Bodhislutva
Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, Bodhislutva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Inappropriate username
editThe username you have chosen, "Bodhislutva", appears to be an offensive corruption of the Buddhist term Boddhisatva, combining it with the word "slut", a term associated with sexual promiscuity. Needless to say, associating a Boddhisatva with sexual promiscuity is quite unacceptable from a Buddhist standpoint. It would be the equivalent, in Christian terms, of calling the Virgin Mary a prostitute. I have to assume that you know this perfectly well, and have chosen a username that is deliberately offensive and malicious. This contradicts Wikipedia's policy on acceptable usernames. Please see WP:USERNAME. This page explains how to change your username: WP:CHU. If you refuse to change your user name, I will try to get you blocked from editing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The accusation "I have to assume that you know this perfectly well, and have chosen a username that is deliberately offensive and malicious." appears to be a significant violation of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Not only do you make no effort of any kind to provide evidence for a particularly extraordinary claim, but when I noted that your "assumption" was wrong, i.e. stated my actual intent, you merely changed the direction of your attack rather than apologising. The accusation of "malicious" is particular troublesome, since even Yworo, who suddenly claimed (after a dozen or so posts) to be a Buddhist and indeed "offended" by my username, did not go so far as to accuse me deliberately intending to offend, despite a number of other personal attacks. --Bodhislutva (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see you respond to my changes on Richard Webster not only by summarily deleting them, but with a obvious personal vendetta. How fitting that someone trying to push a one-sided view of anti-free speech crusader like Richard Webster would:
1) actively suppress dissenting speech by deliberately erasing multiple example of legitimate, properly cited criticism of the subject
2) would place deference to religion ahead of free expression and freedom from religion
3) make an open personal attack on my talk page under the thinly veiled guise of of "concern" about the rules
I am a woman and have a right to use the term "slut" however I feel, without someone judging me. I have had the name registered for years at this point. You reverted my edit in the past without comment and are now grasping for a way to attack me, so that you can keep a santitised page on Richard Webster, free of any pointed criticism.
One of my biggest criticism of far left apologists for religion is how much they end up validating the intense misogyny in religions. You just provided a case in point, putting religious standards ahead of my right to playfully express myself. --Bodhislutva (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your "right to playfully express myself" does not extend to websites not belonging to you. Editing here is a privilege, not a right, and can and will be taken away following violations of the site's policies. Wikipedia is not the government, and is under no obligation to let you express yourself however you want. Yworo (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you by telling you that your username is unacceptable. I am helping you, by informing you of Wikipedia's policies. The fact that you were not blocked for your username right away doesn't make it acceptable - offensive usernames sometimes go unnoticed for long periods of time. The fact that you are a woman is irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything; women aren't allowed to use offensive usernames anymore than men are. I think you'll find that your view of your username as "playful" won't fly; Wikipedia isn't a playpen, or a place where people can express themselves however they like. I'd urge you to reconsider. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will second the opinion that your username is inappropriate and also warn you that personal attacks such as accusing another editor of waging a vendetta are also not appropriate. Yworo (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think an impartial person can see the simple facts: 1. Polisher of Cobwebs had no problem with my username three months ago and made no mention of it. 2. Polisher of Cobwebs summarily removed all of my edits, all edits introducing criticism of Webster, three months back. 3. Today Polisher of Cobwebs summarily removed all of my edits, all edits introducing criticism of Webster. 4. Then after deleting my efforts, suddenly my username becomes a problem.
This is a transparent attempt to deflect attention from deliberate suppression of criticism of Webster by making the issue about me or placing me under pressure in some unrelated fashion. I am not going to be bullied. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- have it your way... I've reported your username. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- And look at that, you are so intent on attacking me that you respond in less than a minute. Did you even think about the sequence of Polisher of Cobwebs actions? I have faith that free speech will win out over religious suppression. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not your username is appropriate is completely independent of another editors action. I will not confirm you in your violation of our no personal attacks policy, discuss the content, not the contributor. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- And look at that, you are so intent on attacking me that you respond in less than a minute. Did you even think about the sequence of Polisher of Cobwebs actions? I have faith that free speech will win out over religious suppression. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a brief note of explanation: I did in fact notice Bodhislutva's user name months ago, and considered reporting it at the time. I did not do so partly because I was not very familiar with the procedures for dealing with such issues (I prefer to concentrate on other matters) and partly because Bodhislutva had made very few edits and it wasn't clear that she would become a regular editor. Generally, if someone doesn't edit regularly, there is little point to objecting to their choice of username. WP:UAA states that an inappropriate username should not be reported unless an account, "has made recent edits (within the last 2–3 weeks at the outside)." Bodhislutva's return to editing is the only reason I'm making an issue of it now. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- For your future reference, the place to report username problems (usually after discussing with user with no result) is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
So after I note the time lapsed and inconsistency in your actions, suddenly you claim that you were in fact concerned previously. Anyone can verify that your concern comes after summarily deleting 11 different changes, all changes critical of the subject on a page otherwise filled with praise, and that instead of opening discussion of those change on the appropriate talk page (as I did), you instead try and deflect the issue by claiming my username is offensive. Then Yworo, also involved in the Richard Webster page, and who appears to agree with your deleting my contributions, comes and files the actual complaint. Again the timing and coordination of your efforts exposes your "concern" as a deliberate deflection if not out-right bullying. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- yup, it's all a big conspiracy against you, courtesy of The Cabal. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well the record shows that you edited the Richard Webster page today and came here only after the sole other active contributor besides myself on the Richard Webster page made an issue of my name. If you want to sneer at simple sequence of events and facts as a "conspiracy" then go ahead. But openly mocking me just provides further evidence that you reported my name out of personal spite rather than conviction. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I simply noticed it because I was watching PoC's talk page, and being a Buddhist, was offended. What's so hard to understand about that? If you have a problem with "openly mocking", I suggest you change your username, since that is precisely the attitude it displays toward Buddhists. Yworo (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The name absolutely does not mock Buddhists and I explained my intent both above and on the discussion page. You claim now to be a "Buddhist" only AFTER I noted that no Buddhists had ever raised an objection after several years on Wikipedia. Now your suddenly claim to be full-blown "offended" yourself. That is a selective and convenient as Polisher of Cobwebs hindsight claim to have been concerned about my name since August. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- You'd made only 23 edits prior to 2012. Offensive usernames only get noticed when you edit. You became active in 2012 and got noticed. And your implication than I'm neither Buddhist nor offended is a personal attack. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone can verify that it took you approximately a dozen posts directed towards me before you claimed to be a Buddhist or to be personally "offended" and then only AFTER I mentioned the lack of such an offended party. By the way, questioning your truthfulness of your assertions is not a personal attack, especially since I make a good-faith effort to explain why I question if what your saying is honest. Once again I note your glaring hypocrisy in your constant invocation of personal attacks given your history. --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of hypocrisy is a personal attack, and you clearly didn't make much of a good faith effort or you would have found that I am a regular maintainer of List of Buddhists and List of Buddhist temples, as well as a number of other Buddhist-related article. See for example this discussion about claims that Steve Jobs was a Buddhist based on very poor sources and my subsequently finding much better sources and adding appropriate support to the article. I would never claim to be a perfect or even good Buddhist, I don't practice nearly enough. But you, you seem to be a bit emotionally attached to your username and don't even seem to be a Buddhist. At least, you refuse to answer my question as to whether you are. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Editing pages on a particular religion is no evidence of anyone being of that religion. The bottom line is that you are the one who decided to invoke your personal religious beliefs and it clearly frustrates you that I refuse to answer. --Bodhislutva (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of hypocrisy is a personal attack, and you clearly didn't make much of a good faith effort or you would have found that I am a regular maintainer of List of Buddhists and List of Buddhist temples, as well as a number of other Buddhist-related article. See for example this discussion about claims that Steve Jobs was a Buddhist based on very poor sources and my subsequently finding much better sources and adding appropriate support to the article. I would never claim to be a perfect or even good Buddhist, I don't practice nearly enough. But you, you seem to be a bit emotionally attached to your username and don't even seem to be a Buddhist. At least, you refuse to answer my question as to whether you are. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone can verify that it took you approximately a dozen posts directed towards me before you claimed to be a Buddhist or to be personally "offended" and then only AFTER I mentioned the lack of such an offended party. By the way, questioning your truthfulness of your assertions is not a personal attack, especially since I make a good-faith effort to explain why I question if what your saying is honest. Once again I note your glaring hypocrisy in your constant invocation of personal attacks given your history. --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- You'd made only 23 edits prior to 2012. Offensive usernames only get noticed when you edit. You became active in 2012 and got noticed. And your implication than I'm neither Buddhist nor offended is a personal attack. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The name absolutely does not mock Buddhists and I explained my intent both above and on the discussion page. You claim now to be a "Buddhist" only AFTER I noted that no Buddhists had ever raised an objection after several years on Wikipedia. Now your suddenly claim to be full-blown "offended" yourself. That is a selective and convenient as Polisher of Cobwebs hindsight claim to have been concerned about my name since August. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I simply noticed it because I was watching PoC's talk page, and being a Buddhist, was offended. What's so hard to understand about that? If you have a problem with "openly mocking", I suggest you change your username, since that is precisely the attitude it displays toward Buddhists. Yworo (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Bodhislutva. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. 7 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you may be Tap Dancing on the Titanic. Yworo (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is just a petty personal attack on me, stunning hypocrisy from some who earlier on this page 'warned' me about the same. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's simply an accurate observation, given the number of "disallows" on the RfC and the weakness of your arguments. If you were actually to read the personal attacks policy and take a look at the Wikiquette assistance board to see how it is applied, you'd find that nothing I've said would be considered a personal attack. If you disagree, do feel free to go ahead and report me there so you can see the result yourself. Do be careful of the boomarang effect, though, as some of your comments are much closer to personal attacks than any of mine are. I ask you again (third time I think), are you a Buddhist? Yworo (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So badgering me about my religious beliefs is not a personal attack? --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are talking about. Your only possible justification for your offensive user name is that you are a Buddhist and belong to a sect which you can reasonably show wouldn't consider your username offensive. A personal attack is, generally speaking, calling you names or accusing you of lying, neither of which I have done. Asking you what your religion is is simply a question. not a personal attack. I suggest that being less thin-skinned would improve your experience on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your increasingly strident effort to make this about my personal religious beliefs speaks volumes. This includes now your brazen arrogance on the username page in speaking as to what is in my "heart" and "conscience" alongside an attack on me for failing to maintain "right speech" in your opinion. It reveals a massive sense of religious entitlement driving your attack on my choice of personal expression. By your argument, the only person who could use a picture of Mohammed in an article would be a Muslim who did not believe in aniconism, since all non-Muslims would be disqualified by such an "offensive" gesture ipso facto. Fortunately Wikipedia did not buckle to that sort of illiberal, particularist argument. --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm done with your boring, repetitive, tedious and escalatingly whiny rants. You will be made to change your username, and nothing you say can now prevent that. You dug the grave, now lie in it. Yworo (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I will be asked by an impartial administrator to change my name. That has yet to be decided. Your arrogant certainty about the action of another person and undisguised delight at that prospect only proves the personal vendetta behind your actions, an issue I have noted from the start. --Bodhislutva (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm done with your boring, repetitive, tedious and escalatingly whiny rants. You will be made to change your username, and nothing you say can now prevent that. You dug the grave, now lie in it. Yworo (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your increasingly strident effort to make this about my personal religious beliefs speaks volumes. This includes now your brazen arrogance on the username page in speaking as to what is in my "heart" and "conscience" alongside an attack on me for failing to maintain "right speech" in your opinion. It reveals a massive sense of religious entitlement driving your attack on my choice of personal expression. By your argument, the only person who could use a picture of Mohammed in an article would be a Muslim who did not believe in aniconism, since all non-Muslims would be disqualified by such an "offensive" gesture ipso facto. Fortunately Wikipedia did not buckle to that sort of illiberal, particularist argument. --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are talking about. Your only possible justification for your offensive user name is that you are a Buddhist and belong to a sect which you can reasonably show wouldn't consider your username offensive. A personal attack is, generally speaking, calling you names or accusing you of lying, neither of which I have done. Asking you what your religion is is simply a question. not a personal attack. I suggest that being less thin-skinned would improve your experience on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So badgering me about my religious beliefs is not a personal attack? --Bodhislutva (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's simply an accurate observation, given the number of "disallows" on the RfC and the weakness of your arguments. If you were actually to read the personal attacks policy and take a look at the Wikiquette assistance board to see how it is applied, you'd find that nothing I've said would be considered a personal attack. If you disagree, do feel free to go ahead and report me there so you can see the result yourself. Do be careful of the boomarang effect, though, as some of your comments are much closer to personal attacks than any of mine are. I ask you again (third time I think), are you a Buddhist? Yworo (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is just a petty personal attack on me, stunning hypocrisy from some who earlier on this page 'warned' me about the same. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
editHello, Bodhislutva. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- And the personal vendetta marches on. Given your string of personal abuse towards me it is frankly sad you felt the need to escalate things even further. --Bodhislutva (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
edit
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
- Adding
{{unblock-un|your new username here}}on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page. - At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
- Adding
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)- I have just closed this discussion as disallow. You're welcome to create a new account or to ask to be unblocked to file a rename request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, i've just learnt about the fact that "offensive" usernames aren't allowed (i like browsing through bureaucratic pages sometimes, and i came across the vote about yours. I must say that i am a buddhist myself and i want to see myself as somewhat of an ethical slut; it was really shameful how some buddhists claimed insult by your user name, it shows that they have gotten really lost in their path. There's not really any reason for me to write here apart from wanting to say that i am sorry that the world that we live in is so hateful towards sexuality, but the fact that you have come and called yourself Boddhislutva has made my day a bit brighter today, and for that i thank you. Beta M 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for your kind remarks. They made me smile after the ugliness unleashed upon me here. I have no plans of ever changing my username because to do so would validate prejudice against women and the the bullying used by the in-group in this case to mark its territory --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- You have a very distorted view of what's going on here. Are you sure you're not a feminist? That would explain the irrationality and seeing misogyny behind everything. Anywho, you can be stubborn and keep the username, but if you actually want to edit again from a registered account, you can create a new one or request a username change. I changed my username once, it's almost painless. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I only posted here today because a person, a Buddhist in case you bothered to note, was kind enough to leave words of support. I voiced on my personal page how I feel about the events last weekend, with no mention of you. It is dicrous that you are still following my actions, let alone coming here to trash me once again. But to set your mind at ease, I am proudly a feminist. Maybe you could read the Feminism article some time and then explain to me what part of equality and social freedom for women angers you so much. --Bodhislutva (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The page is on my watchlist since I last posted here, I'm not purposefully stalking you. I don't need to read the article to know what feminism is, thanks. "/--/ what part of equality and social freedom for women angers you so much" -- LOL, nice try (except not really). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since your post last night was your first on this page, there is no reason for you to following me (or continuing to respond) except a petty, vindictive nature. I would report you for harassment, but based on the personal atatcks that Yworo got away with (and his history of negative interactions with other users as noted on his talk page), I have no faith you would be reprimanded for coming here with the sole intent of belittling me further. --Bodhislutva (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, guess I had watchlisted it earlier without posting; no big difference. And "harassment" doesn't mean what you think it means. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since your post last night was your first on this page, there is no reason for you to following me (or continuing to respond) except a petty, vindictive nature. I would report you for harassment, but based on the personal atatcks that Yworo got away with (and his history of negative interactions with other users as noted on his talk page), I have no faith you would be reprimanded for coming here with the sole intent of belittling me further. --Bodhislutva (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The page is on my watchlist since I last posted here, I'm not purposefully stalking you. I don't need to read the article to know what feminism is, thanks. "/--/ what part of equality and social freedom for women angers you so much" -- LOL, nice try (except not really). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I only posted here today because a person, a Buddhist in case you bothered to note, was kind enough to leave words of support. I voiced on my personal page how I feel about the events last weekend, with no mention of you. It is dicrous that you are still following my actions, let alone coming here to trash me once again. But to set your mind at ease, I am proudly a feminist. Maybe you could read the Feminism article some time and then explain to me what part of equality and social freedom for women angers you so much. --Bodhislutva (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- You have a very distorted view of what's going on here. Are you sure you're not a feminist? That would explain the irrationality and seeing misogyny behind everything. Anywho, you can be stubborn and keep the username, but if you actually want to edit again from a registered account, you can create a new one or request a username change. I changed my username once, it's almost painless. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind remarks. They made me smile after the ugliness unleashed upon me here. I have no plans of ever changing my username because to do so would validate prejudice against women and the the bullying used by the in-group in this case to mark its territory --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, i've just learnt about the fact that "offensive" usernames aren't allowed (i like browsing through bureaucratic pages sometimes, and i came across the vote about yours. I must say that i am a buddhist myself and i want to see myself as somewhat of an ethical slut; it was really shameful how some buddhists claimed insult by your user name, it shows that they have gotten really lost in their path. There's not really any reason for me to write here apart from wanting to say that i am sorry that the world that we live in is so hateful towards sexuality, but the fact that you have come and called yourself Boddhislutva has made my day a bit brighter today, and for that i thank you. Beta M 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)
You can create a new account and start editing if you do not wish to change your name.As your track is okay.Please note it has been disallowed in RFCN hence nothing can be done about it. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- A content contributor has been editing on WP for over 6 years and after a whole day of
profounddiscussions gets their identity snatched from them -- and nothing can be done about it !??!!! How about banning a harassing party for a month, and stripping a drive-by admin from their misused status (I assume it was closed by an admin). Not to mention saying you're sorry. WillNess (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- No one's "identity" has been taken from anyone. A username is a username, that's all. If someone is mainly concerned with improving Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter to them that they cannot use a particular username. If you think I am guilty of harassment and should be banned for a month, and that Salvio giuliano should have his admin powers taken away from him, then please start a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI, perhaps), but please read WP:BOOMERANG first, thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Note
editHi - got your note. Would you mind if I copied it to the WP:WQA forum to seek community input? 7 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I intend the email as a private message and would prefer it be kept in the purview of administrators only. When Yworo posted his WQA complaint about me (after his final message here), I in fact posted a collection of remarks by he and Polisher of Cobwebs that I felt were inappropriate. No one made any comments for or against. That WQA is, however, the way Jerpahine Gryphon became aware of the situation and you can see above in her remarks from yesterday how has turned out. I really feel I have to rely on one or more administrators making a reasonable decision based on the evidence, not who is more aggressive on a public discussion, has deeper knowledge of WIkipedia procedure, or has more mates to call upon. I understand you are undoubtedly busy and my desired approach may be unrealistic relative to how WIkipedia works. But if you or another administrator has the time or interest in handling it, I would appreciate it. --Bodhislutva (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a "she", by the way (I thought my name made it obvious but I guess not). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I made perfectly clear that I consider your further posts on this page harassment. Since you were so mean-spirited as to subsequently mock me about the definition of harassment, there is no way you can deny having read that warning. While I can understand you wanting me to get your gender correct, there was absolutely no need to insult me ("obvious but I guess not") for not recognising a rare name like Jeraphine. --Bodhislutva (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't an insult and wasn't intended as such. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- In case it really needs to be explained, it is never considered kind or complementary to tell a person that they missed something that you consider "obvious". I tried to show you a modicum of respect by actually changing my reference to you to "she", when there is a typo I left unchanged for the sake of preserving the original. Yet in the face of two unequivocal statements about how unwelcome I find your posts, you insist on getting in one more word to discredit and dispute me on my own talk page. --Bodhislutva (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't an insult and wasn't intended as such. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I made perfectly clear that I consider your further posts on this page harassment. Since you were so mean-spirited as to subsequently mock me about the definition of harassment, there is no way you can deny having read that warning. While I can understand you wanting me to get your gender correct, there was absolutely no need to insult me ("obvious but I guess not") for not recognising a rare name like Jeraphine. --Bodhislutva (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a "she", by the way (I thought my name made it obvious but I guess not). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Clear harassment
editHi, it is clear as day you've been a victim to unabashed harassment by Polisher of whatever, who "welcomes" you to Wikipedia in 2012 after you've been registered here since 2005, and after only few more minutes begins a process of banning your username. What a bad joke! What's worse, is the drive-by administrators closing the issue after a whole day of discussion! Oh my!
In an ideal world, that Polisher guy would get blocked for a month or so, and the closing admin stripped of their status, by a benevolent and capable oversight, without you having to utter a word in self-defense. But I guess it's too much to expect of the fine example of the race to the bottom that Wikipedia has apparently allowed itself to become. They have bigger political fish to fry with the 55% consensus they apparently have for the coming blackout or some such.
My heartfelt condolences, and don't let them get to you! WillNess (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not believe that I am guilty of harassment. It was not, in any case, my intention. If you believe that I am guilty of harassment, WillNess, you ought to have told me so on my own talk page and warned me about it. I believe that you are in fact guilty of making a personal attack against me for making the above comments. See WP:NPA, thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate you threatening someone who was kind enough to leave words of support on my page. Anyone can see your very first post on my username above, where you accuse me in the most damning terms of deliberate malicious conduct and then openly sneer at me when I explain my actual intent. Bullies never cease to amaze me in their ability to play the victim even as they openly harass a person. Your 'warning' to WillNess about personal attacks would be laughable, if it did not signify your aggressive and petty nature. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- WillNess' "words of support" for you unfortunately constitute a personal attack on me (they are also a personal attack on Salvio giuliano, the admin who closed the rfc on your username). False accusations of "harassment" are clearly an attack; so too are false accusations of "threatening" someone (it is not a threat to remind someone of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA). I am not overly concerned with such attacks on a personal level, though I do think it appropriate to remind him (and you too) that Wikipedia has a policy against making them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- And as if wishing to prove your aggressive nature beyond any doubt, you prove incapable of simply walking away from my talk page after having had your latest say. As I predicted the bully continues to play the 'real' victim and selectively cite Wikipedia policy, when his own words of both "false accusations" and "personal attacks" are on this very page. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Selectively cite Wikipedia policy? I didn't actually "cite" any Wikipedia policy at all - just provided some helpful links. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clue: The more you protest on my talk page, the more you validate my view of you as a vindictive personality. I have a combined total of 1 post on the talk pages of you, Yworo and Jeraphine Gryphon, and that post relates specifically to an edit, meaning that even before you had my username banned, I refrained from harassing you there. You three in contrast have left approximately 25 messages here, all but one focused on criticism of either me or someone else. Any sane person can see who the aggressive parties here are and how truly laughable it is when you innocently cast your actions as "helpful". --Bodhislutva (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are entitled to whatever view you like of me, but by stating it, you've violated WP:NPA repeatedly. We as Wikipedia editors aren't here to comment on each other's personalities; we're here to build an encyclopedia. And just to clarify, I didn't ban your username; it was disallowed by community consensus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia editors aren't here to comment on each other's personalities" You really do not see the disconnect between that claim and your documented actions do you? I honestly feel sorry for you. --Bodhislutva (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are entitled to whatever view you like of me, but by stating it, you've violated WP:NPA repeatedly. We as Wikipedia editors aren't here to comment on each other's personalities; we're here to build an encyclopedia. And just to clarify, I didn't ban your username; it was disallowed by community consensus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clue: The more you protest on my talk page, the more you validate my view of you as a vindictive personality. I have a combined total of 1 post on the talk pages of you, Yworo and Jeraphine Gryphon, and that post relates specifically to an edit, meaning that even before you had my username banned, I refrained from harassing you there. You three in contrast have left approximately 25 messages here, all but one focused on criticism of either me or someone else. Any sane person can see who the aggressive parties here are and how truly laughable it is when you innocently cast your actions as "helpful". --Bodhislutva (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Selectively cite Wikipedia policy? I didn't actually "cite" any Wikipedia policy at all - just provided some helpful links. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- And as if wishing to prove your aggressive nature beyond any doubt, you prove incapable of simply walking away from my talk page after having had your latest say. As I predicted the bully continues to play the 'real' victim and selectively cite Wikipedia policy, when his own words of both "false accusations" and "personal attacks" are on this very page. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- WillNess' "words of support" for you unfortunately constitute a personal attack on me (they are also a personal attack on Salvio giuliano, the admin who closed the rfc on your username). False accusations of "harassment" are clearly an attack; so too are false accusations of "threatening" someone (it is not a threat to remind someone of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA). I am not overly concerned with such attacks on a personal level, though I do think it appropriate to remind him (and you too) that Wikipedia has a policy against making them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate you threatening someone who was kind enough to leave words of support on my page. Anyone can see your very first post on my username above, where you accuse me in the most damning terms of deliberate malicious conduct and then openly sneer at me when I explain my actual intent. Bullies never cease to amaze me in their ability to play the victim even as they openly harass a person. Your 'warning' to WillNess about personal attacks would be laughable, if it did not signify your aggressive and petty nature. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Podcast i made
editHi, partially due to some things that i was thinking about in light of your situation i've recorded a podcast. I thought that you might be interested: http://freedom.libsyn.com/webpage/106-names It's not only about you, but i talk about this case with the user name and also about the control of who has the right to chose the name for a person. Beta M 14:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)