any specific claim should the Arbitrators think it would be useful; that will be the extent of my commentary here. MastCell Talk 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to GRBerry: The finding of fact from the ArbCom case pointed to a "long history of disruptive editing", referencing evidence of disruption across article and talk namespaces. I presented more evidence of continuing disruption in talkspace in my AE request. The fact is that Ferrylodge is intermittently disruptive in talkspace, backing off temporarily when attention is drawn to his behavior. If the expansion of this remedy hinges on my providing yet more evidence of his behavior, then I will, but it should not be this hard to slightly expand the wording of a probation on an disruptive editor. I'm not talking about banning him; I'm just asking that he behave on talk pages and not just in articlespace. MastCell Talk 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Brad's comment.
  • Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere The specific dispute which sparked this request is stale. I don't see any need to do anything retroactive to address such past disputes anymore - it would be punitive at this point - but I would still like a narrow and straightforward prospective clarification that in the future Ferrylodge's sanctions apply across all namespaces, if ArbCom feels this is appropriate. In this specific case the letter of the decision appears to be fairly important, and without a clarification my belief is that this will come up again. Just a simple change in the remedy from "articles" to "any page" would do the trick from my perspective. MastCell Talk 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to bainer's comment.
  • The "any page" formulation was an outright ban, whereas the "article" remedy which did pass merely enabled an uninvolved admin to ban him if necessary. I thought the thrust of the difference between the two proposals was the ban vs. the probation, rather than page v. article, but obviously I'm guessing. In any case, based on previous events, can I request that the remedy be formally amended to apply to any "page" related to abortion or pregnancy which Ferrylodge disrupts? MastCell Talk 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ferrylodge

Unfortunately, I do not have time today to comment much. Hopefully I will have time to respond more fully on Monday or Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with Mastcell.

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[49]

Mastcell has not cited any specific article edit by me that he finds disruptive; he has only provided talk page diffs. And yet, he is requesting a vast expansion of the ArbCom decision in my case: "I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces." Is Mastcell referring to project namespace? Is he referring even to user namespace? I do not know. In any event, if Mastcell really wants to argue that I have recently been behaving disruptively at the abortion talk page, it would be most helpful if Mastcell would please identify the single specific diff that he thinks is most egregious, so that we can focus on it.

I believe that Mastcell was being disruptive recently at the abortion-related articles, and I have no regrets about reverting him here at the abortion article. I also continue to be flabbergasted by his subsequent reversion here at the related main article. So, I have concerns that Mastcell may be using this ArbCom forum in consequence of a content dispute, rather than because of any real disruption on my part.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Mastcell indicates[50] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to Mastcell's Response to GRBerry: Mastcell, you are accusing me of disruption for saying things like the following to another editor: "You're repeatedly pasting massive amounts of redundant stuff, swamping whatever comments other people make." Mastcell, do you think that if another editor pastes massive amounts of redundant stuff at a talk page,[51][52] thus swamping whatever comments other people make, then I should praise instead of criticize such an editor? Perhaps you will now accuse me of cherry-picking your criticisms of me, but the fact is that I have (over and over again) asked you to cherry-pick your criticisms of me, so that I can respond concisely to what you regard as my most serious offense. Please, go ahead and cherry-pick from your arguments, so that we can focus on a serious complaint instead of one of your less compelling complaints. I do not think that ArbCom is interested in me trying to put in context and rebut every single one of your laundry-list of Ferrylodge quotes. Pick your best one, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Brad's comment.
  • Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere Mastcell is requesting a change in the remedy in my case. This should be supported by evidence. It would be helpful if Mastcell would please identify the specific diff that he thinks is most representative of such evidence, so that we could focus on it. Additionally, I would like to ask how to go about entirely erasing the remedy in my case. Presumably it was not intended to last for the rest of my life. The remedy has been in effect since last year, and there have not been any blocks or bans.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by GRBerry

When handling the last, now stale, WP:AE complaint I noted that the case log did not provide evidence that an expansion to talk pages was merited, and encouraged MastCell to provide evidence of disruption in other pages if he felt expansion was merited. It is getting now close to a month since I made this suggestion. This leads me to suspect that there is not readily available evidence to support an expansion. Unless evidence is suddenly forthcoming, I tend to believe that expansion is not currently needed. GRBerry 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by other user

[edit] Clerk notes

[edit] Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see that this request for clarification has sat here for 10 days without input from any arbitrator, which is excessive, and I apologize since the situation is 1/15th my fault. Having said that, can I ask the parties to comment whether this situation is an ongoing problem that you feel still requires action by the committee, or whether it has calmed down. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See the proposed decision; here an "any page" remedy did not pass, whereas the alternative "article" formulation did, so in this case "article" means "article". --bainer (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to note that I concur with bainer's reading of the situation. In response to MastCell's comment in follow-up, I'm not sure whether it's needed to extend to prior ruling, as per Brad. James F. (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right now I would not support extending the rulings to cover other than articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)