User talk:CarolineWH

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, CarolineWH! I am Awickert and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Awickert (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your edit

Just to let you know i reverted the edit this edit as i saw this as a attack towards Schrandit. I understand that you do not agree with his point of view but please in future try to make your point of view clear in a more democratic way than just throwing names at people. I assure you people will take a lot more notice of you and will take you seriously if you do. Tresiden (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Schrandit and I have history, including a pattern on his part of insulting me. I wrote him up for WP:CIVILITY before, and it stuck. So I was warning him that it's not acceptable for him to insult me, as by saying I don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

I think that removing both sides of this was the right thing to do, along with NPOVing the topic. CarolineWH (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So......

Why are you stalking my edits? Any possibility at an amicable solution or is it just going to keep rolling? - Schrandit (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

It's only natural that people will disagree with some of your edits, particularly when you make a habit of focusing on controversial subjects. I strongly suggest that you read both WP:STALK and WP:AGF before you continue down the path of implying that my actions are inappropriate. CarolineWH (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant women, as opposed to mothers

Hi there, I notice that you've been going round a lot of articles relating to abortion to make a point about neutral point of view. The Textbook of Perinatal Medicine that you have been citing as your source for this, itself repeatedly uses phrases like "health of the mother", "rights of the mother", "the mother and her fetus", etc. A single contribution argues that such language should be avoided in diagnostic situations when communicating with a pregnant woman who might still decide to have an abortion. It does seem to me that you are putting more weight on this single contribution than it can comfortably bear. I welcome your thoughts on the matter. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paular, thank you for contacting me about this. I welcome the opportunity to explain myself.

I'd like to start by noting that this publication is not my primary basis for preferring "pregnant woman" over "mother". I cite it in only one article, and then only to show that at least some doctors agree that "mother" is an inappropriate term for general application to pregnant women. For this purpose, I believe it is sufficient, and there is a clear consensus supporting this.

I do want to spend a moment to explain why the reasoning in the publication should give us food for thought. It is concerned with properly neutral terminology when dealing with pregnant women who, by and large, intend to carry their pregnancy to term. When presented with a negative diagnosis regarding the health of the baby they had planned to have, some of these women are going to consider theraputic abortion, particularly when the condition is debilitating or terminal. The conclusion is that labeling them as "mothers", while an innocent and natural thing to do as a simplification of "mother-to-be" or "expectant mother", can cause harm by biasing them and inducing guilt.

On the other hand, the articles I've edited are about women who in fact have decided not to carry their pregnancy to term, usually because it was unexpected and unwanted. For all the reasons that it's inadvisable to apply "mother" to pregnant women in general, it is even more inappropriate for this group, since they are neither "planning" nor "expecting" to be mothers. Moreover, since the pregnancy is aborted, they do not, in fact, become mothers as a result of it.

Now, the related but distinct issue is what we, as Wikipedia editors, need to do to maintain neutrality. I believe I have demonstrated that "mother" is simply inaccurate when applied to these particular women, and that it is notably considered to be biased. On the other hand, nobody has suggested that "pregnant woman" is anything but accurate. Given a choice between a term whose usage appears to be in violation of WP:NPOV and another that is uncontroversially accepted by all, I think it's just common sense to stick to the latter.

I do want to add a pair of qualifications to my conclusion. First, when "pregnant woman" has been used, it is quite clear in context to subsequently use "the woman". Second, when quoting directly from a source that, unlike us, is not bound by NPOV and therefore uses "mother", we are naturally not allowed to change any words. This is the policy that appears to have a consensus behind it and which I have been following.

I look forward to your feedback.CarolineWH (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but chapter 21 of the only source you've actually cited, dealing specifically with "Medicolegal aspects of perinatal medicine", seems to discuss precisely such women, and calls them "mothers". Your insistence that it is word that should not be used (despite experts using it) looks suspiciously like an attempt at linguistic engineering. If you have strong views on the issues involved, could it be the case that you are not in fact as "neutral" as you take yourself to be? --Paularblaster (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, chapter 21 was not in Wikipedia, so it was not required to honor WP:NPOV. The fact that someone else uses a word imprecisely or even inappropriately does not grant us license to do the same. We all know that people use "mother" inaccurately by applying it to childless women, but what is for some just an innocent stretching of language would for us be unacceptable in the context of articles about abortion.

If we click on the link you posted, the first highlighted sentence reads: "The terms 'fetus' and 'pregnant woman' are grammatically more correct than 'baby' and 'mother'". It then goes on to point out that the latter are preferrentially used "euphemistically with a more sinister motivation" by pro-lifers to "blur reality". I have yet to see any suggestion that Dr. Crespigny's statements are anything but entirely true. Since the less accurate terms are notable for their abuse by political partisans, they are inherently POV, and especially so when applied to women who do not carry a pregnancy to term.

The goal is to make Wikipedia neutral, not to neutralize all of its contributors, so the issue is not whether I have a POV -- since we all do -- but whether my contributions do. I believe I have shown that, indepently of my own personal views, we should use "pregnant woman" and not "mother" if we wish to be neutral. You'll also note that I didn't make a big deal about you and Schrandit sharing a religious commitment to oppose abortion, instead focusing on the content of your arguments. I think it would be best if you return this courtesy.

What it comes down to, again, is choosing between a term that is inaccurate and POV as opposed to one that is undisputably neutral. So far, you have commented on the errors of others and questioned my motives, but you have not addressed this simple but powerful argument. You would need to do so in order to support your conclusion. CarolineWH (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must object, in the strongest terms possible, to the notion that the expulsion of the term "mother" in favor of the term "pregnant woman" is NPOV. "Pregnant woman" is just as, if not more, political than "mother". You're argument is weak, you merely continue to insist that the word "mother" is a violation of NPOV without sufficiently substantiating your claim. At no point did I attempt to bring religion into this discussion, your insinuation was underhanded and uncalled for. "Pregnant woman" is by no means "undisputably neutral". - Schrandit (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then object, by all means, but not here. Try Talk:Abortion. CarolineWH (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Bristol Palin

In response to your comment: "Ditto, although it might be better to re-open the discussion first, to get a consensus in support of reverting. Edit wars suck."

Agreed. My statement was more an admission that my edit was a touch WP:BOLD, as discussion had not been very wide to that point. Either way, as long as the editor with a concern discusses it, that's the key. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's important to make it clear that, while we happen to agree on this change, the issue is not permanently settled and we're certainly open to further discussion, particularly if someone has some WP:RS to justify that particular interpretation. We don't WP:OWN the article, after all. CarolineWH (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding analogies

I think the problem with finding an analogy for "groups of like-minded people to share terminology which outsiders find offensive" is that comparing someone to those groups is likely to be offensive for just that reason :) Perhaps there's a way to make the same point about a word's offensiveness without actually comparing the editors to a group. For example, you might explain that you are concerned that the term itself is offensive to large groups of people, but has become so commonly used in certain circumstances that people have become desensitized to its use. You could even say that socialists have observed this phenomena in various closed groups that we could all agree were offensive, like the Klan and that this case is simply a less dramatic example.

Basically the more you focus your explanation on the word itself as opposed to other editors, the less likely someone will be offended - which makes them much more likely to respond to your arguments :) Shell ^babelfish 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around and got a funny answer that may just work. Apparently, fans of Star Trek prefer to be called Trekkers, but everyone calls them Trekkies (and, in fact, the first link just redirects to the second). So the term "Trekkie" is seen as neutral and inoffensive, except by the people the term describes.

The problem is that the very same attributes that make it innocuous as an example also make it rather ineffective. It's hard not to respond to the prickly Trekkies by telling them to just get over it. Now imagine Furhman trying that approach... CarolineWH (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful advice

First let me affirm your joining Wikipedia under a named account and making positive contributions. If you review my contributions you'll I was moderately active about a year back and have spent some time one many WQAs. My comments here are intended to be non-binding friendly advice, not any sort of attack, dictate or mandate.

While I agree with you on the non-use of the word mother in the abortion context, phrases like While I AGF, of course, this would suffice to explain aren't helpful. The political/religious backgrounds of other editors aren't really relevant to the content at hand, tend to rile up those who disagree with you, and distract efforts from achieving consensus. ~~Likewise, asserting Properly doesn't add value and establishes an "icky" tone, for lack a more precise word.~~ Likewise references to Fuhrman, Klansman and the like. More neutral terminology seems to work better on Wikipedia. FWIW. Happy Editing! Gerardw (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard, I certainly take no offense at your advice. In fact, I agree that the section you quoted the beginning of has not proven to be helpful and has, instead, led to misunderstandings. I've done my best to deal with them appropriately in the context of a Wikiquette alert, which you may have seen. The basic result is that it was recognized that no offense was intended but I should have seen the potential. It ended with my agreement to avoid this particular example, and a lesson learned about the potential to offend. It's unfortunate that the same powerful examples that can hammer an argument in are likely to just plain hammer.

On the second matter, I'd like to explain my thinking and get some additional feedback. I used the word "proper" to distinguish terms that are precise, correct and uncontroversial from those which are in use but may well be inappropriate because they fail to meet one or (usually) more of those criteria. The latter were carefully referred to as nonproper, rather than improper. My motivation for this distinction is that nonproper uses were being paraded about as evidence of neutralitry, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. Now, if you really think that "proper" has the wrong connotations, I'm certainly willing to substitute another word, but I can't think of one that quite fits. Do you have any ideas? CarolineWH (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is I should maybe read things a little more carefully before commenting. Honestly, I pretty much just skimmed the talk page -- hopefully that's understandable? -- and I missed the explanatory use of the word Properly in the context you used it. Gerardw (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that it wasn't completely clear when skimming suggests that I should have put more emphasis on the part where I define the term as I use it in the context of that argument. I'll go back and do that now. CarolineWH (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (CarolineWH)

Hello, CarolineWH. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH, where you may want to participate. Paularblaster (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC) --Paularblaster (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CarolineWH, I recommend waiting before responding. I'll address the context of my comments to you that are cited in the RFC within a day or two; real life prevents me from doing so now.Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is a good idea, if the topic is the content question. With user conduct as the topic, it seems highly counterproductive. I'll take your advice on this, as there's this real-life holiday that's going to drag many of us away from the keyboard. CarolineWH (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I recommend taking the moral high-ground by apologizing and redacting the comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion. Sure, they're probably wrong to press the issue like this, but by just going along with what they've requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH#Desired outcome it'll halt all this needless drama and dragging out of the issue. Just my opinion. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More good advice. I thought that the clarification was sufficient, but I'll strike the whole thing out and add an apology. CarolineWH (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! That wasn't too hard, now, was it? --Paularblaster (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if I can put aside any hint of personal conflict, I'm sure that you can do the same. CarolineWH (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I intend to maintain the rigidly proper approach that I have throughout.--Paularblaster (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to lecture my elders, but in my limited experience, I've found that flexibility and compromise are the keys to a mutually acceptable conclusion. As Gerard pointed out with his charmingly nerdy Star Trek reference, a scorched earth approach is just too polarizing to allow anything but the most pyrrhic victory. CarolineWH (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your elders and betters can do as they please. I, however, will continue to maintain rigid propiety. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I'm reaching out to you in the spirit of compromise and reconciliation but your response is barely even civil. My understanding is that what's supposed make elders better is their maturity. I am confident that you can show more maturity than a college student. Please prove me right. CarolineWH (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betters?? Caroline is the one making an effort to reach consensus, compromise, and make Wikipedia a better place. You just keep fanning the fire. In a place where the primary rule is WP:IAR rigid is most improper. Gerardw (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both appear to be under the misapprehension that I was including myself among Caroline's betters. I can see no grounds for you jumping to that conclusion, but have adapted my statement to preclude any such tendentious reading.--Paularblaster (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, even with your correction, I can't help but to notice that I addressed you as my elder, and you are the one who brought up betters and then grouped them with elders. Maybe it would be best if you just slashed out the whole thing. I've found that this is more thorough. CarolineWH (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihostility.

Apparently, this is a pattern. CarolineWH (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this references the Wall Street Journal article which piqued my interest in seeing if things have changed much since I was last active. Not very much. I have found there are a lot of positive, cooperative editors and choose to focus on that. As you hopefully saw with the RFC, there's a lot folks who may not agree with you 100% but truly embody the Assume Good Faith tenet in their actions rather than using it as a wikilawyer tactic. Gerardw (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a noted philosopher said, "It ain't over 'til it's over", but the responses I've seen to the RfC have been overwhelmingly reasonable. As you said, whether or not they happened to agree with me on the content issue, almost all of the participants have shown an ability to be objective and fair. Frankly, it warms my heart.

On the other hand, the pattern of hostility that Ortega reports is very real and I'm not sure how best to deal with it. On a personal level, I can do my best to avoid being baited (see recent edits for one attempt), and to communicate clearly in a way that affords little opportunity for a reasonable person to take offense. I can also continue to play fair instead of playing to win, both to maintain clean hands and set an example. However, in the big picture, policies will have to change before the hostility is under control. I haven't decided yet whether I want to try to encourage that change. CarolineWH (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you congratulate yourself too loudly on your own "fair play", I feel ought to point out that when you made this comment, you rather seem to have overlooked that Binkersternet was the first editor to oppose your suggested censoring of the term "mother", and that I had also weighed in on the issue by then. Anybody not following the discussion from the beginning, and assuming your good faith, might even have thought that Binkersternet or myself had at some time identified ourselves either as conservative or as pro-life advocates. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who bothered asking me would know that I was referring to you, Schrandit and Storm. Since I've redacted the entire comment, I think you're just digging for trouble rather than trying to fix things. CarolineWH (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had I realised at the time that you meant me, I would have considered that bare-faced lie a personal attack, but there we go, it's too late now. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:AGF. I recommend it. CarolineWH (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has its limits. - Schrandit (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that's just what someone told you. CarolineWH (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't share all of Schrandit's views, or perhaps even very many of them (I don't hazard a guess as to what they all are), but I do respect them. For you to assume that I must agree with him about everything, because we both disagree with you about one thing, and not only to make that assumption, but to present it to other editors as something I had said rather than that you had assumed shows, at the best assumption of good faith it will bear, an intellect so divorced from the concept of accurate reporting as to unfit you for editing encyclopedias (or for writing journalism). There are numerous less charitable assumptions about your intellectual honesty possible, but in the interests of AGF I will refrain from listing them.--Paularblaster (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye, Paul. Have a good life. CarolineWH (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimellow

That the typo was [1] immediately fixed was obvious, which is one of many reasons I didn't feel a need to post a reply. Another is if an editor is retired no sense communicating with them. The goal is to build an encyclopedia and there's no WP:anything that says you have to reply to something if you don't want to. I find keeping that in mind makes my wiki-life much easier. Happy Editing! Gerardw (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, Gerard. Point taken. CarolineWH (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Comics

Uh, thank you for the thank you message, but I have never edited that article. Perhaps you meant to thank User:Neifion? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, yes, I guess I do. Their talk page linked directly to yours, so I moved my message. I'll move it back. Sorry for any inconvenience. CarolineWH (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Caroline. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CarolineWH regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Schrandit (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait a few hours before responding. More later. Gerardw (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond immediately as I've proposed indef blocking your account for attempted outing.[2] You may be able to avoid that if you clearly state you will cease all attempts to uncover the real world identity of other editors via any sort of sleuthing. If a user voluntarily says who they are, you can take notice of that, but calling a place of work is totally out of bounds and creates a very nasty chilling effect. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for off-wiki harassment; telephoning another editor's workplace. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Schrandit. CarolineWH (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ANI

Hi, all. Now that I know that this discussion exists, I'd like to contribute.

I'll say three things briefly, then answer any questions. First, I have no intention of making any phone calls in the future. Second, I am absolutely certain that my actions in no way threatened the privacy of any editors and therefore was not an example of WP:OUT. Third, please note the context of this accusation. CarolineWH (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the context: your supporters feel that the phone call to someone's place of business does not belong in the RFC. Fine then, based on the section of WP:NPA that I have quoted both in our discussion on my talkpage, and I believe I left it in the RFC, this is an issue that requires immediate intervention - if there is indeed action to be taken. Indeed, when I became aware of the situation in the RFC, I should have brought it here myself. You have had about a full day since the end of the interactions on my talkpage to reflect - based on the above, I'm not sure you used the time wisely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago, I voluntarily revealed the fact that I did this research, while carefully avoiding any revelation of private information. My motivation was to demonstrate that yet another checkuser conviction was mistaken.

Weeks passes without a whisper, until the now-departed User:Paularblaster digs it up to try to add substance to an unpersuasive RfC/CU that he and Schrandit launched. There was no haste or cause for it, just an ax to grind.

Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again, and whether or not you agree with the action, there was never any potential to harm anyone, much less an intent to do so. All this talk about a "chilling effect" is well-meaning but simply mistaken. No matter how you add it up, the situation is one that requires calm reflection, not urgent action, because there's a risk of knee-jerk reaction without actually understanding what happened.

Now, I'm going to ask you, Bwilkins, the question you refused to answer before, and which you deleted from your talk page. Bwilkins, how could my phone call have caused anyone to lose their job? CarolineWH (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@ CarolineWH) Do you understand why we would be concerned with your off wiki sleuthing, and how that could have a chilling effect? In other areas it would be bad enough, but considering that you are editing abortion-related articles (some of which likely document the murders or stalking of abortion providers) makes it more so. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was ever any risk of private information being revealed, then I'd agree. But there wasn't, so no, there is no chilling effect. As for abortion, it's a red herring, as the two editors I researched had nothing to do with the issue. I would add that this is not a matter of stalking someone I disagree with, but confirming that they were innocent of sockpuppetry. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you. That, plus you saying you wouldn't do it again is enough in my book. Its something I myself wouldn't have done, but I could see someone being well-intentioned and doing it. To answer your question to Bwilkins above - some editors do edit from work, against company policy. Were you to contact one of their employers, there is a chance that they would be fired. Syrthiss (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):It was uncalled for sleuthing. You clearly indicate investigating the workplace of either Spotfixer or Phil Specter, even if it eventually didn't turn out to be their workplace. Had it happened to me, I would consider such intrusive investigations into my private life just to one-up me in a content dispute, harassment. Despite saying you won't make such phone calls in the future, I see no indication that you understand how serious and inappropriate it was.--Atlan (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had determined that either of them were Spotfixer, I'd have bit my tongue to protect their privacy and allow RfCU to properly convinct them. The scenario you described would indeed be chilling, but it has nothing to do with the reality of what I did. Again, unless you can show how my actions were even potentially harmful, it's hard for me to consider them either serious or inappropriate. I agreed not to do it again, but that doesn't mean that what I did was wrong. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "I have no intention" phrase is what sports coaches famously say when asked about their interest in another coaching position...the day before the big announcement that they're changing jobs. Take this user's carefully nuanced response, add it to the complete inability/unwillingness to recognize that the previous act was harassing and inappropriate, and you have one very problematic user here. People who cannot conduct themselves properly in hot-button topics should simply be removed from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about intention. If I had intended to obtain private information so I could reveal it or threaten to do so, that would be intimidation. Instead, I obtained the information to confirm that two people were innocent, and I never for a moment revealed anything private. There was no harassment on my part. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the initial WP:ANI report by Schrandit contains numerous falsehoods. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read WP:HARASS#Off-wiki_harassment. The problem is that it has nothing to do with my actions. I did not harass these people either on or off Wikipedia. There was neither the intent nor effect of harassment. CarolineWH (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarification, when I called, I did not ask for anyone by name. I asked about recent hires who were graduates of my schools. In this way, nobody in specific was mentioned. I then hung up and used their automated system to check for any employees named Specter; none were found. So even if he had worked there, the receptionist would not know that I had checked. In all of my actions, I protected the privacy of the people involved. In fact, the only person whose identity was revealed was me: I gave my name. CarolineWH (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate, you can ask me to agree not to do this, and in fact, I already have. You absolutely cannot require me to agree with you when you are mistaken. CarolineWH (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padillah, if I had tried but failed to harass someone, you would have a point. However, I tried and succeeded in clearing someone. At no point did I even attempt to harass. And, as you admit, I did not break any rules. CarolineWH (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I get it. The problem isn't what I did, which is harmless. The problem is that I'm defending myself. I'll stop now, since it's self-defeating. Ban away; Schrandit earned his victory. CarolineWH (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline -- your self-justifications for your creepy, stalkerish behavior convince me that no amount of groveling will be sufficient to re-earn community trust (contrary to my An/i postings). I urge the indef to remain in place.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The problem isn't what I did, which is harmless.' Is, you will probably find, the one sentence that will ensure your block is never lifted. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above. As you probably know, we have editors from around the world who edit here. Some of them are from countries or areas where criticism of the local government is a capital offense. Many of the editors from such areas, surprise surprise, often find themselves editing articles related to subjects which, if their identities were known, could not unreasonably result in their conviction or death. We cannot ask that any editor have to potentially risk their lives for editing here.

Several of us here are underage. I know this both from some cases where people specifically say that, and others where there conduct makes it obvious. As such, they could potentially be targets of predators. That sort of wanting to know people would be completely against not only the law, but the very principle of real collaboration, which is the fundamental basis of this project. We don't ask anything about each other around here. If people volunteer that information, that is their business. But actively trying to find information about others is another matter entirely.

And it isn't only people from such areas who are rather fond of their privacy. I have been here several years, and in all that time I have never given anyone my true name. Frankly, I'm not sure I ever would have started editing if I had had to give my name. Granted, losing me might not be that big a loss, but I'm sure that there are other, probably more productive, editors who feel largely the same way.

Lastly, of course, as per our policies and guidelines, we try to comment on the edits, not the editors. Knowing who the other people involved in a discussion are is really not relevant to the information they present. And honestly, even trying to find out anything about them, particularly if they haven't themselves already clearly said it, doesn't really follow that principle.

In short, even trying to find out personal data about individuals is, basically, a line in the sand that we do not cross. Ever. There can always be slick people who can mislead others and pull off real crimes, and we do not want that to ever happen here. Yes, I know you can say that in this instance, you did not harm anyone. And, apparently, there has been no permanent harm done, in terms of loss of life, liberty, job, etc. But in this case an editor, who did not publicly reveal his identity, had someone seek to determine his identity for no apparently good reason and in violation of the wikipedia's principle of privacy. I think the main reason no one has considered lifting the block is because you are still defending your action as "no harm done". Harm has in fact been done. Another editor has had one of the principles they took for granted when they volunteered here violated. That has caused not only that person's belief in our system, but that of others as well, to be compromised. We cannot and will not have people made subject to actions that are against the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.

To date, you have not apparently grasped that. If that is true, then you have not grasped one of the central principles about how this organization functions. Many other policies and guidelines are ultimately derived from that principle. I seriously doubt if someone applying for citizenship in the US would be considered if they said they didn't see the point of allowing them, or other citizens, to vote or not be subject to totalitarian rules. The privacy of those who want privacy is as central a principle here as voting is to the US. If you can't understand that, then there may well be cause to believe that you would not be able to function effectively here. You are comparatively new, and some people might be willing to take that into account if you showed some grasp of the seriousness of the violation here. To date, you have not, and I cannot believe that there is any chance of the block being lifted so long as that is the case. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, not only is the fix already in, but you're talking about irrelevant generalities. Not one bit of this applies to what I did. Unless you're willing to do the research, you're not entitled to an opinion. Please, you're doing no good. CarolineWH (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the above comment, in which you not only refguse to acknowledge that you have violated a core principle of wikipedia, but that your violation is irrelevant, I think you have clearly demonstrated that you are incapable of grasping the basic issue. There is no "fix in"here, other than allowing people to volunteer their services under the conditions they agreed to when they started, which, in this case, include core principles that you possibly somewhat self-righteously dismiss as "irrelevant generalities". Your own actions and comments have done far more to ensure the block stay in place than anything anyone else has done, or even could do. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joh, stop being a sucker. Schrandit is playing you and you're letting him. Now go away and gloat somewhere else about how clueless you are. CarolineWH (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. Tan | 39 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to indicate to you that we have what is, basically, a zero-tolerance policy regarding outing. You evidently were unable to see that, through your obvious blinders regarding your actions. At this point, you do have one option remaining, and only one, should you ever wish to return. You could send an e-mail to the arbitration committee as per the instructions at WP:ARBCOM and ask that the indefinite block be lifted. I have no doubt, given your recent conduct, that they would demand that you display a bit more understanding and willingness to acknowledge and follow the rules here than you have to date displayed. Also, given your recent conduct, if you are given the opportunity to return, one of the terms demanded would be that you seek and acquire a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, which I suggest you read. I acknowledge that your action, as it was, did not necessarily in any obvious way damage anyone beyond crossing the line of leaving other editors alone. You admit you sought to determine if an editor were some specific named individual. Child molesters, which we have had here, ideological extremists, which we have in even greater numbers here, and, well, "alternatively-sane" people, which we probably have around here in some undetermined numbers, might do the same thing, for less acceptable reasons. In the few cases I directly know of, individuals who have been found to have unacceptable reasons for contacting or outing others have sometimes presented very sane, rational, reasonable answers for why they did so, which more than once proved to be total, abject lies. Given your comparative newness, there is a chance ArbCom might consider lifting the block, if you show a bit more willingness to understand the structure here and a bit more humility. If you can't or won't do that, then, in all honesty, I really can't convince myself that we necessarily lose much by losing you. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

I contest the block, I just won't speak in my own defense. CarolineWH (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss

Syrthiss, thank you for being reasonable. Unfortunately, consensus was ignored. CarolineWH (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing your block

With your talk page access revoked, the only way to appeal your block is via WP:ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee for details. AniMate 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Police

I have followed this saga as it has unfolded and have contributed a few comments in various places along the way.

It seems to me that CarolineWH has been indefinitely blocked for what she thinks, rather than for her actions. The exlanations above for the imposition of the block make much of the editor's unwillingness to agree that what she did was wrong. From my POV I certainly agree that it was questionable. However, she has agreed never to do it again and had she simply stated that she agreed that she had done the wrong thing (whether that was a lie or not) she would probably not have been blocked. So in effect we punish her for being truthful, but had she lied we would have rewarded her. Is this really the message we want to send to other editors? Surely what counts is editors' actions. CarolineWH had very early in the piece agreed that she would never again do such a thing. The harrasment guideline specifically state that we should not automatically consider a single incident to be harrasment. There has been no suggestion at all that the editor has attempted to do this thing on more than one occasion, so why do you seek to condemn her for that one mistake? I would have thought that a more appropriate solution would be sternly worded warning that such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia and any future such infraction would lead to a permanent ~~ban~~ block. Perhaps the warning could have been accompanied by a limited ~~ban~~ block for some period to show that we are serious about it. Then, over time, it may well be that the editor would continue to make contributions to the project and become a valuable contributor to it. Perhaps in time she would even come to understand why we take such a dim view of such off Wiki activity. Now she will never get the chance and we lose another potentially valuable editor to the over zealous application (and possibly mis-application) the Wikipedia rules. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what this persons beliefs and editorial disputes are. Contacting, or trying to contact, someone's employer, under any guise and for any reason, is so far over the line it will and should immediately end in an indef block. The editor in question refused to even acknowledge this was a major, major problem, after being given a number of opportunities to do so. That ship has now sailed. This is the sort of thing there should be zero tolerance for (hat tip to another of her friends for direction me here from an/i).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must be comforting to see the world in just black and white. Unfortunately I see many shades of grey. CarolineWH committed a serious offence against the mores of Wikipedia. We can agree on that, I think. However, the problem I have with your solution - instant indefinate ~~ban~~ block - is that it allows no margin for error. Had the user been a long established editor with a well established history and ample opportunity to have become acquainted with all the finer - and not so finer, let us be fair - points of Wiki rules then I would probably agree that severe action might be appropriate. Even then I would argue that a permanent ~~ban~~ block for one infraction is harsh, to say the least. However, in this case we are clearly not talking about someone who is likely to have more than passing knowledge of the more than a few of the rules of this place. Yes, the rule she trangressed is a biggie, but surely it makes more sense to send a clear warning, accompanied by some serious consequences (as I said above, a ~~ban~~ block for some period would seem appropriate) than an indefinite ~~ban~~ block which precludes the editor from learning from her errors and perhaps becoming a major contributor to the project. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one indefinitely "banned" anyone, Mr. Thorne, and it certainly was far from "instant". This editor was indefinitely (indefinitely, not infinitely) blocked due to the egregiousness of the offense and the lack of understanding of why it was wrong. Indefinite blocks may be appealed using the unblock template. The editor was subsequently prohibited from editing this talk page because of a lack of civility and personally attacking other editors. Other editors have given CarolineWH direction on how an appeal may be made (an email to ArbCom). Your defense of her is unnecessary and based on false assumptions. Please review the difference between a ban and a block. Tan | 39 02:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my culture using a persons's name as you have used "Mr Thorne" above, is seen as agressive and an insult, especially when you know the first name. I WP:AGF so I assume no ill intent. In future, though, please call me Nick. The balance of my comment I stand by. Quite a number of people here have been neatly gamed in this dispute, it brings no credit to Wikipedia that we have allowed this to happen. I do not know CarolineWH, and except as a result of this dispute (first seen by me WQA) I have never crossed paths with her before. It seems however, that the editor has been punished for responding to deliberate, sustained and subtle attempts to goad her which have ultimately proved successful. People should take a more distant approach to these disagreements and not respond in haste. Instead we have seen a wall of words descend upon one editor who has responded, not unsurprisingly, in a defensive manner, for which she now stands condemned. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, no offense was intended at you. I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the situation, which I see as simply, and completely, incorrect. Your disagreement with the way the situation was handled is noted; this editor has been informed of the proper way for her to appeal her block. I am going to disengage until it is necessary for my further input/action. Tan | 39 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have changed my usage of the word "ban" above to "block", which is what I meant. I apologise for any misunderstanding this may have caused. In the meantime, although I still ask people to reconsider their actions here, and I stand by my comments, I do not intend to simply keep on about it, so I will drop the stick for now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bristol Palin

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bristol Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]