The intro to this page requests that each person limit themselves to 1000 words max. Yet, KillerChihuahua has posted more than 1700 words. May we get some enforcement here, please? Perhaps KC would do the enforcement, by focussing on what she regards as my most egregious transgressions? Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(undent)I have now provided evidence in response to Tvoz. Just for the record, I have now been banned from editing Wikipedia articles for more than a month, beginning on September 21.[1] I appealed to ARBCOM on October 9,[2] but the banning administrator has yet to say anything in these proceedings even though he was editing as recently as October 21.[3] Also the administrator who requested the ban has thus far refused to allow me to present critical email evidence that I requested on October 19,[4] even though she has been editing as recently as October 20.[5] Is there any evidence that ARBCOM would like me to address that I haven't addressed yet?Ferrylodge 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC) I guess the only evidence that I haven't fully responded to yet has been Severa's. I provided evidence in response to some of her evidence, but have not yet had time to respond to all of it; I'll try to do that here at the talk page today or tomorrow.Ferrylodge 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Unlike MONGO's presentation in the SoD arbcom hearing, this actually makes a case I can a) follow and b) believe. I don't know if there is any technical evidence as well, but the circumstantial stuff here is quite powerful. --Rocksanddirt 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest Ferrylodge look up to term "psychoanalyze." I think the word he may be looking for is "psychologize," namely to explain something in psychological terms. As it stands, the claims Ferrylodge has made of being "psychoanalyzed" make no sense since no one is invoking Freud. --Pleasantville 11:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've already provided evidence at the main Evidence page in reply to some of Severa's evidence. I'd like to now take this opportunity to give a more complete reply to Severa's evidence. This is going to be a rather long reply, unfortunately, so I'll link to this reply from the main Evidence page instead of putting the whole thing at the main Evidence page.
Much of Severa's evidence is incorrect. For example, Severa writes that I have said that I am “sorry for the ... FeloniousMonk block in Sept. 2007.” That is not true. The FeloniousMonk block was for harassment rather than for 3RR, and I have never acknowledged harassment, much less apologized for it.[6] The only blocks I have apologized for are my 3RR blocks.[7]
Likewise, Severa alleges that "Ferrylodge has had 3 blocks for 3RR since December 2006."[8] That is not true, as I mentioned already.[9] I have had only two blocks for 3RR at Wikipedia, the first having been in response to Severa's own 3RR violation when she reverted five times in a 24-hour period (see summary of my blocks).
Severa notes that I changed "Freddie" to "Fred" at Fred Thompson several times in a 24-hour period. The administrator in charge of blocks at the time (Navou) said that, “I did not see any aggravating disruption, personal attacks, etc. I have protected the page and stopped the disruption there. I see no need to block in this case, and I stand by my decision to not block in this instance.”[10] It was not the wisest conduct on my part, and I would do things differently if I could get a do-over.
Like KillerChihuahua did in her evidence, Severa cites the RCOG incident. I already responded to KC on that score.[11] Severa is correct that several editors objected back in May to the notion that RCOG is a “pro-choice group.”[12][13][14] Severa says that I subsequently made edits saying that RCOG is a pro-choice group, but that is untrue. Each of my edits said that RCOG took a pro-choice position on a particular issue.[15][16][17] This distinction, between being a “pro-choice group” on the one hand and taking a pro-choice position about something on the other hand, had been suggested by KillerChihuahua:[18]
“ | 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. | ” |
As evidence of my supposed incivility, Severa mentions the following rather tame remark by me from May 2007: "What a fine bunch you people are." I'd like to now put that quote in context: “neither you [Severa] nor KC, nor Bishonen has EVER addressed the blockquote in my original post above, where KC distinguished between saying a group is pro-choice and saying it takes a pro-choice position on an issue. Never. And doubtless you never will. What a fine bunch you people are."[19] I am unaware that Severa has yet addressed that blockquote above.
Anyway, let's move along now to the image that I uploaded on March 4 to Wikimedia Commons, which was an image of a model fetus held in a hand.[20] The next day, I added that image to the Fetus article, but some people at the Fetus article objected to the new image, e.g. because that Fetus article already contained fetus images, and some editors felt the fetus-in-hand image was not neutral. Therefore, the fetus-in-hand image was removed from the Fetus article. Then on April 10, an anonymous user at the Pregnancy article inserted some vector drawings that inaccurately showed a fetus and mother.[21] As of April 20, the only images of a fetus in the Pregnancy article were those very inaccurate vector drawings.[22] So, on April 20, I suggested at the Pregnancy talk page that we ought to include the image of the fetus-in-hand that I had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons the month before.[23] Please note that I never inserted the fetus-in-hand image into the Pregnancy article; instead I tried to obtain consensus first at the talk page, but failed. Severa, for example, asserted that the fetus-in-hand image was “POV,”[24] so I never inserted it into the Pregnancy article even though I disagreed with Severa.
Another editor (Nandesuka) pointed out on April 21 that the vector drawings, which had then been in the Pregnancy article for ten days, were “terrible,”[25] and I agreed that the vector drawings were terrible. The vector drawings gave a misleading impression that a fetus looks like a “blob,” as Andrew c put it.[26] That is why I called those vector drawings “pro-choice,” in the sense that they supported that POV either intentionally or unintentionally.[27] More importantly, they were just terribly inaccurate.[28] At that point, at least two editors were saying that the new vector drawings were terrible. I emphasized that there was no consensus to include the vector drawings in the article,[29] and that they had been inserted by an anonymous user only eleven days previously without any discussion.[30] I objected to Severa’s saying that the only grounds for removal of the vector drawings was “one user’s opinion,” when actually at least two users were objecting to the new vector drawings.[31] I also questioned whether the images violated copyright,[32] and I was not alone in believing that they might be derivative works.[33] Severa insisted that removal of the new vector drawings had to be approved by consensus,[34] whereas my position was that insertion of the new vector drawings had to be approved by consensus.[35] On April 22, the number of vector drawings in the article was reduced,[36] and I suggested that the remaining vector drawings could stay in the article with a disclaimer about their accuracy;[37] so, the reduced number of vector drawings did then remain in the article with a disclaimer about their accuracy.[38] Ultimately, on August 28, I improved the Pregnancy article by helping to include some accurate fetus images,[39] which still remain in the Pregnancy article.[40] I did nothing wrong throughout this episode. Severa was obviously mistaken that a consensus is required to remove material that has recently been inserted into an article without any discussion; in those circumstances, a consensus is required for inclusion, not for removal.
Severa also says that she has an example of me “deliberately misrepresenting others,” regarding the fetus-in-hand image.[41] But, her example does not pan out. I said at the Pregnancy article that, “There have been objections to this image because the adult hand is a ‘married white male’, and I hope that such crude comments will not reappear.”[42] And, if you look at the Fetus discussion page, you will find exactly that objection: “When I look at that picture, I see the hand of a white, male, married adult. I do not see any ‘help’ in judging the size of the fetus model.”[43] Where's my offense? Severa adds that I “persisted” in this matter, but in fact I struck out my further comments on the matter.[44]
Now we come again to the word “womb” in the Stillbirth article, which I already discussed in response to KillerChihuahua's evidence.[45] Severa notes that I reverted four times within 24 hours, and indeed I received a 3RR block for it. That was my second and last 3RR block during the whole time I have been at Wikipedia, and I have repeatedly apologized for it.[46] Severa says that six editors objected to the word "womb" at other articles shortly before I reinserted the word "womb" into the Stillbirth article (I quibble with Severa's count because the word "womb" was not mentioned by this editor or this editor). As the editor Zsero put it, I “tried to revert the unilateral attempt [by ConfuciusOrnis] to change ‘womb’ to uterus...[and] tried for a compromise that would include both words.”[47] There are scores of Wikipedia articles that use the word “womb,” so there are lots and lots of Wikipedia editors who do not buy into the notion that the word “womb” is POV, and that the word "uterus" must be used to the complete exclusion of the word "womb".[48] The whole issue was not settled as of 20 September, or else KC would not have set up a discussion titled “Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate” on 21 September.[49] I tried to start such a discussion at the Stillbirth article, but that discussion was cut short by KC,[50] who also falsely accused me of spamming the Stillbirth talk page.[51] Please note that Hoplon agreed with me on September 20, and also Agne27 stated that "'womb' is undoubtedly the more common term." I did nothing wrong at the Stillbirth article, except violate 3RR, for which I have apologized many times.
Severa also alleges wrongdoing by me on Roe v. Wade, as I've already mentioned.[52] She cites two “problematic changes made to the Roe article,” which she disagreed with.[53] I brought the Roe v. Wade article through a Featured Article Review,[54] at the end of which I was praised for “brilliant work.”[55] Those two content issues that Severa now complains about were successfully addressed during the featured article review, and I object to the conversion of a minor content dispute into grounds for banishing me permanently from Wikipedia.
Severa asserts that it was uncivil of me to open an RfC against Bishonen. I disagree. I honestly believe that I did not harass anyone, as I have already explained in the summary of my three blocks.[56] Nuff said.
Severa also says it was uncivil of me to insert myself into a minor dispute on March 5 which arose between Severa and an anonymous editor on Vaccine controversy, although the dispute did not directly involve me, and I'd never edited the article in question. My comment at the anonymous user's talk page was very brief.[57] I subsequently asked Musical Linguist to advise me on this point, and she advised "against making a habit of turning up at other user talk pages where people you're in dispute with have posted. It's not forbidden, unless it reaches a level that can be reasonably regarded as stalking, but it's at least insensitive."[58] I replied to Musical Linguist: "I agree it's not something that should become a habit."[59] It has not happened since March 5, so I would suggest that maybe I shouldn't be banned from Wikipedia for the rest of my life due to this one small oversight.
Severa takes me to task for incivilly saying that Swatjester was “vapid.” I admit it, I did.[60] It was in response to Swatjester's remark that I was being “stupid” to object to harassment charges.[61] Evil Spartan said at the time: “the comment toward Swatjester was uncalled for, though, like I said, Swatjester provided abosolutely no proof, so I can sort of understand why it was made.”[62] I agree with what Evil Spartan said. And I also agree with what Severa recently said: "Yes, 'vapid' is rather tame."[63] So why try to ban me from Wikipedia for the rest of my life?
Severa criticizes me for objecting to being psychoanalyzed (or psychologized, or whatever). I have already addressed that criticism at the main Evidence page, and will not repeat it here.[64]
Yes, I did complain about Severa's "bullying" back in February. I said, "Your bullying is not going to intimidate me from using common sense and neutral information at Wikipedia."[65] That probably was not very wise language for me to use, and I hope that it is noted Severa had to reach all the way back to February in order to find it. But I am proud of the fact that I have stood up to Severa's attempts to control article content in the abortion area. Not long before that "bullying" comment of mine, Severa altered poll results at Abortion in the United States, and I would like to now claim credit for correcting it.[66] The poll result said that 58% of men and 72% of women believe that second trimester abortion should be illegal. Severa changed it to say that majorities of both men and women support legal second trimester abortion.[67] Not a very subtle difference.
Severa now upbraids me for commenting “That you can pretty much get away with murder at Wikipedia, as long as you have a big pack of people to back you up.”[68] I hope that I am proved wrong.Ferrylodge 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any mechanism for submission of evidence that would violate another editor's privacy if simply submitted to the Evidence page? Are there any written guidelines for such that I could read? --Pleasantville 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen, would it be okay for me to forward emails to an arbitrator that KillerChihuahua sent me in September? See here.Ferrylodge 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidence emailed to the committee is deliberated on in private and is not made public to the parties. That's the way it is for privacy reasons; and evidence that does not belong on the arbitration committee email list, as I understand it, must be placed on the evidence page. As for the emails, I would not forward those communications from Killer Chihuahua without her permission.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious why Ferrylodge requires KC's express permission to send private email to an arbitrator, but Pleasantville does not require such permission from the author of her evidence? Or am I missing something obvious here? It would seem that forwarding an email privately to an arbitrator would not require any permission, as it is not the equivalent of posting something publicly. If a defendant in a criminal trial received an email from the "real killer", would he need to get that person's permission before the email could be shown to the judge? - Crockspot 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)