User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Stack Bundles

somebody please make a page for Stack Bundles, I'll do it but someone has deleted a page atempt already. Why does Chinx Drugz, Max B and Mel Matrix have pages but not Stack.--Tddt456 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Hello, this is TDDT456. I dont know how to get to your inbox. But I'd like to know why Max B and Chinx Drugz have wiki pages but not Stack Bundles. Ive been an avid listener of Riot Squad since DJ Clue tapes and have been waiting for a wiki page for them. I see Chinx beat Stack to the page but Stack Bundles is a legend. He's a member of Byrdgang. Why hasn't he got a page by now?--Tddt456 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your question Why hasn't he got a page by now? is that no one has created a page meeting the requirements. I have no idea who this is, whether he is notable or not. I see that an attempt to create a page has been deleted more than once, but not by me. How did my name come up? Was it an Articles for Creation deletion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your role in dealing with the WilliamJE situation. I don't see your unblock as "reversal" of another administrator's action; rather, you responded to an unblock request (which is something any admin can do) that you had negotiated to obtain. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I didn't fully clear my unblock request with you, so if you felt I should have, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree. However, I felt I was close to getting a reasonable concession, albeit a bit softer than you might have preferred, so I thought it was worth trying, and worth the "shortcut". I honestly think William does have some points, but muddles the message with his pointed style, so if I can get him to stick to the promise, we will either have "cleaner" situations of admin abuse, which can be investigated, or maybe even better, maybe the problems won't crop up (hey, I can dream!).--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Beam me up Scotty!

Just letting you know, someone thinks[1] I'm sockpuppeting. I replied to the editor and gave him a good trouting at his talk page. Just letting you know because I think the accusation besides being totally wrong is hilarious. Needed a laugh and maybe you'll enjoy it too....William 15:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not forgotten

The Lazzarini editor is active again[2] and not responding to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Checking it out now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I notice the editor has never (despite being an editor since 2006) posted to their talk page. On the chance they do not yet know it exists, I left an email message.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because...

Sphilbrick/Tonya Cardoza was (and still is) in article space.
It looked ready to go to me, and wasn't marked as "under construction" or something like that. I'm an experienced editor, and looking back now, I could have picked up that it should be at User:Sphilbrick/Tonya Cardoza. But I can't read your mind.
My apologies if it messed up some things. Perhaps we should have liaised with each other before the page-move.
Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought I started it in user space. I should have realized my error as soon as I saw the move, but I didn't. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to your comment

First off, the original discussion was plagued with sockpuppets; see the comment at the top. Moreover, see the "Re: Wirtland" section at User talk:Nyttend/Archive 11: the closing admin says the whole reason it was closed was that there was so much sockpuppetry that continued discussion was pointless; it would be easier to wait until the buzz had died down. When the closing admin says that it was closed without deletion because of sockpuppetry, there's absolutely no reason to respect the original discussion, since it didn't follow our standards. This isn't an attack on the closing admin, since it's basically an IAR attempt to resolve the socking; it was the best thing that could have been done at the time, but we shouldn't take it as being a proper AFD. Meanwhile, check the links I gave to Mark Arsten, there's still a PR person pushing edits to this page; an AFD now is just as likely as in 2009 to be plagued with interference from people who are trying to spam their website. I cannot understand why you object on semantic grounds: an immediate self-revert is hardly worthy of consideration. Look at my edits to the article: the first added an AFD tag, and the second was a combined self-revert and a redirecting. Would you have objected had I taken three edits instead of two: add AFD tag, remove AFD tag, redirect? The situation is no different. As far as the vandal bit, see my talk page. {{uw-delete1}} is used as a warning for vandals who blank pages. As far as the wording to William, my point was that he has been enabling the continued presence of this website spam; the point of "do not restore" is that we do not permit people to restore promotional content. As far as the "forgiveable error", yes it's forgiveable once, maybe twice, but when I give him a link to the edit that created the AFD and he keeps going, it's quite different, and when another admin gives him a link that proves that he's wrong and he responds with "You don't be absurd", it's thoroughly unacceptable. As far as spam: the point is that this has been spam throughout its history. An established article to which spam has been added will not be deleted because we can revert, but (as the links I gave Mark in that diff will demonstrate) as the Wirtland people have been doing their best to fight for a place on Wikipedia and using it as a promotional device, this whole thing has always been spam/advertisement/promotional. Had it never gone to AFD, I would have G11 speedy deleted it because there's nothing to which we can revert.

In conclusion, let me re-respond to one of your comments, "If a four year old article really is too spammy to survive, why not simply AfD it and find out?" When the website responds to my action with calls to action to defend the article and attack me, there's no way that we'd be able to have a proper AFD. I hope I responded to all your statements/questions; if not, please tell me what I overlooked. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See this diff: immediately after the removal of a civility/NPA block, William goes to the blocking admin's talk page and says that she's essentially a "low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience", among other things. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive response. You've provided a lot of material to review, I've started, but I'd like to read it all before responding (plus, dinner calls).--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you read the context closely, you'll see that my "I've done nothing to the page except for redirecting it" was a response to his question if I'd done something to the page preventing him from un-redirecting it. It was a technical question, so the final state of things was the only relevant thing; when someone asks me about the technical results of my actions, I'm not going to worry about the intermediate stuff unless they ask about that. I had no reason to expect that anyone would read that as anything except "no, I've not caused the problem you're facing". Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As you might have guessed, I read it differently, but should have noticed the exchange, and seen that it was a narrow response toa specific point, not a more general answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see two issues:

1. Handling of the Wirtland (micronation) article
2. Interaction with William

You cite some very interesting history that puts some of the actions into context. I have a better understanding of what may have been frustration at the continued existence of the Wirtland (micronation) article. It is clear that outsiders were recruited to contribute to the deletion discussion. It is understandable that one might be concerned that the same result would occur if the article were nominated for AfD.

However, if one is convinced that an article does not meet our standards for inclusion, and equally convinced that the normal approach (nominate at AfD) is going to fail, what should one do? One answer, admittedly a lot of work, is an RFC to find a way to tackle the problem. Another approach, the one you apparently took, is not to delete the article, but replace it with a redirect.

I have mixed feelings on whether that deserves kudos as a clever solution, or brickbats for being an abuse of process. As a side subject, it might be worth debating. However, that's a different issue. If you choose to go that route, you either have to explain your rationale, which has the downside that others reading it will attempt to undo it, or you have to keep your rationale secret, which has the downside that some editors will not understand your purpose and undertake to undo it.

However, it ultimately doesn't matter whether you intended to try a nonstandard approach in secret, or didn't consider it a secret, while hoping that clueful editors would see the approach understand the goal and support it. The problem is, if an editor does not feel the article should go away, they are perfectly in their right to disagree with your approach, revert it, and expect that the attempt will be abandoned or discussed as part of BRD.

That isn't what happened. First you said you were nominating for AfD (and it did end up at AfD), which understandably led editors to think you had nominated it for AfD.

I'm a big fan of using edit summaries to help explain what's going on, and I do see that you added a helpful edit summary Re-redirect, since this gets no substantial coverage from independent secondary sources. However, I don't consider that edit summary as sufficient to explain to all editors why they should not challenge your bold edit.

Then you write here Please do not continue to restore it, and it would be appreciated if you didn't. Very politely written, except...what is the justification for even making the request? You've provided one, stating that the AfD was kept due to sockpuppet interference, but is that an adequate justification for deciding that the normal process can be ignored?

I think your intended message was something like the following:

I've researched the history of this article, and it is clear that it should not be an article, yet attempts to delete it with the normal process have failed. I think if you look carefully at the content and the history you will agree with me, so I hope you will support by my slightly non-standard way of making the encyclopedia better.

If that was your mindset, it might be a slap in the face to see the accusations made my William.

However, trying to see your message through his eyes. (I'm hesitant to put my words in his mouth, so think of these as my attempt to see this through the eyes of a non-admin who feels that admins are a bit full of themselves.):

I'm an admin. I don't care about normal processes, I don't like this article, and I want it gone. Don't even think about trying to undo what I've done, I'm an admin and you are not, so respect my authority.

Of course that wasn't your intent. I continue to be disappointed that William seems to read things that way, but if it was read that way, it would help explain why a very diligent, major contributor, occasionally feels that admins are running roughshod, and not respecting ordinary editors.

I think it is the responsibility of admins, more so than nonadmins, to be cognizant of this mindset, and to take care not to exacerbate it. While I understand that you felt the article deserved deletion, if they disagree, you either have to persuade them personally, or convince the community that a different process is warranted. I think William was unfairly treated (I accept and agree that William needs to improve his communication skills, but I've shared that.)

My current bottom line is that while I have much more sympathy for the approach you tried to take, once it was clear that an editor disagreed, I think you should have identified a plan B, rather than tried to push through your idea.

In terms of the two issues identified at the beginning of this post, I think you have explained nicely why you took the actions you did with respect to the article. However, I don't think that background justified the responses to William, especially as that background for your actions wasn't shared with William.

Aside from warning me for vandalism, William's position is indeed justified: the first time around. That justification is completely out the window when he rejects a diff demonstrating that I didn't end up creating the deletion page, rejects my explanation that the whole page is spam, and later says that I'm fraudulently claiming that someone else wrote this statement. Moreover, can you explain how "William was unfairly treated" exempts him from sanctions for the personal attacks after the unblock? Let me copy/paste here what I said when a Kumioko logged-out sock took this to WP:ANI.

William, immediately after coming off a civility block, tells the blocking admin that she's done something that "low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience" would do; tells the blocking admin "You continue to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence. That's reprehensible. As for following around, that isn't harassment. Its making sure you and no other administrator abuse your tools and when you do someone holds all of you accountable and tries to fix the shit you've done to other people"; responds to a comment I made by saying "Not going to say anymore. You can't win arguments against idiots as my Mom used to say or people without a conscience. Absolute power makes that disappear in people"; and refers to an old case of which I'm not aware by saying "TigerShark is so incompetent that he proposed 0RR for Joe with no exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations". William was blocked making tons of unfounded accusations, e.g. that I was citing myself by claiming that this edit was by someone else. Included in WP:WIAPA's definition of personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" — when you make a claim like this, arguing that citing myself by linking to someone else, how possibly do you have evidence? Meanwhile, note that William late last year got a month-long block for "highly confrontational, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to dealing with others, personal attacks, inapproprate use of user page and holding and acting on grudges". Some time later, you say "Instead I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!" You're obviously still taking a battleground approach and holding (and threatening to act on) grudges. Someone explain to me why we tolerate this? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that William has made tons of "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", including many very soon after the block expired. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'm glad you posted. Where is your proof for me making tons of WIAPA accusations. Please provide differentials or be ready to defend that at ANI. I have a post in preparation stage for both you and Orlady. As for watching you or other admins, you should know that Sphilbrick doesn't even want me stop doing that. Check here[3] and weep. My calling to task any administrator who abuses their tools isn't being Battleground. Its trying to prevent abuse around here. The administrators who do good work don't have anything to be bothered about. The same goes for admins who make honest mistakes. Starting out with a Level 3 warnings when denying your own edits and edit summaries multiple times and then getting your buddy Orlady to issue a bogus block(Sp, correct me if I'm wrong but did noone at my talk page yesterday say Orlady's block was a good one?) for criticizing you is administrative abuse not an honest mistake. If another administrator repeats any of this, yes an editor should be allowed to blow a trumpet on those actions.

Why did you put my statement about TigerShark in quotes? He did actually propose 0RR and got laughed at for doing so. If Sp would like me to dig up the differentials(TigerShark hasn't edited in over two months so it won't be hard to find), I'll be happy to....William 15:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw your phrase William, immediately after coming off a civility block and scratched my head, first assuming you were bring up something from the past, whose relevance wasn't obvious. Now, after reading the ANI thread, I realize you are talking in the present, but this makes no sense. William's most recent block is in 2012. We can debate whether it is a civility block, but I don't believe the timing is debatable. It doesn't qualify as immediate which is an important element of the point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That civility block is funny too. An administrator says an editor gets blocked for civility. I could list it as a quote at my user page. Only joking, this time Nyttend made an honest mistake. He forgot two letters....William 16:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to clarify something that Nyttend said above. He stated that I am a logged out sock of Kumioko. It has been clarified repeatedly that editing from an IP is not socking. So for Nyttend to state this, again, after being told in the past it wasn't socking, is further evidence of his battleground behavior and lack of adherence to Personal attacks policy. Surely I am not the only one seeing that Nyttend is not admin material and represents the type of abusive admin I have been talking about for the last 2+ years, surely I am not the only one to see his unnecessarily antagonistic behavior. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed some references to sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets that didn't always seem warranted. However, I viewed this as small potatoes, so couldn't muster the energy to look carefully or gather diffs.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The bit about a "logged out sock of Kumioko" depended on assessments by Voceditenore and BMK at ANI, which I trusted as they're definitely not previously involved here; search for "It most probably is Kumioko". He's since admitted that this identification is correct. I happen to be familiar with WP:SOCK, which notes that "Editors who...edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." Attacking admins is definitely a crossover on topics, and since the policy considers IP editing to be comparable to using another account, logging out to obscure who you are is not permitted. Now back to "William's most recent block is in 2012". I misread the diffs and thought that these comments were made after the block was lifted; I apologise. Let me remind you that you've told me that I should have been more patient with William, even when he ridiculed the diffs that demonstrated that he was wrong. Nobody gave me diffs at all, so only in the course of writing this comment did I realise that I was wrong. Meanwhile, I have repeatedly provided diffs to prove that William accused me of creating an unfounded AFD, repeatedly provided links to prove that I didn't create an AFD at all, and repeatedly provided links to demonstrate that he ridiculed what was provided. Let me quote something. "Look up above at 'this comment by someone else'. That this comment was done by Nyttend! Talk about lack of competence". Look at the "this comment" statement: did I make it? I would appreciate being told specifically why:

• William does not deserve renewed sanctions for holding and acting on grudges
• William's accusations that I'm incompetently citing myself should not be considered under "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"
• We should even listen to William's claims on factual grounds, when he responds here to a set of diffs with "Where is your proof for me making tons of WIAPA accusations", when he links someone else's comments while saying that I said it, and when he here questions my practice of putting quotation marks around his statements so that they can be distinguished from my comments.

Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You've used a lot of words to try to persuade me that William is not faultless. How can I put this clearly - I know. I had hoped my repeated requests to William to change, my multiple examples of errors by William would be sufficient. I get it. However, I see emphasis on what William did wrong, with scant acknowledgement that your actions were not ideal. I do see here your apology for misreading the timing of the prior block, and that is a great sign.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's how Nyttend abused his tools

It's very simple. His putting a level 3 template on my talk page in his first warning. Sphilbrick, you're very reasonable. What did I do that merited a level 3 warning?

Let me also point out Nyttend also issued me a level 3 warning over another episode with a similar background and I'll provide the differentials.

He didn't like being criticized, tried to bully me with a high level warning which is an abuse of his administrative skills, then brought in his buddy Orlady to do the dirty work he couldn't do without a whole blowup over WP:INVOLVED. As it is the block has blown up. Who's defended it or the warnings? Nyttend and Orlady have AGF can only go far. There is a strong case for dysopping both these two They are a disgrace to Wikipedia and bring shame on all administrators including the good ones. I think you will admit Want to start the campaign with me to get these two dyssoped? You should at least be politely telling them to reconsider their administrator status and to finally end their defensive bs smokescreens they're throwing and consider issuing me a public apology. You thought I should apologize to TRM and I did. How about taking the same approach here too....William 02:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just coming here to note that anyone, even IPs, can leave warning templates; it doesn't require anything administrative. I've not used any admin tools anywhere here, and everything I've done can be performed by anyone who's autoconfirmed. I see no reason to apologise for misusing admin tools when (as I've already said elsewhere) I didn't use any, and on top of that it's interesting that William's provided no evidence that I misused admin userrights, even though WP:WIAPA says that "Serious accusations require serious evidence", and accusations of a bigtime WP:INVOLVED violation are serious accusations indeed. Please explain why the above edit should not be considered a WP:WIAPA violation and thus a personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A level 3 warning from an administrator warning and comes with a block and you're an administrator. You have the power to block me so the meaning is very different than when Joe blow does it. The only reason for the warning was to bully because there was no basis for a level 3. And I provided the serious evidence of nothing justifying a level 3 at ANI. Th Now everything I write is a personal attack in your eyes. Which proves what I'm saying along. You can't take criticism and when it happens to you you resort to bullying....William 03:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Added note- I made a post[4] to ANI of the step by step posts of mine before Nyttend issued the level 3 warning. That post is only about Nyttend, so I only advised him of it not Orlady. Now good night....William 03:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't happy about the level 3 warnings, but my guess is that they would be justified on the basis that you are not a new editor, have been involved in some contentious situations, so are not a newbie (which is true) and it is not necessary to start over Level 1 with experienced editors. While I might not like that, I doubt it is a violation of policy.

Regarding Orlady, I have seen a lot of her work, and think she generally does fine work. I was a bit surprised to see her involvement in this, but I'm not going to assume that it was a case of calling a favor for a friend. I think it is far more likely that Orlady stumbled across this issue and decided to help. That's how I came to this issue. While you have contacted me before, that isn't why I got involved, I came to this issue because I saw an offhand comment by someone concerned that a issue was heading south. So I checked it out, and have spend more hours than I care to trying to sort out a minor misunderstanding.

My goal isn't to figure out how to get Nyttend desysopped. My goal is to convince Nyttend that he has been a little too quick on the trigger, and ought to take a hard look at how he uses the tools. I think the encyclopedia will be better off if that happens. You want admin abuse eliminated, so do I.

I am certain that Nyttend isn't going to be desyopped over this, and you have to look at your own actions if you want to know why. It is my opinion that if ARBCOM were to take this case (I'd bet against it), they would find some way to deliver a message to Nyttend that his actions were not ideal, but they would see your false accusations, and borderline insults, and cut him enough slack that no serious action would be taken. If your goal is to get someone desysopped (and I hope it isn't) you need cleaner hands. Stop making the accusation, stop the conspiracy theory talk, stop the veiled accusations, and then if an admin does violate the rules, you'll have a clean case, But you know what, if you take all those steps, you might find that things do not escalate.

I don't want to leave the impression that it is all your fault. I expect admins to hold themselves to a higher standard, and I find evidence that behavior hasn't met my goal for action. But there's a gulf between my idea of what admins should do, and what sort of behavior merits a desysop.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that WilliamJE is unlikely to believe what I say, but it is entirely true that I looked into this situation after I saw seemingly inflammatory language in edit summaries on WilliamJE's talk page, which I had watchlisted during another controversy about a seemingly minor issue (about whether a particular deceased bluegrass musician should be listed in the article White County, Tennessee). I generally stay away from the "dramaboards", but when I see trouble erupting on a page that I have watchlisted, I usually look into the situation, and some of the time I will comment or take some other action. In this case, my first action was a statement on WilliamJE's talk page that I actually intended as a "word to the wise" to reign in what I perceived as continuing personal attacks -- after he had received two NPA warnings from Nyttend.

As for the warnings, issuing a level 3 warning was not a misuse of administrative tools. Templated warnings are not administrative tools, but communication tools that anybody can use. Accordingly, issuing a warning is not a use of admin tools, much less an abuse of the tools. As for the level of the warning, although it's generally advised to move up one level at a time, it's sometimes appropriate to skip a step, particularly if there has been other ongoing communication about the issue. In general, with experienced users it's far better to write a personalized message than to issue a templated warning, but I've observed the templates can be effective in getting the attention of a user who has not responded to more informal messages. Nyttend apparently felt that he was justified in skipping a step. (Note: I don't count level 1 as a required step in communicating with an experienced contributor who is presumed to realize what they did -- level 1 is an AGF warning for users who might be unaware of their actions.) I am the only one who used an administrative tool in this situation. Before I blocked WilliamJE, I reviewed the statements he had made on various talk pages and in edit summaries, I reviewed the statements Nyttend had made and the warnings that Nyttend had issued, and I issued an additional warning (after which he made three different postings on my talk page with additional statements against Nyttend). I didn't block him until after I became convinced that he understood the rules, knew what he was doing, had seen the warnings, and was deliberately continuing the behavior that he had been warned against. I hoped that the block would put an end to the behavior.

As I see it, the admin tools are mostly for preventing problems in the future, not for "punishing" people or somehow "curing" past violations. In a dispute situation, I generally prefer to protect an article than block a user, since article protection is a "cleaner" way to quell an edit war than blocking is. In blocking WilliamJE, I hoped to prevent the continuation and escalation of the personal attacks that I was seeing.

On the theme of looking to the future, I don't see any value in dissecting the history of the contention over the Wirtland micronation article. That already appeared to be a dead issue at the time I issued the block. That article is (or at least was the last time I looked) in the same form that existed before this kerfuffle arose. The AFD was a non-event, and the fans of Wirtland can behave as if nothing happened. It's unlikely that Nyttend will try to redirect the article again (I strongly advise him not to do so), and if there's another AFD it will start off with a clean slate. --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your so wrong. The templated warning from Nyttend word for word- 'Let me be substantially firmer than I was before. You completely failed to observe that I never even edited the AFD, but you recklessly accused me of vandalism. You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page, but you accuse me of disrupting it by making edits without explanation. As WP:WIAPA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks, and you accused me of making a bad-faith nomination when I never made any nomination at all. Just read his edit summary of this edit[5]- Nominating for deletion. He issues a level 3 warning saying he never nominated anything for deletion. His edit history says that isn't true at all. Also the statement 'You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page is bogus also. I removed the AFD tags completely with this edit[6] He didn't give any rationale for a nominating for deletion see posts here[7] and here[8] or for his converting the page to a redirect in this edit[9] other than saying 'better idea yet'. His grounds for me making personal attacks in the warning are total bs.

As for your 'look into the situation' of what happened between Nyttend and me, you obviously missed all of the bs above. Then you wrote[10] me at my talk page - Edit attacks can be personal attacks Such as this one: [11] My edit summary- 'Take it ANI or resign as administrator' How many persons have said that isn't a personal attack this you issued it and you're still calling it 'inflammatory'?

As for your 'look into the situation' we next go to this edit[12] of yours- 'William: Another user created that AFD but failed to tag the article. All that Nyttend did was finish up the process that the other user had started. Your persistence on attacking an administrator for taking care of some of the grunt work required for the basic administration of Wikipedia is making you look bad'. I pointed out in this post[13] how you were wrong and what did you do next. Let's go to this edit[14]- ':I stand corrected on the history. My apologies.' Your looking into Nyttend's history was wrong and you admit it! I just showed

1- If you did look at Nyttend's warning before first posting to my talk page that you didn't examine what he wrote along with the warning at all or gave it any kind of close examination.

2- That you called something a personal attack that isn't.

3- Your defense of Nyttend where you didn't read the Wirtland page history correctly and then have to apologize for it.

And that's your action history before the day of the block. It's disgraceful. Then you hand down a block on me nobody has called correct. Further disgraceful behavior by an administrator. If you mishandle a situation 4 times you shouldn't be one....William 20:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is what discourages me—we have two world views, with almost nothing in common:

The world according to Nyttend:

I find a terrible article, one that does not belong here, yet has survived an AfD due to external influences. I decide to try to AfD it one more time, even while knowing that is likely to be a waste of time. Before I finish the AfD process, it occurs to me that there may be a better solution, I can change the article name to an appropriate redirect. Then William comes along, falsely accuses me of creating the AfD, refusing to accept facts even after I point out the diff showing it was created by another editor. When he has trouble restoring it, he accuses me of doing something to prevent the restoration. I politely ask him not to restore it but he goes ballistic, attacking me, and continuing to accuse me of things I have clearly pointed out did not happen.

To make matters worse, some admin (Sphilbrick) comes along and defends William, apparently expecting me to ignore the insults, attacks, and false accusations, even while William is trying to undo my efforts to improve the encyclopedia.

The world according to William:

My view is that admins think they are gods, immune from the rules. They run roughshod over ordinary editors, and if anyone dares to challenge them, they close ranks and protect each other. This is a perfect example. I see Nyttend planning to try to delete an article, there's the AfD template on the article, there's an edit summary from Nyttend announcing the intention to send it to AfD, and I go to AfD and there it is. I don't think it should be deleted, so I say so. Then Nyttend has the gall to claim he didn't send it to AfD. What? He said he was going to and there it is? Did it get there on its own? Then I see that the article has been converted into a redirect, so I try to restore it, but have trouble. This must the doing of that evil Nyttend so I call him on it, and he claims he didn't send it to AfD, and orders me not to restore it. Sorry, Nyttend, but admins don't get to unilaterally make the rules, so I call him on it and he gets pissy about it, then gets his friend Orlady to block me. Admin Sphilbrick, who claims to care about admin abuse, steps in, but won't listen to any of my complaints. No, all he can focus on is insisting that I agree to behave. I'm the one being abused, I'm the one blocked, and I'm supposed to change?

Sigh. I'm convinced both sides think I'm in the pocket of the other party.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've written at WP that you're a good administrator(Most admins I have no opinion one way or another. You have an idea of those who think of as bad. Another good admin- MilborneOne. There's 3 or so others I'd label that too but the names allude me.) despite some differences between you and I. That opinion is still valid. You're excellent at staying calm when chaos surrounds you and good at trying to get stuff calmed down or maintaining a calmness in a situation that could get chaotic. What I see you as is you don't like chaos and or nastiness. Nothing wrong with that, but my view is that they sometimes can't be avoided because unpopular messes need to be cleaned up not avoided because the chaos is never going to get calm till then....William 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your observation that I do not like chaos is spot on. Some people thrive on it, I do not. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll supply you a little calm. This is my last post on your talk page on the above topic....William 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Levier.JPG

Hey Sphilbrick - got your message about levier.JPG. It was something I spent five minutes working on six years ago. Sorry, but I don't have any recollection about it. Check out the OTRS ticket - I referenced it on the image page. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't expecting more, but wanted to ask. I've started the follow up process with the uploader.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jaspreet 'Jazim' Sharma

Yesterday you hid WP:COPYVIO revisions of this page. There is now another instance of the same in the article history. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

AllyD,  Done Thanks for reporting. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)