Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 11 August 2008

I'm taking a break from all this madness for a while. I'll be in a couple of times to check the progress of my ongoing FAC, but right now I can't cope with being the focus of contention for enforcing the community's will in a topic ban of an editor. I have offered various amiable routes out, and helped as much as I can, yet these are ignored and instead accusations amounting to unhelpfulness and non-neutrality are brought up. Well, I don't have to put up with that - I'm out of here until it all blows over. I've documented all I need to document on this topic on my talkpage and under the relevant heading at WP:AN. See you in a while

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

About the topic ban of Wilhelmina Will from DYK

I've been trying to figure out what happened with the AN/I report that led to a topic ban for WW. Normally, when the community makes a decision that requires admin tools to implement or enforce, there is a closing administrator. I've reviewed the report and have summarized it at User:Abd/Will ANI incident (at this point, this is a long summary, not a short one, I will prepare a short version if it's later needed.) And I just realized that there never was a close to that report, which explains why WW wasn't informed, that would normally be a task undertaken by a closing admin. Now, you later described the report as a consensus to topic ban, and you did inform WW, but you reported it passively, as if it had not been your decision, you were just the messenger.

I easily understand how it happened, and assume nothing but good faith on your part, but there was a fundamental error here. The community does not make decisions by vote. Rather, it uses agents, public servants, who make decisions after review of community comment, but the servants are responsible for reviewing the arguments, and vote count isn't the issue except as a very rough guide, and I've seen many decisions, made by highly competent administrators, which ran directly contrary to a large majority of votes, based on a review of the arguments.

So I'm asking you if you did this. Did you review the arguments and decide that they were cogent and that a topic ban was in the best interests of the project. If you did not, would you do so now and "close," i.e., take personal responsibility for the decision? In which case you could then inform us as to the length of the ban, or any other conditions imposed. And there would then be, if another administrator wishes to lift the ban, a responsible admin to contact?

I will tell you that my now much more detailed review of the facts leads me to the conclusion that a ban wasn't justified at all, there was no disruption at DYK from Wilhelmina Will, and there was very minor misbehavior elsewhere which only gets connected with DYK because of her presumed motive. A general conclusion from those who understand DYK seems to be that there is nothing wrong with the motive, and that what WW did was simply some minor foolishness, of a kind that would normally pass almost unnoticed, and which she has not continued. So, in spite of her seeming disregard of warnings, she clearly hasn't disregarded them, she just quietly complied. Yes, she should learn to respond, it would help. But I have never seen a response to a warning as being a condition for not blocking. The procedure is Warn. Wait for repeated offense. Block if repeated. Not Warn. Wait for promise to comply. Block if no promise.

There were several issues raised:

1. Mesodermochelys misbehavior: short term, over one or two days, 2 improper reverts to preserve word count. 3 edit summaries that express her personal reaction to Blechnic -- which, after reviewing what he had done, I fully understand and sympathize with. She was foolish to make those edit summaries, but it wasn't disruptive, and it wasn't personal attack within the meaning given at WP:NPA, whereas she was under repeated PA within that meaning: an attempt to damage her reputation.
2. Copyright violations. Evidence was requested at ANI, but none was provided, links were given by Blechnic that showed nothing of the kind. He is now attempting to build a case on his Talk page -- he now refers to all of her edits as crap, later amended to vandalism -- and what he cited was a sentence in a seven-month-old article which, it turns out, she had noticed in the Sandbox and asked an admin if she could use it, and she failed to check for copyvio. The sentence was a direct copy. Maybe. Or was it that a web site later took the sentence from Misplaced Pages? I certainly don't know. Easy to fix. No pattern shown.
3. Incivility. But the example given, as far as I recall, was always back to the Mesodermochelys incident. And then reference was made to her lying about it, claiming that her leetspeak comment was really a note to herself about something else. This was a clumsy excuse that simply shows that she is naive. And which was harmless, except to her own reputation.
4. Accuracy of her articles. She has made mistakes. However, what I've seen with WW articles on scientific subjects is that, particularly if they are DYK nominated, whatever errors are in them are rapidly fixed. The articles aren't an obstacle to the creation of accurate content, rather they facilitate it, particularly by being DYK nominated. In other words, if there is, in fact, a problem here, DYK is part of the solution, not part of the problem. But, in fact, her articles are much better than the average new article on Misplaced Pages.

Thanks for your attention to this. You could confirm the ban, reverse it, or decline, in which case I would consider that the AN/I report was moot, no decision was made, and the ban doesn't exist. Whatever you decide, I trust we can then proceed to improve the situation. --Abd (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Abd, thanks for your message. I am unwilling to go back and close the debate since it has been archived, and I would not want to edit an archived topic. However, as the admin who informed WW of the ban, I think it is reasonable to say that I acted as the closing admin, and am therefore the point of contact to remove the topic ban - I will adopt this responsibility.

As to the decision itself, I did not count votes, obviously, but examined the arguments. The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.

In all honesty, although I believe you're nitpicking a little bit over the edit summary attacks of Blechnic, I didn't consider them that important in the context of a topic ban since such matters are generally dealt with by preventative blocks, and given the time between the end of discussion and the supposed personal attack, the notion that it was preventative would have been laughable.

As to the length of such a ban, I did not interpret consensus to say that such a topic ban should be indefinite. In fact, this would probably be to the detriment of the encyclopedia and demoralising to WW, who has the potential to be a productive editor. She needs, however, to remain banned until she sees that this isn't a game where whoever collects "5000 DYK noms" (paraphrasing her comments here) wins. If you are getting this through to her, good. After she has written some articles which conform to community norms, over a suitable period of time (fairly arbitrary, but don't come racing to me tomorrow! :) ) then come by here again, and we'll go over her contribs. I will then happily propose unlifting the community's ban in the appropriate venue. Alternatively, you are of course free to do this at any time, but I think it would be easier with some backup.

I hope this explains things, and if you don't agree, I am of course happy for you to discuss this elsewhere, citing the diff of this statement as the closing summary of the community discussion. All I ask is that you let me know when you do. Happy to engage in any further discussion on this. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the responsibility, being one of the options I suggested, which makes it clear how to proceed. I will research your claims regarding her copyvio behavior further. I will note, however, that, in spite of it being requested, the copyvio problem, which you now assert as the most serious matter, was not documented in the AN/I report, with many !voters apparently simply believing the charges, including irrelevant ones, and voting accordingly. I am concerned that a number of editors defined and described her work as poor, on the one hand, while presenting themselves as supportive, "let me help you," and it is now clear that this includes yourself. I have occasionally attempted to help, quite sincerely, editors whose behavior I considered problematic, including User:Allemandtando, who was blocked as a sock puppet of Fredrick day based on an RFCU that I filed, and, let's say that it is not surprising that he angrily rejected it, and I would never hold this against him. When you warned her that she had been topic banned, you deflected responsibility from yourself,. I do not believe that a ban against her will be supported by the community if I go back to AN/I after preparation and report what happened in this affair. It would waste a great deal of editor time there, and this could be avoided if you will either (1) document the copyvio problem and show that this is a serious and ongoing danger, more serious than is normal for Misplaced Pages editors, (2) that DYK participation for her harms the project more than it helps, or, alternatively, that you simply lift the ban, considering that she has been adequately warned with regard to any offenses, which it would then be moot to pour over. Please consider the welfare of the project. This is an editor with 28 DYK articles, and all those articles, presumably, met Misplaced Pages standards, so we know that she can meet such standards. Unless a major pattern of copyvio can be shown, there is no basis for the ban. The goal of 5000 DYK noms is a red herring, and your analysis of that is seriously defective. It's a noble goal, albeit quite difficult. She can't do it by producing junk articles, and she knows that. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go dig out the old AN/I report documenting the copyvios - give me 10 mins and I'll see what I can drag out as it is somewhere in the AN/I archives. My comment about 5000 noms doesn't mean she shouldn't aim for it, just not at all costs, as I felt was clear from my statement. Back in a little while... Fritzpoll (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, prove to me your comment that "She can't do it by producing junk articles, and she knows that" and I'll go get it taken down at the Village Pump myself Fritzpoll (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate AN/I thread is from the archives, and youy may want to follow through the links here - I imagine that many contributors to the topic ban discussion (as AN/I regulars) will have remembered the discussion, hence their commentary. I am willing to go to the appropriate venue as the "responsible" admin and request unbanning if you can show that she won't persist in this behaviour. Regards Fritzpoll (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec-I'll look at the above later, gotta go) Thanks for looking into it. I tried to follow up Blechnic's diffs purporting to show copyvio in the AN/I report, but found that, quite simply, there wasn't anything there but his own claims. He's been searching for copyvio on his Talk page, you could look there. I'm not denying that she made mistakes, but, quite simply, I haven't seen that there was enough of that to warrant anything more than a gentle warning. Remember, this is an environment where her work has been called "crap" and "vandalism," by Blechnic. I already know that Blechnic won't respond to a warning from me, though I might still do it for procedural reasons; I'd rather see a warning from someone he doesn't already identify as an enemy. She knows it because she is obviously intelligent, she didn't continue improper behavior, and WP:AGF is still a guideline even though demoted from policy. If she continued copyvio after warning, she could be blocked, and if she is plagiarizing, DYK would be the stupidest thing she could do, since articles there are often checked for copyvio, I've seen it mentioned. --Abd (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points

• Yes, Blechnic has used some bad language referring to this work, and should this problem persist, I don't doubt he will be warned
• As per the AN/I archive I linked for you, copyright violations or fundamental mistakes resulting from repeatedly rushing through articles for creation were found
• You were told specifically by a DYK contributor at the talk page where you started a discussion that they often don't check for copyvio
• I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth regarding my opinions, of which you know absolutely nothing, as you are doing at WW's talkpage.

Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you be specific about the words I was allegedly "putting in mouth"? I used quote marks for a summary, i.e., it was as if you had said what I quoted, and I already apologized for the possible incorrect assumption of exact quote that might be found there, but I'd stand by it as a summary of what you had done, and I see nothing offensive in that quote, in itself, so ... I fail to understand why you consider this important enough to insert this in a discussion of WW's ban. Now, as to the substance:

This is a user with a huge number of contributions and 28 DYK's plus another today. And another under nomination. For such a user to never make mistakes would be astonishing. So vague charges of copyvio and "rushing" are not adequate to support a ban, which would require examining a balance. And she isn't banned from the alleged offense -- rushing and thus, presumably, cutting corners by copying text (which, by the way, is an error that I've made, and that others make; we are putting an article or section together and copy some text, intending to reword it later, then simply forget to do it) -- but from nominations, which increase the probability of detection of copyvios, they do not reduce it. Absolutely, the articles aren't always checked. But that is generally true for all articles on Misplaced Pages! DYK articles, and especially articles, now, by WW, are more thoroughly checked. She was warned about copyvio, and, by the way, the responsibility isn't on the editor to correct errors that the editor makes, it is on the community. We, then, become concerned when an editor makes so many errors that the work of correction starts to exceed the productive labor that the editor has contributed. What I'm finding is that, in this whole affair, there has been a fundamental error in understanding of how Misplaced Pages editorial process works. Unless the damage becomes massive, we do not sanction editors for making mistakes that cease upon warning, and we never require editors to do anything. Fixing errors is a community responsibility, not an individual one. --Abd (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Fritzpoll, I've gone over the AN/I report that you cite. This is very sloppy, Fritzpoll. There were no specific copyvio charges there, only general ones. This text is in the report, possibly unsigned:

(Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, Ctenochelys, she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links. Nothing about the one reference in this article says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about. It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

Note: no copyvio diffs or articles. The writer was apparently aware that the claims being made were debatable; for example, sometimes blogs of notable individuals can be used as sources for their opinions, depends. But this is a quite different problem than copyvio, and improper sources are commonly challenged at DYK, and if not there, when the article actually appears, when thousands of people read it. If the goal is good articles, then, we want interesting articles on their face to be at DYK, and this is why I've concluded that DYK is one of the best tools we have for improving Misplaced Pages content, and it could be made even better.

The editor who put the above comment in was Blechnic. This is an editor who has, for quite some time, been searching for copyvios of hers, and who has come up with one from many months ago. (See it on his Talk page, and she isn't the one who plagiarized, exactly, and she asked an admin about using the material before going ahead, and she was not warned about copyvio and she apparently didn't check for it.) I must conclude that your opinion about copyvio was induced by an inappropriate combination of various opinions you held from other evidence, not disclosed. Now that you have clearly stated that copyvio was the problem, and now that it is clear that copyvio evidence was not before the community (none), your effective closure is defective and may be challenged, simply, without getting into a lot of irrelevant detail, such as editor motives, alleged personal attacks, etc. So, thanks for your attention and response. It's appreciated, and, please understand, I do not have any question about your good faith, only the wisdom of your action.--Abd (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No offence, Abd, but I'm not reading all of that. Since I can't overturn a community topic ban on my own even if I wanted to (you'd be amazed at the talk page messages I'd receive if I tried), go and find another administrator to decide on the closing arguments. You give my opinions of WW to her, without knowing what they are - that is putting words in my mouth, and I explained on her talk page what I was referring to - you clearly believe that the topic ban is inappropriate, so go and do something that will help the situation. That venue is not here. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But before you do, you might need to review her deleted contributions - or at least the deletion logs - since I remember having to delete portions of Tierra Redonda Mountain as copyright back on the 16th July. Still, as I told you before, all Wilhelmina had to do was come herself to me, promise that she understood the community's concerns and I'd go propose the ban be unlifted myself. Alas, she doesn't seem that keen on community engagement, and I would have hoped that you could have used your influence to remedy this problem Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment After being asked (as a member of the community) to review this matter, by request from Fritzpoll at AN#Wilhelmina Will..., I concluded that the consensus to topic ban was apparent and that Fritzpoll properly concluded the subsequent discussion once WW was properly informed. It seems that Abd is of the opinion that the communities conclusions were based upon incorrect sources or unsubstantiated allegations. It would therefore be more appropriate for Abd to address the community to resolve these issues, and have the consensus overturned, than to task the closing admin with that responsibility - either reversing the topic ban directly or taking it to the community. In short, Abd should make representations to the community to reverse WW's topic ban and not continue to use this page for that purpose. Fritzpoll has, in my opinion, been more than helpful in dealing with this and need not be the focus of Abd's "campaign". LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Inappropriate warning

It isn't really a dispute; me, RedThunder and the other WUPDATE people don't really care, but StewieGriffin doesn't seem to want to let it go; he even nominated the WUPDATE page for deletion (Although I think you've already seen that). Ironholds 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I don't really want to take sides in the argument. I mostly wanted to make sure that warning doesn't come round to haunt you if people review your history. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok; yeah, I saw your edit summary just after I posted. I'm going to leave a message with SG asking him to leave us alone and vice-versa; hopefully that'll calm things down. Ironholds 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Howz it goin then?

Any developments with the bot programming? Will it be possible to generate those lists do you think?
♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. We have made absolutely no progress since "the village pump". Any way to speed the process up? --I'm an Editorofthewiki 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Extend the length of a day by 3 hours, and supply me with more programmers. Otherwise, I'll be a little while longer, I fear... Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fritz I know you haven't sorted the bot to generate lists yet but do you think you'd be able to download some data from 2001 Nepal census? It looks as if it has population and basic details on every settlement in Nepal. Given that the bot initially was all set to start the articles, if you uploaded and processed this data, it shouldn't impossible to a run for a few countries which have information on top of what it had before. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RFK

I responded to the concerns about RFK images addressed by another user. I believe that my explanations should validate each image used. I can further pursue the matter and add any changes if Sandy believes it is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Ottava, but I believe the other editor is disagreeing. My understanding of image policy is sketchy at best, and I didn't upload any of these images, so don't really know what's going on! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work things out, see what happens at the Commons. If some are removed from the commons, they should be historical enough to justify them under fair use. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respond. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

World Gazetter geography database

Wow, I don't know if you took a look at this page, but this guy has done a lot of work in geography. The copyright is pretty open, and you can download his whole database. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it over the weekend - thanks, Nick. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Major edit to your user page?

Hi there. I noticed your user page was "in the middle of an expansion or major revamping", and was wondering what you were planning to do with it. You see, I'm part of WP:UPH (specifically WP:TRADE), and I assist others in designing their user pages, and I was wondering if you needed assistance in designing yours, or whatever reason you have the {{underconstruction}} tag on it. Cheers, RyRy (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chin up

You're a good admin, doing a good job. Yes, you are the single attack point - let's not mince words. It's deplorable nobody seems to be preventing that happening. Just enjoy yourself and don't worry about it - end of the day, it's just the internet and you're far better than the tendentious editor causing you problems. Minkythecat (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, just caught me on the way out - thanks fot the kind words. And the fact that it is "just the internet" (per my RfA) is why I'm leaving this place for now. Happy editing! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please come back soon. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing you around again, this place needs more people like you. :) --Conti|✉ 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is unfortunate, but not surprising. It's difficult to deal with that type of continued accusatory posts. You're doing a fine job as an administrator, including on the WW topic ban matter. Come back soon. _D.Jameson 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Something I don't understand: your withdrawal

Fritzpoll, I criticized your administrative action. Then, when you did not respond adequately, in my view, to your action, and filed an unnecessary AN/I report that showed, to me, that you did not understand the issue, you seem to have taken this as seriously disturbing. I'd hope that you can realize that it is an essential part of Misplaced Pages process that administrative actions -- and, sometimes, administrative competence -- be open to question, but I have never considered or suspected anything other than good faith from you, nor have I called into question your editorial competence, and my judgment of your administrative competence is around a single, possibly subtle, issue that may require ArbComm resolution, ultimately. I would not be my intention to make you the center of that. You really had nothing you needed to do, unless you wanted to continue argument, which you had no obligation to do, the ban stands until reversed, and argument doesn't reverse it. Most administrators, when a close action is questioned, simply respond, either accepting the criticism and modifying their action accordingly, or rejecting it, and then move on. They do not involve themselves in further process except where their testimony is necessary. So I hope that there is something you can learn from this, and that you can return and continue to function as an excellent editor and, quite possibly, an excellent administrator. Everyone makes mistakes, so, even if I'm totally right, this would not indict your general behavior. I have seen no other action from you that I have had occasion to question, and I was surprised, in fact, that you acted as you did in this case. From the support shown for you, so far, I'd have to consider your action within the normal range, even though I consider it seriously in error; in a situation like this, ArbComm would never de-sysop unless you continued to defend what was later found to be an error, see the ArbComm proceedings for User:Physchim62, desysopped, not for his error, but for continuing to defend it even after it became clear that the community and ArbComm were ultimately rejecting the action for very good cause -- later confirmed in other cases --, the community was practically begging him to apologize. Why? So that it could be confident that he'd not repeat the error. We do not punish, we only protect.

Good luck. Enjoy whatever break you decide to take, and return whenever you feel ready. I do not consider you an enemy of any kind. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Abd, and to all those watching my talkpage to see if I've gone completely bananas over all of this.
I believe in Misplaced Pages as a great, community-driven adventure - we don't really "do" rules in my utopic eyes, because the consensus of the community counts above all. In reality, there always have to be rules or guidance to help any community function, which we exemplify in our guidelines and policies.
This is the attitude with which I approached your request that I "procedurally" (for want of a better word) formalise the closure of Wilhelmina's topic ban. Now, this ban is something that you disagree with: I respected that, and still do. Per common sense, I accepted that you had a grievance, and offered you several means to remedy it. Specifically, I suggested finding another administrator to check over the facts, come to me and essentially overturn the ban. From your contributions on-wiki, you don't seem to have done this.
Since you said that it was certain WW had understood the lesson the community wanted her to learn, I asked you to prove this, and that I would then move to overturn the ban myself. From your contributions on-wiki, you don't seem to have done this.
Finally, I suggested that you counsel WW to discuss with me or the community the actions that the community was unhappy with. From your contributions on-wiki, you don't seem to have done this
So that was me, happy to receive criticism, happy to be overturned. Instead of discussing these options with me, your diatribes, albeit lengthy, seem in essence to be summarised as "Agree with me, or perish!", the latter clause being more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post.
To be honest, Abd, admins aren't that special. We're human beings, with real lives beyond Misplaced Pages, who are as able to edit the encyclopaedia as you, with the addition of a few buttons that the community entrusts us with. These buttons are very dull, and should you succeed in your next RfA, you will tire of them quickly. I'm actually here to edit, and want to make/keep the encyclopaedia a nice environment for all. Unfortunately, you refuse to actually engage with me on my suggestions, instead deciding on a course of escalating (albeit impotent) threats of RfC's, arbcomm's, etc. I have limited time in a day to edit Misplaced Pages - I work hard, and like to use this for a bit of an unwind. Instead, I found myself dreading logging in, waiting for the next tome that I was meant to read, knowing that nothing I could write would satisfy you.
"Sod it", says I, "I don't need stress in my free time as well as in my work time", and so on went the template. The more indefinite nature of my absence is strengthened by todays posts to WP:AN, where you say I'm not neutral, out-of-order (as if such order existed) in posting there, and that I still "don't get it", when honestly, I do. Your post to your talkpage was the final straw, and so off I go. Merely indefinitely - which means I don't know how long I'll be. But mostly it means until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me for the eighteenth time, and in the eighteenth iteration why WW didn't deserve her ban.
Good luck trying to reform Misplaced Pages, Abd - you'll lose a lot of editors on the way. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)