Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2

message: "However, Ferrylodge's block log does not reflect that the block was for purposes of disengagement rather than for harassment." -Perhaps because simple disengagement wasn't the purpose of the block? Just because a different admin thinks that would've been a better reason, that doesn't mean that the original reason somehow changes. But maybe you can explain something.
If you:
#Are told to stop posting on a page; because it is considered harassment.
#Do so anyways.
#Do so again.
#See that the owner of the talk page deleted your comments (thus proving that your comments weren't welcome, and that they were trying to not engage you)
#Do so again.
How can you possibly expect it to be treated as anything but harassment? It wouldn't matter if you were simply trying to say that "bunnies are cute". "They really are!" "Seriously, bunnies are cute! Stop removing this!" It's still harassment, n'est-ce pas? And that's a serious question, what else could it be? And, for that matter, how could a person get you to stop posting on their talk page? An admin telling you to stop doesn't do it. The owner of the talk page deleting your comments, refusing to engage you doesn't work. Short of asking for their talk page to be fully protected, what could they do?
For that matter, shouldn't "dispute resolution" have been started before you started spamming KC's talk page with material you knew was unwanted? If you really felt it wasn't harassment, perhaps you should have worked that out before continuing? Instead of just continuing as much as you wanted, and then complaining about it after the fact? I fail to see how constantly asserting that Bish made a mistake qualifies as "dispute resolution", especially when the closest you ever got to actual legitimate discussion with her was when you were (for some reason) asking her for advice on how to file a case against her? (And then later asking if she'd second a case against herself)
Hmm, I seem to have rambled a bit. In case it's hard to wade through, the outstanding questions are: "If you continue posting on a talk page after being told to stop, and after seeing that your previous comments were removed by the owner of the talk page, and thus entirely unwanted, how can continuing to post there be considered anything but harassment?", "If being told by an admin to stop doesn't make you stop, and the owner of the talk page removing your comments but refusing to engage with you doesn't make you stop, what would make you stop posting in someone's talk page, short of having the entire thing protected?", and, "Shouldn't you have tried to work out the harassment claim before continuing with the conduct you were being warned for? And, have you actually tried any real dispute resolution, beyond accusing Bish of having made a mistake?" Bladestorm 09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferrylodge asked for my support in this matter, and the reason I have decided to support him is that I think he has a right to due process. While it is fair to address his behavior after the block warning was given, all that matters--in this case--is what preceded the block warning. The other stuff is another issue and should be dealt with elsewhere. The reason I support due process is that--as excellent as she may be at other things on Wikipedia--I wonder if Bishonen (aka “Bishzilla”) doesn’t have a tendency to jump the gun. For example, to date I have left only one, brief comment on Bishonen’s Talk page  ("Request_for_action_regarding_Ferrylodge_account"), and yet she warned me off of leaving any others--because several OTHER people had written at length. In other words, her warning to me was unwarranted--especially since, even including her Talk page, I have logged very, very little text in this conversation. I also wonder if it seems odd to anyone else that a user who blatantly vandalizes a page would receive only a warning and yet, in this case, someone who was earnestly trying to improve an article was warned off, blocked, and permanently labeled for being in a conversation that, at worst, could be characterized only as mildly sarcastic. Now, I want to be clear, I am not saying that Bishonen is bad or evil or bad-intentioned. I am interested in Ferrylodge getting due process to determine if Bishonen acted prematurely. And that is the central question in this conversation.LCP 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due process was in the AN/I.  I suppose this then is an appeal?  When this fails, then what, an RfAr?  Assuming that such an RfAr were even accepted, what if that appeal fails?  Having wasted valuable time and computer processing time does Ferrylodge then storm of Wikipedia and write an anti-wiki blog?  Do you know what "frivolous" means?  Given its frequent use to modify "lawsuit", I'm sure Ferrylodge does. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments

message: (edit conflict) - I want my own edit button!
LCP, actually I don't think that due-process is the central issue here. His due-process was granted at length on AN/I. Not every appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. Sometimes due process runs out, due to insufficient grounds.
The central issue here, is really Ferrylodge's ego. His pride is hurt and his ego is bruised and he is now abusing the process, in an attempt to obtain vindication in the form of a retraction. The vindication is not deserved and I predict that it will not be forthcoming.
I went to his page, in an effort to cool down the situation and to help find a solution. I began by asking him questions like: 'What do you expect to accomplish?' and 'What is your desired result?'. Ferrylodge had no idea what he really wanted to 'accomplish' and, instead, responded with an essay on 'how he was wronged', and he tried to enlist me in his campaign with detailed 'justification' for his actions.
His campaign was a means, without an end. I believe that what he really wanted was a 'retraction' from Bishonen about her 'judgment' that he was harassing KC. But he was so convinced that he wouldn't get it, that he sabotaged himself at every opportunity, by adding statements like "I know you won't agree to this." He failed to assume good faith in virtually every one of his posts. With all his lawyering skills and verbosity, he couldn't concisely state what he wanted in one or two bullet items.
In my opinion, this is not about his 'due process'. It is about his pride, his arrogance, and his ego, which would not permit him to offer a simple apology for anything KC or Bishonen may have 'misunderstood'. I have not been on wikipedia very long. However, in the short time I have edited here, I have seen a lot of crap get excused, overlooked and dismissed in the name of good faith, simply because a user was appropriately contrite, apologetic, and accepted responsibility for their conduct. My point here is, Ferrylodge has shown no sign of contrition. From the very start, up through this RfC, he has seen himself as the victim, and hasn't once considered any negative impact that his words and actions may have had on another editor. His pride won't even allow him to pretend to be sorry.
Bringing article discussion to KC's talkpage was inappropriate. Including divisive and antagonistic language was more inappropriate and in poor taste. Ignoring the warning to stop, was ... well ... unintelligent. Arrogantly going back, after his posting had been deleted, and reposting with an edit comment telling KC how to manage her talkspace, rightfully earned him a block.
Could Bishonen have given a nicer, more polite and sugar coated warning, prior to her threat to block? Sure. And based on the results we now have, it would have been a complete waste of time. Ferrylodge is annoyed because he was accused of harassment. His indignation got him blocked. And, I submit, that he'd have been blocked no matter how Bishonen worded the warning, because he has repeatedly refused to accept any criticism or responsibility for his situation. He disregarded the advice of several editors (and admins) who suggested that he was on the wrong path. He opened an unsuccessful AN/I. And, now he's opened a ridiculous RfC.
I agree with Orangemarlin that Ferrylodge owes KC an apology for the abusive posting on her page, he owes Bishonen an apology for this frivilous RfC, and he owes the community an apology for wasting our time.
Lsi john 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I have no opinion of whether FL owes B an apology. Regarding issue of wasting time, however, you state above, "Sometimes due process runs out." In other words, not everyone gets a hearing. Those who didn't have the time didn't have to participate. Everyone here has chosen to participate, and I don't see how you can punish Ferrylodge for the choice you made to spend time here.LCP 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept the time consequences of my choice to edit on wikipedia. I also accept the time consequences of my choice to stand up for what I believe is right. That does not exempt Ferrylodge from owing an apology, for creating the situation which led to us choosing to spend time addressing it. And, suggesting that he owes an apology is hardly punishment. Lsi john 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! I misread what you wrote. I put words into your mouth! When you said you agreed with Orangemarlin, I thought you too were suggesting sanctions beyond an apology.LCP 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  break2 

message: I just want to express my appreciation to LCP regarding this RfC.  I am not an expert on RfCs, and this is the first one I've ever started (I previously participated in one started by someone else).  However, my understanding is that LCP's certification of the dispute didn't necessarily mean that he was complaining with me: "you don't need two people complaining, you just need a second person to endorse your complaint. You know, to agree that it has merit, and also to contact" the subject of the RfC.  
LCP volunteered to do all this, and I'm very grateful.  Unfortunately, when he did contact the subject of the RfC, the subject of the RfC said: "I'd appreciate it if ... LCP didn't post on my page anymore."  Anyway, it's the effort that counts.Ferrylodge 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [/bishonen waves her waiver ] "Unfortunately", is it ? And LCP calls it my "warning" to him. You guys aren't very careful with words, are you? If you want this RFC to keep going after the 48 hours are up, you should post and link to that statement of mine more prominently, say under the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", because it's actually my waiver of the need for any further/better dispute resolution attempts from you and LCP. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll do that.Ferrylodge 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL. •Jim62sch• 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you to LCP