Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.48.100.44 (talk) at 03:46, 1 February 2014 (→I mentioned yo at ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Thanks for being honest

Thanks for checking out my Chibi-Robo article. It was my first, and I really didn't get around to finishing it by the time you saw it, but I'm glad someone noticed. That being said, don't get used to me doing this. The only reason I made the account was so that I could finally give a Misplaced Pages page to a favorite game of mine that's been out for, oh, I don't know, 3-4 weeks. All the same, thank you. Kaceypop

Edit summaries can also be personal attacks

Such as this one:

I strongly recommend that you restrain your animosity. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You restrain an WP:INVOLVED administrator who thinks WP:BRD don't apply to him and who keeps making threats. I am not going to give up my keeping tabs on administrators around here.(Not to mention the incompetent deletion discussion he started. That's a good description for an AFD without an explanation. Or blanking a page without explanation either.) Nyttend, Toddst1, TigerShark, and Mark Arsten have all shown themselves to be disgraces to Misplaced Pages but other administrators refuse to do anything even when one of them calls an editor 'a petulant piece of shit'. Another slaps blocked templates on editor's talk pages and insists they stay up after the block is over. Another proposed at ANI 0RR for an editor with no exceptions for vandalism. Administrators are jokes are around here. First rule- Protect Your Own....William 01:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And if telling someone to resign as administrator is considered a Personal attack, that is just another admin that is a disgrace around here....William 01:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with William on this one. I haven't read the entire exchange, but suggesting that someone resign as an admin does not qualify as a personal attack. Not even close.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That edit summary did not precipitate this block. That was merely the last item on this page that WilliamJE had not removed from the page. --Orlady (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim it did precipitate the block. However, it was called a personal attack, and I disagree. The editor was blocked for personal attacks, so it is reasonable to assume this one was part of the rationale.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It was however the first thing out of your mouth to me. You threatened me with a block for that non reason. Your bias is obviously showing....William 16:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z8

WilliamJE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My obsession with Nyttend? Did you bother to read what I said about moving on to other things like making 40 to 50 edits in period of time extending over 30 hours beginning with this edit that had nothing to do with Nyttend. Compare that with Nyttend who reopened matters when nobody but he had made comment on it in over a day. See here and here Criticizing an administrators is long series of mistakes and failure to take an obvious step if he is so certain an article is spam, isn't a personal attack. This is a violation of NPA and that person didn't get blocked for even a single minute....William 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon 15:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An admininstrator accuses me of obsessing over nyttend and without proof. The approve I'm not is in my unblock request. So why am I blocked and not ORLADY for making an personal attack against me for saying I have an obsession with something....William 15:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to add the following because I edit-conflicted with jpgordon. The edit that triggered the block was after Nyttend's edits that you complain about in your unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have always thought that William was a good editor and I don't think I have ever seen him act rashly. I have however had many incidents with Nyttend and have seen many things to make me question the competance of Nyttend as an admin. In fact I agree with the comments above and in the edit history that he should not be an admin. After looking at this and reviewing the history of these 2 it seems to me that Nyttend is more at fault in this and Orlady seems to have acted a bit rashly on this block without reviewing the history. Since Orlady and Nyttend frequently work together on articles this block seems to show undo favoritism towards Nyttend and Against William. Someone might want to investigate this a little closer than just reviewing the 2 or 3 sentences on this talk page. IMO if William seems to have been following Nyttend then Ny probably was doing something that warranted scrutiny.138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To Bbb23- And I'm not supposed to say anything when Nyttend deliberately misled Mark Arsten with 'he responds with "You don't be absurd" and persists in accusing me of doing something I quite obviously didn't do.' When Orlady right after that absurd post of mine, wrote- 'I stand corrected on the history'. She was referring to the Wirtland article and Nyttend's history there, aka his adding deletion tags to the article. Giving one side of the story in an attempt to mislead is unbecoming of an administrator, as is his bungled deletion tags without an explanation and all the other particulars I laid out over at Orlady's page. In light of the Mark Arsten 'petulant piece of shit' affair(That I link to above) that didn't end in him getting blocked, blocks for anything less severe than words is totally hypocritical around here. When did I call Nyttend any names?...William 16:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this block is a bit too much. I'm not even clear on what is considered a pa. Competence? That gets used by editors about other editors often. Admins need a thicker skin if being accused of lack of competence is a pa. Or was it something else?

It is clear that William and Nyttend do not see eye to eye on some issue (and I haven't been able to tease out exactly what happened), but in view of the intense back and forth, I think blocking for such a relatively mild statement is counter-productive. I think William sometimes sees admin abuse where none exists, but it doesn't help the situation to be quick on the trigger. I haven't read the full background, so I am hesitant to overturn the block, my hope is that User:Orlady will do the needful herself. As for the declination one the grounds that it does not address the reason for your block, my reaction is "ouch". I've searched, and do not yet see the reason. Maybe someone could explain it more clearly. If an editor thinks an admin is making serial errors (even if the assumption is incorrect) is it a blockable offense to suggest that the admin should resign?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE, you've twice suggested that someone called someone 'a petulant piece of shit'. You indicated that you provided a link, but I don't see it. Can you provide the link?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

SP, I'll take you post by post with differentials for everything that happened if you'll promise to check it all. Here is the 'shit' link] you requested in the meantime....William 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link William. I do not see that it is relevant to the present situation other than being an example of an admin behaving badly. I have some thoughts on that issue , but would prefer to concentrate on the present issue.

I was literally composing a request for general diffs, when you suggested that you would provide them if I'll promise to read them. I will. It is my experience that when one of involved in an intense debate, which spills over onto multiple page, the center of that issue may think the sequence of events should be clear to all readers, but it is less clear that you might think. I haven't been following this issue. I came to it this morning based on an offhand comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. I am struggling to get up to speed, which isn't easy. A list of diffs would be helpful. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some history: I became aware of this situation because I have WilliamJE's talk page on my watchlist, after past interactions (I forget the specifics). The edit summary that first caught my eye (and that I commented on above) was actually milder than an earlier one. I looked into what was going on between WilliamJE and Nyttend. The interactions mostly occurred on Nyttend's talk page and relate to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wirtland (micronation) and the associated article; also see User talk:Mark Arsten#Wirtland (micronation). After WilliamJE showed up on my talk page today with a diatribe against Nyttend, I posted an "only warning" (Nyttend had earlier issued a "final warning") here regarding the continuation of his personal attacks. After he removed the warning from this page, he returned to my talk page and added to his bill of particulars against Nyttend with three additional edits. That led me to conclude that it was time for an enforced wikibreak to help him calm down. --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides a need to keep up on critics of administrators, I don't know why you'd have my talk page on her watch list. A check of my talk page history shows she has NEVER EVER EDITED HERE until this week. A check of her talk page shows I only posted there one series of edits when I was critical of another administrator. Which brings me to the words I said in the first sentence of this edit....William 16:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated, I watchlisted this page due to past interactions -- not necessarily on this page. I've figured out why I had you on my watchlist -- in August 2013, you had a disagreement with The Rambling Man regarding editing of White County, Tennessee; I agreed with your position, at least in part (see article history) and I watchlisted your talk page so I would be aware of any continued discussion that happened there. (That interaction is also the reason you posted on my talk page that one time, in this discussion.) --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the warning that preceded the block said, in part:

You've already had a "final warning," so I could block you right now. However, I don't like to do that to productive contributors, so I'm hoping this warning will make a bigger impression on you, coming from a different user. If you persist in your obsessive (and apparently baseless) personal attacks on User:Nyttend, you should expect to receive a forced vacation from Misplaced Pages editing. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that the comments were't baseless and they weren't really personal attacks (if they were they were very weak ones and not worthy of a block). Also, anyone who takes the time to read Nyttend's talk page will see that William was being calm and Nyttend was the one being a jerk. Which frankly is pretty typical of them from my past experience with that admin. I see a lot that NYT could have done better as an admin here frankly...like discussing it without bing a WP:DICK.138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realize that Orlady's block has to be justified based on the reason she gives for the block, but regardless of whether William should be unblocked on that narrow basis (I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be), I'd like to step back and look at the bigger picture. William generally thinks poorly of administrators. In addition to his general views, he singles out specific administrators as being unfit (note the comments above this section). When he complains, a self-fulfilling prophecy kicks in because any administrator who disagrees with him is protecting their colleagues. So, William harasses administrators under the guise of "reasonably" complaining about an administrator's conduct, which, generally, he has a right to do.

William is going about this wrong. If he has a complaint about a specific admin, he should bring that complaint to the proper forum and provide evidence for sanctioning the admin. If, however, he brings it to AN or ANI and feels that he is getting short shrift from other administrators, he can start an RfC/U and ultimately go to ArbCom if he can't get "justice" anywhere else. If he believes that everyone, including arbitrators, are going to close ranks and do nothing, then his problem isn't with specific administrators but with Misplaced Pages's governance, in which case he would have to focus on that very broad issue. He'd probably say that all of this would be a waste of his time (he's said that before about various similar issues), but my retort is, if it's a waste of his time, why doesn't he just do something else and stop wasting his time?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with much of what your saying but I disgree on a couple of key points. First, going to Arbcom with a problem is a waste of a month. Its extremely unlikely anything would be done (eventhough NYT has been there before) and its even less likely they would listen to someone who is not an admin. Secondly, William and others complain about admins because frankly nothing is done about the abusive ones. Even the good ones (which is the 99%) just stands aside and lets the 1% of their peers be abusive and act up. So to say that there is a problem with admins is justifiable and to say that too often they protect their at the expence of policy and the project is also true. Its not just William making this up, this is a well documented and frequently observed routine that IMO has driven awa a lot of editors and potential editors. So although I generally agree he is going about this in the wrong way, there is no right way either, so in the end it doesn't matter how he goes about it, the end result will be the same. I also want to be clear that I think your insinuation that William should just move on and quite wasting his time with Misplaced Pages is utterly unnacceptable and innapprorpiate. We need editors to stay, not be told to go away or worse. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, taking a complaint against an administrator to an ANI is a waste of time. No administrator will be blocked for imposing a totally unjustified block or for them criticizing an a non-administrator. It is also an extrememly rare occurrence for an admin to overturn a block. As for an RFC or arbcom, I have no opinion. I've never taken part in anything related to those. What isn't a waste of time is keeping vigilant for those who have been wrongly blocked by an admin. Bbb23 you may recall the Joefromrandb versus Tigershark business over at ANI from late November. Joe had been blocked, and two administrators while saying Tigershark's block was wrong, wouldn't overturn. I got myself involved and after enough non name-calling badgering from me, Tigershark asked for a block review at ANI. His block of Joe was eventually overturned. My fighting for Joe was worth it, but it probably came at the cost of my name being shit to an even longer list of administrators.

I'd rather continue adding win and playoff boxes to articles on European Tour golfers. When Orlady blocked me, I was in the middle of getting Peter Oosterhuis done. That work is lost now. Was that a gain or loss for WP?...William 17:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:SphilbrickI see you found some of the edits. Here's one where Nyttend reverted after someone undid his making the page a redirect. That's a clear case of violating BRD. Then on his talk page, Nyttend wrote to me 'Please do not continue to restore it'. A pretty sure case of his thinking BRD is above him or that he WP:OWNed the article. Neither of which is acceptable as was his telling me not to restore the page. Which BTW I don't give a rat's ass about one another. I've told Nyttend to start an AFD if he wants on more than one occasion, for example here. If you need more differentials, holler....William 17:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have now seen some of the diffs (Thanks User:Orlady) It is looking to me like a series of misunderstandings, escalating due to mistaken assumptions about other's actions or motives.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick Look at Orlady's comment here in defense of Nyttend. Where she got the events wrong and had to correct herself herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Nyttend&diff=593050190&oldid=593048784. And all doing this when her only mentioned attack of mine on Nyttend she was using for her warnings is the one saying he should quit as an administrator. Which multiple editors have said isn't an attack. So why am I still blocked when the blocking administrator has been provably wrong on multiple occasions towards me? Tell it is something other than administrators refusal to overturn one another....William 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

William, admins are reluctant to overturn another's actions, especially when the situation is gray. You might not like that, but if you think about it hard, you will understand why that is the case. That said, I'm preparing a post to you in which I will offer to unblock you, but I need to check something first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if the block is removed, it remains a part of my history and it can be used against me. Fairly or unfairly. Here's a case of an administrator who couldn't count blocks straight when using the number of blocks as a basis for length of block. Check this out....William 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 I largely agree with your assessment, but I think it is fair to say that some of the admins involved aren't going to get commendations for exemplary behavior. For example:

• In this section, User:Nyttend states that despite what William told you, I never even edited the AFD that he closed,. I looked at Williams opening claim Can you please take the AFD tags off this article? I closed the AFD as a WP:NADC speedy keep. No explanation given for the nomination. Administrator Nyttend comes into an article he hasn't edited in over 4 years, nominates it for deletion without giving a reason, then blanks the page WITHOUT EXPLANATION. Check the page history but do not see that William made such a claim. If it was made elsewhere, it should have a diff.
• William clearly thinks (or thought) that Nyteend nominates it for deletion without giving a reason. William turns out to be wrong, but read this diff, with edit summary (Nominating for deletion) and tell me why that was an unreasonable assumption?
• User:Nyttend objects to Williams characterization of this edit as a blanking of the page. Nyttend is technically correct, as replacing a four year old article by a redirect is not technically blanking, but is it warranted? Without any discussion or rationale? I can sympathize with someone thinking that it was presumptuous, and to be called on the carpet for labeling something as blanking, when it technically was not, is a bit much.
• this constitutes actionable personal attack? Please.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick, a few points. I'm not looking at this as a "personal attack" block but as a harassment block, which is stated in the block. Regardless of whether Nyttend behaved perfectly, as I stated, William's approach, not just to Nyttend but as to other administrators as well, isn't constructive. Even he pretty much admits most of my assumptions (about administrative noticeboards and about ArbCom). I'm just trying to steer this conversation away from this block and the Nyttend issues and direct William into a more constructive approach to the problems he perceives. But I'm not sure if it's possible because of the historical baggage and the assumption that nothing will work. Throwing barbs at administrators and short sound bytes as to the entire administrative corps isn't the way to sort out administrator misconduct. That said, you and others are welcome to discuss the narrower issues associated with this block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please help me out. You said I'm not looking at this as a "personal attack" block but as a harassment block. I've read the block message twice; I see 'personal attacks' mentioned, I do not see harassment mention. What am I missing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your views that William is not going about this the right way. I concur. However, he is blocked at the moment, and understandably, thinks that the block is the current matter. I can't disagree. I've asked User:Orlady for more explanation, as I thought I knew what caused the block, but now I'm not so sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in the block log. It should have also been put in the block notice to be clear. If it was Orlady's intention to block only for making personal attacks, that makes the block less supportable. Like you, I'd like to hear more from her.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad for not checking the block log. However, I think it is not reasonable for an editor to think they should check the block log to find out why they were blocked. I think it is reasonable to assume that the block notice contains the reason. I realize William isn't new, and may be familiar with a block log, but unless I'm missing something, the block log is not linked in the message. If policy allows us to give an incorrect reason to an editor in a block message, while hiding the real reason in a block log, not mentioned to the editor, then we need to revise policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break

This edit was cited as the reason for the block. I asked above for more clarity on exactly what was wrong. I didn't get an answer, but I appreciate that a lot has been said on this page, and as I may have missed questions to me, I cannot fault someone who may have missed questions directed to them. I specifically asked at her talk page. The edit has several sentences, none of which constitute a personal attack. IMO of course. I accept that others may have different hurdles. My intent is to find out which of the statements in the edit is the offending one, and ask William if he would be willing to avoid such statements, even if some do not see them as personal attacks. If William agrees, I am inclined to unblock. Does anyone disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As I've indicated on my talk page, in response to your query there, that one diff actually combines 3 separate edits. My concern was not about the specific words in those 3 edits, but the fact that the user had deleted my warning from this talk page, then immediately went back to my talk page to expand upon his accusations against Nyttend. The first of the three edit summaries there indicated that he was finishing his comment; if that had been his last edit, I would have shrugged it off. The fact that he went on to make two more edits is what led me to think he wasn't ready to stop attacking. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever gotten a message from someone when you're in the middle of writing something else, then take a second to reply?...William 19:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A very surgical approach, Sphilbrick. I have no problem with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this righy Bbb23, William is unfairly blocked by an admin who clearly has acted rashly (Orlady) in support of another admin who acted even more rashly (Nyttend) and William should just let it go and move on? This doesn't seem reasonable nor realistic. You are an admin and so is Sphilbrick yet neither of you has the power or authority to undo the block simply because Jpgordon beat you both to the admin review/unblock request? It seems like you both have a problem with this block but yet neither of you have taken it to the next step (ANI). William can't even if he wanted too because he is blocked but you both have the ability of asking for a review of the case. You both also have the ability of going to Arbcom which in this case I think is warranted towards Nyytend for his failure to constructively discuss the matter with William and potentially for Orlady's unnecessary rash action in backing up her fellow administrator and absurd block reasoning. If I were William, I would feel pretty helpless and alone. If admins are allowed to act and do whatever they want against non admins and no one does anything to stand up to these abuses then how can we expect to attract new editors or retain the ones we have? This whole situation is disgraceful. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel powerless. (See below). However, despite being an admin for some time, I have never, to my recollection, overturned a block of someone else without their permsision so this is an EXCEEDINGLY big deal to me, and I don't apologize for taking a few minutes to make sure I'm on solid ground. I disagree that this should be headed to ANI or ARBCOM. It is a relatively minor series of disagreements, coupled with misunderstandings.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Things get escalated to ANI and and ARBCOM all too quickly. While I see some problems here, I also see multiple editors conversing, and while not pretty some progress being made. Bringing this to ANI is likely to slow the process down, not move it along. If progress fails to occur, perhaps then it is time to try ANI, but not yet.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok maybe your not powerless and I agree that William isn't helping his case but at the same time he has a valid point that if an admin oversteps their bounds we shouldn't need to take a knee, kiss the ring and admit we were wrong just to be have a block removed that should have never even been made. Especially knowing the culture of this place where a block in the log, valid or not, will be held against the editor for the rest of their wikicareer. He will have to explain that block forever and most admins won't give it a second thought in justifying another block because he already has one (and by extension in their minds a history of abuse). You have always been fair Sphilbrick and you are in my opinion one of the best admins, but there are few of you and a lot of abusive ones and the system doesn't allow for those bad admins to be removed. They are there forever. Nyttend has a history of abusing the tools and Orlady's record is spotty, yet both still have the tools and there is no stomach for comments that either should be held accountable in what has become a pattern of bad decisions for the both of them. So I do not agree that Arbcom or ANI is out of the question at this point. Unfortunately I also know that in all likleyhood both ANI and Arbcom would end in failure and would only enable them and others to continue to abuse the tools. It is also very likely that William would see the hevy hand of punishment since he is not the admin and only a mere editor. I applaud the way you are attempting to fix the system Sphilbrick and your attitude and willingness to listen is commendable. But this whole situation is a disappointing and disgraceful display of how far the state of policies have devolved in Misplaced Pages's culture. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to quote the take the knee part at my User Page when this discussion ends or my block....William 19:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You said admin oversteps their bounds we shouldn't need to take a knee, kiss the ring and admit we were wrong just to be have a block removed. I agree. One of my pet peeves. I've wanted to write an essay about it but haven't found the time or the right words. Frankly, the dynamic reminds me of inmates in a prison who are forced to grovel. I hope you will note that my proposed unblock request does not include the phrase "I was wrong" or anything equivalent. I tried to make it easy, and I am getting frustrated that William seems to want to talk about anything but how to get unblocked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@WilliamJE:Feel free William, here are a couple images you might find amusing.:-) All in good fun of course.

@Sphilbrick: I appreciate that you recognize that what I am saying occurs, that is more than most of the other admins will admit even though they know it, have seen it and some even engage in it. I agree with your comparison of Prison life, another ironic similarity is that inmates often feed off the misery of others and are attracted by weakness. Many in Misplaced Pages suffer from teh same infliction and its unfortunate that more isn't done to fix this problem. Its driving editors away (including me) and if something isn't done people will start referring to this project in the past tense like AOL and Myspace.

Enjoy. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

unblock offer

William, it is my opinion that while I understand you are frustrated, your decision to personalize the responses to Nyttend makes it easier for others to ignore the substance of your complaints (which presumably is the main issue) and concentrate on the way you deliver your message. It may occur to you to wonder why I am about to ask you to change and not Nyttend. The answer is simple. You are blocked, Nyttend is not, so the first order of business is to unblock you. If you will agree to try to follow the adage comment on the edit, not on the editor, I will follow up with some suggestions to you on how better to frame your concerns, as well as some questions to Nyttend to see if I can understand why some of the actions were undertaken. If you agree, I will unblock you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What you and other editors want me to do is shutup and leave all of you alone. Who's then going to stand up against abusive administrators? Very few have the guts because thing like today happen. I refuse to stop calling abusive administrators to task and Orlady has joined that list. Look what I think of her harrassment basis for my block. It is pure bs. How can I harrass Nyttend when I haven't addressed him in almost two days? The fact of the matter is, Nyttend was the one who started things back up that had laid dormant for over two days. Orlady should be facing dysopping for what she has done. Her protection of a fellow administrator is more important than Misplaced Pages's integrity....William 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong William, when you claim harassment is impossible if you haven't directly addressed him.

I repeat my request to you. If you agree, and I fail to follow up, then you will be right to admonish me. But let's take this one step at a time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are also wrong when you assert What you and other editors want me to do is shutup and leave all of you alone. Making such silly claims doesn't help your position. Please try to focus. I've offered to unblock you if you simply agree to something that we expect of all editors. How hard can that be?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Read what Orlady wrote on her talk page to you- 'and would quit posting his complaints. Since nobody calls her on this, I have every right to think you support her wanting me to quit posting my complaints....William 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I read it. I am trying to focus. You are blocked. I have proposed conditions for you to get unblocked. If you agree, I will unblock you and we can talk about next steps. I would think you would agree that getting unblocked is the main order of business. If you'd prefer to whine about Orlady, let me know, and I'll unwatch this page and get some constructive editing done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The unblock is going to happen whether I do or don't do anything. The stain on my block log is permanent and can be used wrongly against me. I've seen it happen to another editor and if you so care, I'll send you the differentials. At this point the only thing I want is Orlady's apology and her resignation would be icing.

BTW I will be away from the computer starting about thirty minutes from now....William 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

William, I respectfully request that you next post to this page either be acceptance of the conditions, or reasons why they are not acceptable. If you post anything else, I will conclude that you aren't interested in getting unblocked, and will unwatch this page. Which also means I will not have to follow up on my other contingent promises to look into other aspects of this incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to try to follow the adage comment on the edit, not on the editor, but I won't agree to stop complaints against administrators I think are out of line. Today won't be forgotten by me, but not in a personal way against you. Now I'm out of here for at least 90 minutes.19:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not want you to stop complaining about admins who are out of line. I'd like to off some advice on how best to do that, but, at the moment, I want to make clear that my unblock request did not contain such a request directly or indirectly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Orlady is full of garbage

On her talk page she is now claiming I was blocked for harrassing Nyttend. I haven't addressed Nyttend directly in almost two days. Check my edit history going back to here. What we have here is her not liking my opinions on her buddy that I posted here. If there was any justice at wikipedia, Orlady would be blocked for what she's done and a move would being made for her dysopping ASAP....William 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this helps you, William, either in the short- or long-term.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Coming from the same person who wrote earlier that I didn't think much of arbcom when in fact I said I had no opinion, this isn't worth much. Tell me and everyone else here what I wrote at the beginning of this section isn't true about Orlady's conduct....William 19:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about the ArbCom issue. I initially read another sentence in your comments as relating back to ArbCom. Having how reread them, I was wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop digging William, I am trying to help you. Please meet me partway.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

William, we've had our differences, and recently I've been through a situation where it's clear common sense is seldom applied. I also reacted negatively to this, but there's little point. Your best bet is to crack on with the good mainspace work you do. Most admins and most of the people we (you and I) often have issues with aren't here to improve the encyclopaedia, they're just here to attempt to govern it, and they do it rather badly. Let's find something better to do, you give me an idea on an article to expand, and we'll get on with together, thus bettering mankind and Misplaced Pages. Deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned yo at ANI

I completely understand if you wish to stay out of this discussion but I wanted to let you know I mentioned you at ANI here. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)