Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007 (plus one comment by Ferrylodge on 27 September 2007).

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Archive 4: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.

An archive of banishment proceedings against Ferrylodge is here.

Thanks for the invite, but I believe you misunderstood what I had said. The wrong version refers to an essay on meta, found at m:The Wrong Version. When there are sides in a debate, you are bound to protect the "wrong version" from one side's perspective. It's a lose, lose situation. No matter what, when a sysop protects a page during a content dispute, it is the "wrong version". My comment was thus referring to this idea, and I was not expressing my opinion that the version was in fact, wrong. But thanks again for bringing it up, and I might just chime in when I get some time.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it has something to do with Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Loads_of_images_.28particularly_flag_images.29_not_showing. There is a bug where some images from commons are not showing, and the developers know about it and are working on it. Hopefully, it will be cleared up soon enough. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out purging the image pages over on commons (WP:PURGE) gets them to show (at least on my computer). Not sure if it's necessary to do this though if another solution is already under works.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, our revs got crossed. ... Kenosis 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page history is awfully long for today - Ferrylodge, do you have a dif or preferably several of Photo modifying and/or deleting posts? That's completely unacceptable. Thanks - leave here, I have your page on watch, or leave on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted my post here. After I put it back, he changed my section title.Ferrylodge 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, renaming the section is acceptable, if not being done in an insulting, disruptive manner - for brevity or clarity or easier navigation. But deleting someone else's posts (except on one's own talk page) is a complete no-no in almost all cases. Your edit was not a blatant personal attack nor was it silly vandalism, which are the usual exceptions. I've left a warning on Photo's talk page. Thanks much for the diff, that history was daunting to look at and I had no idea where to start. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was interesting to read about you in the Washington Post this morning. It sounds much like the person I now know to be Ferrylodge. However, you might like to ask them to clarify if you're a man or a woman. As in, the statement currently reads, "and another editor who goes only by Ferrylodge, a Republican and a Thompson supporter. (He recently gave the former Tennessee senator a $100 donation.)... She is, though she's not yet sure who she will support." [1]. Keep up the good work. The Evil Spartan 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???LCP 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, your accusation here is way out of line, and unacceptable. You don't own Mother or any other article, nor do you have the market cornered on interest in the subject. Perhaps you should read the section on Wikistalking that you pointed me to - and then tell me just how I had harassed you or disrupted anything by making one comment on the talk page in support of what I believe to be another editor's correct criticism of a section of the article. And please don't tell me how long that wording has been in the article - that doesn't mean it is right. I think you owe me an apology - but if you think you're right, I suggest you make your accusation in a more formal way, because innuendo is not going to cut it. Tvoz |talk 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making accusations. Some users are unaware that it is bad form to follow other users around. If you are following me around (from Fred Thompson to abortion to mother), then I would kindly ask you to please stop. However, if it is merely a bizarre coincidence, then we can leave it at that. If you want to continue this discussion, please do it at the article talk pages. Thanks.Ferrylodge 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only bad form if one is doing it to harass. It's perfectly OK, for instance, to check a vandal's contribs and go around correcting them. Or similar cases where one suspects that a particular user's edits are suspect and need another eye. And one way one might get that suspicion is by tangling with them on one page. So long as the edits one makes after following them around are valid, it's not wikistalking. -- Zsero 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zsero - that is correct. And Ferrylodge, I think you know that I am a very experienced editor with over 7500 edits, and I know Wikipedia policy, so don't be disingenuous. I'm continuing this conversation here because it isn't germane to the article talk page. Pointing someone to a policy page and suggesting they read it is certainly implying an accusation. I'll continue to edit whatever pages I please, and having seen what I and several other editors have identified as appearing to be POV-pushing, it's possible that you'll see me editing other pages that you also edit, and commenting on their talk pages, to try to rein it in. There's been no disruption or harassment on my part - disagreeing with someone's POV is not harassment. There's policy on that too - you might look at it. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As might you.Ferrylodge 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again - where exactly have I harassed you or disrupted anything? And where have I accused you of anything? You play rather loose with facts, Ferrylodge, as I've mentioned before. Tvoz |talk 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said several times that I am not accusing you of anything, Tvoz. You, however, have been following me from one article to the next, accusing me of being disingenuous, accusing me of playing loose with facts, accusing me of acting like I own an article, and accusing me of POV-pushing, et cetera. Following other editors around without a good cause is not acceptable, Tvoz — in fact, it's very clearly defined as disruptive behavior and disallowed by WP:HAR. I am far from convinced that you have good cause. In any event, please post no more at this talk page. Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at stillbirth. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts: [2], [3], [4], [5]. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The last two reverts are very different from the first two. The last two edited the lede to INCLUDE the word "uterus" in the lede. The first two edits edited the lede to EXCLUDE the word "uterus" from the lede. That is what the controversy was all about: whether the lede should include the word "uterus". The lede has included the word "womb" for years.

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:3RR. The reverts do not have to involve the same material each time. Your four edits serve to reintroduce "womb" each time in any case. — Yamla 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 would also like to add that KillerChihuahua has been attacking me personally and harassing me all day today. At the abortion article today, she asserted that my words are "bullshit". At the pregnancy article today, she suggested that I am "naive and disingenuous." At the Stillbirth article today, she said that I was trying to insert a "vulgar" word into the article. It astounds me that an admin can get away with such incivility, and I find it very difficult to respond in a constructive way to her personal attacks. More recently, at the Stillbirth article, she said that I am a "spammer". Actually, the "spam" to which she referred was a list of definitions of the word "womb" from reliable sources, and I had not previously listed those definitions (or any of them) anywhere else, prior to listing them in the Stillbirth article.

Instead of responding intelligently and civilly to those definitions, she ignored them, disparaged them as "spamming", continued her edit-war against the word "womb" in all pregnancy-related articles.

I did not violate 3RR here. The third and fourth cited edits were reverting to a lede that included KillerChihuahua's preferred term "uterus". The first and second edits reverted to a version of the article that did not include KillerChihuahua's preferred term "uterus."Ferrylodge 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought 3RR meant reverting three times to a previous version, which of course I did not do.

However, I do not offer any apologies to KC. She is an uncivil edit warrior who has repeatedly and personally attacked me today.Ferrylodge 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the other way around to me; like you're attacking her. If you're really the aggrieved party here and not interested in scoring hits against KillerChihuahua you'd be following WP:NPA instead of violating it I think. And I see that you were blocked for 24 hours in May for "Repeated harassment posting on User talk:KillerChihuahua after warning." Clearly you've got a grudge against KillerChihuahua, I suggest steering clear of her and ceasing the personal attacks. If not you're simply making yourself look worse and digging your hole deeper. Odd nature 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no grudge against KC. I do not like having to address the "harassment " charge over and over again, but since you have brought it up I will briefly address it again. Unlike the present 3RR charge (which I have apologized for above), the harassment charge was bogus, in my view. Killerchihuahua never asked me to leave her talk page.[6] Bishonen asked me to leave KC's talk page, but Killerchihuahua did not. I did leave after denying the harassment charge, and I was blocked for denying the charge. How many other people at Wikipedia are blocked for harassing someone who never asked to be left alone? And then when I brought an RfC against Bishonen, Bishonen rounded up all her friends, who proceeded to make a mockery of the RfC by posting images of food, and the like. It was a disgraceful episode.Ferrylodge 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's all KillerChihuahua's, Bishonen's and "all her friends" fault. I see. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Odd nature 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if you buy it or not.Ferrylodge 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated incivility towards KillerChihuahua is tempting me to extend your block. A sincere apology would be a VERY good idea. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards, Swatjester. If you would look at the previous section above, you would see that the incivility has been toward me. Calling my words "bullshit", suggesting that I am "naive and disingenuous", falsely accusing me of "spamming", saying that my words are "vulgar" --- this is the kind of incivility that has been directed towards me.

Want more examples? Here KC says that my words are "inane." Here she suggests that my words indicate I am "congenitally dense".

I will not apologize to KC, so block me for as long as you please.Ferrylodge 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A forced apology is not going to solve anything anyway. Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua obviously don't get along. There's been incivility on both sides, as is common when 2 editors don't get along. The best approach at this juncture is probably just for everyone to simmer down, sit out the 3RR block, and try disengagement or dispute resolution when you come back. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell. Swatjester, when a user is blocked, it's natural that he feels aggrieved, and the kindest and fairest approach is to ignore comments that you find problematic, unless they cross a certain threshold. For example, if someone is blocked for vandalism, or severe BLP problems, and, during his block, he fills his talk page with "[Name of blocking admin] has sex with little boys", then I wouldn't hesitate to extend the block to indefinite. But to call someone an uncivil edit warrior is hardly the kind of thing we block people for, even though I completely disagree that KillerChihuahua is anything of the kind. If we did extend blocks for that, then you'd have to start handing out an awful lot of blocks to people who have been in dispute with Ferrylodge. I'm quite sure KC is able to put up with a blocked user writing such things during a block. It's part of being an admin. She's had worse things said about her; I've had worse things said about me; I'm quite sure you've had worse things said about you. Ferrylodge is blocked for 48 hours. He hasn't told people to fuck off or called them assholes. Some people do that with impunity on Wikipedia. Why on earth would we extend his block for expressing his frustration inappropriately but not aggressively? It would completely send the wrong message.

And Ferrylodge, KillerChihuahua has already pointed out that "vulgar" has more than one meaning. Nor did she imply that you were "congenitally dense". She said that your behaviour served no purpose, "unless your purpose [was] to convice others you are congenitally dense." That's quite different. ElinorD (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge has shown no contrition. That's the difference between some users who get the point of a short block (or even a warning before a block is implemented) and those that don't. So, I slightly disagree with ElinorD and MastCell. Moreover, and what hasn't been discussed herein, Ferrylodge has a long history around here in a POV-warrior mode of editing. History matters here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did show contrition for violating 3RR, which is what he was blocked for. He wasn't blocked for incivility or anything else; I'm really hesitant to block established contributors for that sort of thing. Yes, I think it would be nice if he offered an olive branch instead of entrenching his position with regard to KillerChihuahua, but to be clear, the block had nothing to do with the feud between him and KillerChihuahua. As far as his history, I did take into account his prior 3RR block, hence this block was 48 hours rather than 24 (which is what I usually use for first-time 3RR violations). MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was referring to the community ban request. Oh well, this may be irrelevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to Wikipedia and to MastCell and to Yamla for violating 3RR due to my misunderstanding of the rule. But I will not apologize to KC. I'll give KC a pass on the word "vulgar" because it is (rarely) used to refer (condescendingly) to the "ordinary people in society." But no pass on the rest of her incivility. And I would urge admins to visit the stillbirth article and look at the way she blithely reverts without engaging in any discussion, rudely dismissing detailed references to reliable sources as "spam." It's highly offensive to me, and I do not understand how an administrator can just run roughshod like that.Ferrylodge 23:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses your standing personal attacks above and chronic harrassment of Killerchihuahua. That's the topic here. There's a limit of how much of this the community needs to suffer. Odd nature 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters. Someone has taken it to a request for community ban on Ferrylodge. It's about time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent timing! What better moment for KC to pounce than when I am unable to defend myself. Bravo! That lady earns her screen name. See here.Ferrylodge 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great comment to be used in determining your community ban. Very civil.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment has apparently prompted efforts to allow me to respond, and high time too. [7][8] Ferrylodge 00:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness prompted nothing. Fairness did. If you cannot understand the difference between the two, then this is going to be very difficult. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, Orangemarlin, I wouldn't be levelling accusations of rudeness, after rudely complaining right here at this talk page about the "immature rantings" of another editor.[9]Ferrylodge 01:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good attempt at transference. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will take more than 48 hours for this to be decided, in all probability. If you wish to make a statement, you can do so here on your talk page and I will link to it, if you wish. Or you can request unblocking for the purpose of posting there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request unblocking for the purpose of posting there.Ferrylodge 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, let me contact the blocking admin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not able to edit at the Community sanction noticeboard.Ferrylodge 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I meant "done" as in, I have contacted the blocking admin, sorry for any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'm still not able to edit at the Community sanction noticeboard. FYI, I will be travelling tomorrow until Monday, and therefore will not be able to respond on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.Ferrylodge 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in responding; I was away from the computer. I've unblocked you so you can participate in the WP:CSN discussion. In terms of article editing, I would prefer if you waited a bit, but blocks aren't intended to be punitive, so if you're okay with abiding by WP:3RR you can go ahead and edit as you feel is appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still get an error message when trying to edit: "You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has been automatically suspended as a result. Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly."Ferrylodge 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit from the computers at work, but can at home.Ferrylodge 10:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was due to a lingering autoblock on your work IP from the 3RR block. I tried to find and remove the autoblock, but the autoblock-finding tool wasn't showing any. As it turns out, the autoblock finder was malfunctioning. I apologize for that - I tried to undo the autoblock, but was stymied by technical problems which I am only now becoming aware of. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's kind of moot now, since he's a) been banned and b) away over the weekend. This whole thing is a travesty. -- Zsero 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I got back at midnight on Sunday, and was already banned. Anyone can look at the discussion at stillbirth that prompted this ban, and see what happened there.Ferrylodge 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the evidence of your misdeeds and the overwhelming support for banning you at WP:CSN, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is premature, since the discussion is ongoing. Banno 10:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: He is indeed indef blocked. What he may not be is banned; that discussion is indeed ongoing, as I have reverted the archiving which was put in place. However, indef blocked, with or without a community ban, is still indef blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But an indefinite block is not a community ban. The tags prejudiced the discussion. Banno 11:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be, and often is. The definition of a community ban is that an editor is blocked indefinitely, and no administrator unblocks. That is ban by default, always has been. Discussion by the community at large is optional - BAN states it "may have discussed" which clearly indicates it may not have been discussed anywhere at all. CSN is quite new, comparatively. Until and unless someone unblocks, this is ipso facto a ban. From WP:BAN: "There have been situations where ... he or she has been blocked long term (usually indefinitely)... and no one is willing to unblock them. ...Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community."" In fact, the majority of community banned users never even saw CSN. Some have a brief appearance on ANI for review, but that is not always the case. Some are indef'd and only appear on ANI when they appeal the block - which more often than not results in support, which turns the indef into a community approved ban. Sometimes they are given a second chance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am of the opinion that a consensus was not achieved in Ferrylodge's case, that the discussion was closed prematurely, and that it was directed in such a way that other options could not be explored. It unsatisfactory that he was blocked only for a few brief periods before this attempt at a permanent block. It may have been possible to set conditions on his continued editing, such as:

• Ferrylodge abide by any clear consensus, as suggested by Gatoclass
• Ferrylodge agree to avoid editing pages relating to pregnancy and abortion

It is obvious that Freeylodge has annoyed many folk and a considerable change in his approach to Wikipedia is needed. Banno 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting that here? Banno, if you want to discuss the closing with someone, I suggest you talk to Ryulong, who closed the darn thing (twice and most recently), although you might prefer to talk to FeloniousMonk, who only closed it (before Ryulong reclosed it, last closure) because you chastised him for not closing it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong did not close the CSN discussion, but archived the inappropriate vote section, then re-archived after it had been wrongly un-archived and FM had closed the discussion. I posted this here because I wished to flag my concerns, but not to aggravate the situation by re-opening the CSN discussion or unblocking FL. I'm happy to leave the next step to FL and admins who have not so far been involved. Banno 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view of the series of events does not align precisely with that interpretation, but as I've already gone through my view I won't repeat it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs) 09:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, it doesn't match my view of the events either. No doubt this could be a case of selective interpretation of the events in order to defend an erroneous posistion based on a questionable conclusion that may been based on a superficial scanning of the actual facts. The other option would reply on the ascription of motive, and I'd rather not go there. •Jim62sch• 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch's opinion sounds right to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KC and Jim are right. A review of the evidence shows that FM was clearly enforcing a ban, not a block, and someone was trying to spin it as the latter. Odd nature 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in reading more about this travesty can see here.Ferrylodge 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you probably have a good chance of being heard by the arbitration committee on this. You'll have to email one of the clerks or arbitrators though, so that you can be unblocked to make a case. Or they may allow you to make a case via email. I missed the whole shebang, but it seems like it was closed a bit quickly. Anyway, if it was me, that's what I would do. - Crockspot 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crockspot, for your comment. Due to time pressure, I was not able to contact any other editors, and was only barely able to put some comments together myself. This ban request was initiated while I was blocked, and removal of that block was delayed. The ban was expedited, and was complete by the time I got back Sunday night.Ferrylodge 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge has been listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users, as per the policy. Someone who is more comfortable with this ban might like to provide the rationale. Banno 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This unblock request is for appealing an indefinite ban to the Arbitration Committee. I plan to appeal later this week. The unblock request is limited to this purpose. The ban is for “attempted harassment.” Previous discussion of the ban can be found at my talk page, and at the Community Sanction Noticeboard.

Decline reason:

No need to unblock you. You conduct the appeal through email and you do not need to be unblocked for that purpose. — Yamla 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 will unblock you for this purpose only, on the condition that you understand that anyone will reblock you if you edit anything other than the ArbCom pages. Do you understand and agree? -- Y not? 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Yamla, he's entitled as anyone to have a public forum for the review of his block, which was more than a little controversial. What possible reason is there to not afford him this opportunity? And if he edits one thing, it's back to indef-land. -- Y not? 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This unblock request is for appealing an indefinite ban to the Arbitration Committee. I plan to appeal later this week. The unblock request is limited to this purpose. The ban is for “attempted harassment.” Previous discussion of the ban can be found at my talk page, and at the Community Sanction Noticeboard.Ferrylodge 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to unblock him. Appeal to ARBCOM requires that you email them. If the unblock request is to be discussed, ARBCOM can unblock this account under the conditions outlined. He has the opportunity to have his block reviewed by ARBCOM but this does not require that he be unblocked. It would be inappropriate for him to edit the ARBCOM pages in order to get his block reviewed (at least, at this time). --Yamla 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it is decided how I should proceed, I will proceed. Please note that, "a banned user may be unblocked for the purpose of filing an appeal. In such cases, editing of unrelated pages is grounds for immediate re-blocking".Ferrylodge 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"they should contact a member of the committee or an Arbitration clerk by email and ask that a request be filed on their behalf. Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration by a clerk. In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the purpose of filing an appeal." You contact an arbitration clerk by email. If that clerk believes your request has merit, they may unblock you. There's no reason for us to unblock you at this time as you have not contacted an arbitration clerk yet. And if you had, they may unblock you, there'd still be no reason for an administrator who is not an arbitration clerk to lift the block. --Yamla 16:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any good rationale for refusing this unblock. If he edits outside the parameters of ARBCOM, he can easily be blocked again. Since there was a great deal of disagreement whether or not there was consensus for the block in the first place, his request should be honored. - Crockspot 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Yamla is correct on the letter of the law, as these things are usually handled via email as he spelled out. However, in this case I don't see any harm in unblocking Ferrylodge for the limited purpose of appealing his ban to ArbCom. The point of requiring banned users to use email is to prevent them from damaging Wikipedia further. I don't think Ferrylodge is going to go on a spree if he's unblocked; and if he does misuse the unblock to edit outside of an ArbCom request or attack other users inappropriately, then he can always be reblocked. I'm inclined to agree with User:Y; though the letter of the law certainly specifies email, I don't see the harm in an unblock for the specific purpose of an appeal to ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. I have unblocked you in accordance with your request and per the above discussion. Please remember that edits to any page other than ArbCom pages and relevant user talk pages will result in an immediate re-blocking. -- Y not? 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked three times at Wikipedia, prior to being banned. First, I was blocked in December 2006 for 3RR on Abortion. I should not have participated in an edit war, and the editor who I reverted (Severa) was not penalized for her own violation of 3RR.[10][11][12][13][14] Second, I was blocked in May 2007 by Bishonen, for alleged harassment of KillerChihuahua (KC) at her talk page, although KC had never asked me to leave her talk page; I was blocked immediately after saying, "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."[15] Sandstein responded to my unblock request by saying, "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."[16] I subsequently brought an RfC against Bishonen regarding her harassment charge, which is the only RfC that I have ever initiated against anyone (although I did once join an RfC launched by someone else). Bishonen notified others about the RfC,[17] and various participants proceeded to abuse the RfC, for example by posting images of food.[18] Neither I, nor the editor who joined me in the RfC, agreed with the outcome,[19] but I dropped the matter rather than going through a time-consuming and disruptive arbitration at ArbCom, and I have not written anything at KillerChihuahua's talk page since then. The third time I was blocked was in September 2007, for violating 3RR at Stillbirth, and I have repeatedly apologized for it,[20][21] although I continue to believe that the edit by KillerChihuahua that I reverted at the Stillbirth article was inappropriate and that her edit summary was uncivil.[22]

I have filed a request at ArbCom. It is here.Ferrylodge 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]