User talk:WGFinley/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Need advice

After explaining to him several times over the last few weeks that I don't find his messages helpful, and that as a party to edits and someone's who's himself been banned recently, he's not in a position to issue warnings around edits he's involved in, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)... persists on badgering. This is shortly after I asked him to stop the harassment. The edits of mine that he references were not tendentious nor POV, that I can see. The first, in Ofra was taken verbatim from a source already in the article, for balance. He modified it very slightly and I was fine with it. The second, in Palestinian exodus, was to tone down the edit already made by JJG, for form and neutrality. It was reverted and I didn't pursue it. I made no other edits since. My few comments on that talk page were courteous, short and concise. He's done this quite a few times already. Here, and here are examples where others also show dismay at his behavior. I think he's stepping way overboard into harassment and hounding. He seems to be looking for conflict. I don't want to report him to AE, though I think he's deserving of it right now. I know you're busy but any advice would help. Thanks in advance. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The first time you asked me to remove a template and I did. A second time you asked me to remove a template on some other person's user page and I did. One might note that editor was clearly just angry about me being the one to leave a notification about the discretionary sanctions as opposed to anything I actually said. Non-admins, including people involved in a dispute, routinely leave comments at people's pages warning them to stave off bad behavior and most of the time it occurs without incident. I left a similar warning on Nableezy's talk page at the same time I left the one on yours and JJG's without anyone spewing venom at me for it. Given the kind of irrelevant glut at AE the related case created, presumably causing several people to propose major restrictions on comments at AE cases, I doubt anyone would see me taking the initiative to warn people against continuing it as negative, even if my efforts were futile. Generally it is encouraged that editors warn another editor to stop behavior they find objectionable, as opposed to going right to an admin with it. Oh, and the reason I went to your talk page was to avoid drawing admin attention to your edits in the topic area like you just did.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Revisions/Mediation

Hello. I was recently in contact with AKG regarding my request for mediation on the Occidental Petroleum page. He says you are handling mediation now.

I invite you to review the talk pages on this matter. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but I have tried in good faith to follow the policies. I added material that I believe to be completely appropriate. I have been hit pretty hard by the other editors. One has admitted a potential COI in that the editor works for Occidental indirectly through another party. Yet another has written a number of articles about Vintage Petroleum, a subsidiary of Occidental yet claims absolutely no connection to the company. Others have not even contributed to the article and have automatically reverted edits and offered disparaging remarks about me without any specifics. I researched old, archived talk pages and saw a pattern of control over this material by a select group of editors that basically results in the partial or even complete deletion of material that is factually accurate and widely reported in major publications and hugely relevant and yet the editorial pattern is to retain unverifiable company generated slogans, outdated exploration and production facts-- barrels of oil and operations, etc) and industry awards that have no real meaning. It reads largely like a corporate annual report.

If I am wrong I will simply rethink this and try to become a better editor.

Best regards,

Cowboy128 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just took over first of the year, I need to get up to speed. My plan is to work it at least once a week, now that the holidays are over I should shave time to be by there this weekend. Bear with me and I'll take a look in a few days. --WGFinley (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at this now Cowboy and I had to reject the request as none of the others responded. Looking at the dispute and your edit history it seems you are pretty close to this issue and you have a single purpose account. While there is no rule against SPAs it is difficult to overcome objections by other editors that you are there with an axe to grind. As such you need to make sure the edits you make are backed up with solid reliable sources and are with proper weight within the article. Please take a look at these policies and essays and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about them. --WGFinley (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Cowboy128 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou post-AE

You asked me to let you know if this user continued the misbehavior, so I'm disappointed to have to report that he's inserting the same anti-Pelosi press releases as sources on Pelosi here (as well as repeatedly inserting RSN-rejected sources here and here etc. in order to push fringe views about abortion, using other advocacy sources as citations for facts here and passim, etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note about the issue with reliable sources. However, you need to tone it down a bit as well with demeanor, it seems the two of you have been going at it quite a bit and you need to keep it civil, some of your exchanges are not. --WGFinley (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try - it's frustrating dealing with people who aren't here to build an encyclopedia... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And he has promptly re-inserted the sources into Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication, the same article where inserting them got him brought to AE. Should I make another report? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No need, I have handled. --WGFinley (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now perhaps Pseudo-Richard and I can make some progress on these articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I posted a new comment since your latest comment in the JJG A/E thread, and I was wondering if you had considered it or not. I am not planning on getting in a back-and-fourth with you here, though I think the comment may have just gone unnoticed. -asad (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. So thanks for your recent participation at the Arbitration Enforcement requests board. I see you commented there in your administrative capacity recently, concerning a request that I just discovered yesterday. I finally had time to complete a very careful analysis of the matter earlier today, and was wondering whether you'd please take a look at that (link/permalink) before you post any final opinion there? I'd be grateful for the favor, as I spent several hours researching, and trying to present the situation fairly and in managable form. This same message is being posted to the talk page of every admin who expressed an opinion there, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response

Sorry, very busy week and I was out of town a few days. I took a look at the information both of you have provided. There is no disputing that JJG edits from his POV, if we banned everyone in I-P for that things would be marvelous as we could readily ban partisans on both sides, such as yourselves as well, and be done with it. I don't think we would make a very good encyclopedia that way though. Everyone has their bias, even me, and edits with some bias from their own POV, it's our job to collaborate with others to reduce bias wherever possible. There's a line on when bias becomes TE though and it's tough for me to describe. It is something more felt and is very subjective. I think everyone has a line in their head when someone goes from vigorously defending their POV to engaging in TE, it's not clear and obvious, I wish it were. It is usually characterized by repeated behaviors or those that thwart the collaborative process.

In the information Ohio submitted that's all content dispute stuff. I don't see much wrong other than the typical bickering in edit summaries instead of discussion on the talk page where it belongs. I looked at JJG's behavior on the '48 Exodus and to be honest I don't really see a problem other than really bad phrasing. There is constant bickering over the leads of most of these articles so that is of no surprise. Introducing the concept of "ethnic cleansing" is throwing a bomb into any article and is something I can attest to from some Armenia/Azerbaijan admin work lately. It got put it in from the Palestinian/Arab POV that the Israelis were conducting ethnic cleansing, you can't really expect those from the Israeli POV to NOT contest that and seek to balance out the equation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it is sourced, just like there's nothing wrong with the accusation there was as long as it is sourced. Looking at the talk page there the conversation seems productive with both sides trying to come up with a way that will properly present both views. That's what should be happening.

I know there were other diffs submitted in the complaint but we can't go along with the tit-for-tat nature the partisans want to insert into all of these reports. We look at what's submitted, cull what is useful and what we don't think is. There's some consensus on his belligerent edits and the flag nonsense that we was engaging in TE, we're trying to focus in on that consensus and get it wrapped up. I hadn't planned on doing anything with it until Tim and probably Ed care to comment again. It seems JJG is voluntarily staying away from ARBPIA areas at the moment so there's no urgent need to close that one. --WGFinley (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note regarding activities on srWiki

In considering User:LAz17's block I think it is relevant to note that the user has recently posted a thread on the Serbian Wikipedia with the title War on our people" (Rat na nas narod). It is, of course, chock-full of personal attacks leveled against others and myself ("greater-croatianists", "terrorists", "scum" etc.). The apparent purpose of the thread is to canvass Serbian Wikipedians into "counter-attacking" here on enWiki, as well as to have others lobby for his unblock. -- Director (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, this isn't the right venue, that action needs to be done on SR and not here. If this develops into some more documented case of canvassing on EN feel free to let me know on my talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well one cannot expect all forums on the internet can be monitored for his activities, but I think its obvious this user has been very active in more than one venue. Users appear to be popping-up "indoctrinated" with his opinions. Note that IJA, who just posted an unblock request, stated he talked to him on a forum [1]. Just recently User:Ganderoleg appeared out of nowhere after a one year absence to post four trolling posts, full of personal attacks, that mirror closely the offensive nonsense that is to be found at "War on our people": no.1 no.2 no.3 no.4.

I will note once again that the personal attacks to be found on that srWiki thread are simply appalling. I am very upset at being badmouthed by that user in such a manner as is both offensive and propagandistic in that it blatantly ignores reality. Its hard to be objective when one is presented with only one side of the story, and once one has developed preconceptions about an issue its even harder to participate fairly and productively. I fear this user's activities could generate more disruption in the form of typical nonsense Balkans conflicts. In my own (admittedly subjective) view, the user more than deserves a community ban.

P.s. I hope you don't mind I brought this here. Should I bring Gandoreleg's posts up on ANI? Or are you interested in taking action there? I (intend to) request that the user be sanctioned for his outbursts and that the personal attacks be removed. We've finally achieved something of a source-based consensus on those articles. -- Director (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I saw this post and feel that Direktor is doing slander. I will translate LAz17's post on the Serbian wikipedia for you, and you will see that Direktor is not truthful. His post translates as: I have to ask for some advice on how to approach a situation. On the english wikipedia there was this article about the partisans. Some pro-croat thug decided to make the article pro-croatian and anti-serbian. I have spent a lot of effort to fix that, but unfortunately that did not hlep much. It is clear that the pro-croat thugs do what they want in order to remove sources that I have put. My sources were good and they clearly showed that the Partisans were mainly a Serbian army. But that does not interest them, they are rewarded for removing information. They have castrated me there and I think that it is a big mistake that the english wikipedia is allowing and supporting their terrorism on the page. They are openly removing sources and are being rewarded for that. What should a normal person do in such a situation? If these vandalizers come to the serbian wikipedia do they also have full rights to ruin the article here too? So as we see, LAz17 was simply asking for advice on what to do in this situation. Keep in mind that he was unfairly banned by Todst. Todst admitted that he was unfair and unbanned LAz17. But, in that meantime LAz17 started sock-puppeting. While his intent was not bad, it is clear that he broke the rules and deserves punishment. However, unlike other socks he did not have bad intentions. After looking at the situation I feel that the situation is complicated and that the article needs a full revaluation. It is difficult though. LAz17 tried to discuss and have mediation on the article, but Direktor laughed that off, as he does with anything which is not inline with his opinion. If I can be of any more help for translation or for dispute resolution let me know. (Mike085 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).

You saw the post, which made you create an account (possibly WP:SOCK) to jump feet-first into something you probably shouldn't be a part of, come within a hair of violating no legal threats, and throw your hat into the ring ... not the wisest course of action really (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I, Mike, am confused with what you are saying. There is a significant problem, as a user who did not have bad intentions got permanently banned. I support his ban, but the problem is that this user's concerns are very real. Why do you not look into the issue, look into why the user was banned, then why was he unbanned, and why he got banned again. It's a complicated matter. (Mike085 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).

I ran the comments on SR through Google translate and it seems to me several folks are telling Laz he is going about it wrong. I don't see any off-wiki canvassing going on there. As far as our new friend claiming the socks weren't used maliciously I would state clearly, you are in error. Using a sock to evade a block is probably the most egregious of sock violations, again, go read WP:EVADE and stop pretending Laz didn't have more than several chances to change his behavior and avoid blocks. Judging by what he wrote on SR he still doesn't get it. --WGFinley (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

I'd like to ask a question about a recent AE case you have closed, i.e. the case of Tuscumbia.

Tuscumbia was topic banned about a year ago following an AE case with the following reason:

Tuscumbia: Your comments at [2], "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic", and at [3], "Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased", are likewise unacceptable.

Both: (i.e. Tuscumbia and one other editor) Entering into conflicts about either editors or sources on the basis of any ethnic, national or other background, rather than on the basis of their individual reliability or the strength of their arguments, is entirely at odds with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#BATTLE, as well as strongly morally objectionable, and is exactly the sort of misconduct that this remedy was intended to prevent. Therefore, if no administrator objects, I intend to ban Xebulon for three months and Tuscumbia for six months from editing the topic. Tuscumbia's ban is set to be longer because he has already been subject to a three months ban in 2010 for similar misconduct.([4])

The same editor, however, makes a similar statement soon after topic ban is over:

Do you even realize how biased your argument sounds? There are a few authors used for sources to reflect both sides of the conflicting data, yet you, as usually go on giving credibility to the historian of Armenian heritage who is more likely to write in favor of Armenian majority, than those three (of Persian, Jewish, Swedish, etc heritage) who have no affiliation to Azerbaijan and thus wouldn't fake the demographic information in favor of Azerbaijani majority, as you suggest. Again, I don't doubt that Bournoutian conducted research in the archives, but the evidence I presented above questions the data, hence the conflict in numbers and arguments. ([5])

As far as I am aware, WP rules haven't changed during 2011 and it is still not acceptable to criticize sources on the basis of the alleged ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are.

So after this long intro my question is why Tuscumbia's case was closed even without warning? I agree that evidence was somewhat stale (i.e. related to mid October), but the misconduct was such an impudent one (in the light of preceding topic ban) that once brought to the attention of the administrators, perhaps should not be ignored.

I think that the ability to enforce a civilized and argument-based dialogue is the most important virtue of WP and any attempt to misuse WP as a vehicle for ethnic conflict should be cut in roots. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an appeal. Where do you see me "criticizing" Armenian authors. All I did was compare (within the discussion of conflicting data) application of a source (written by an Armenian-American) by MarshallBagramyan and his selective dismissal of neutral (that is, Persian, Jewish, Swedish and American) authors who provided data conflicting with that of written by Marshall's source, where he favored the Armenian author's version over the other four. This is like favoring a Soviet authors over neutral authors in 1970s who would likely criticize and bash capitalism and human rights in the United States, when the whole world said quite the opposite.

The blocked user and sockmaster Xebulon was there to edit-war and drag established users into arbitration, just like your friends George Spurlin and Winterbliss, while the established users like you and MarshallBagramyan could act like observers. End result is Xebulon and I get sanctioned while Xebulon rests (he fullfilled his task) and I continue to edit in other non-AA2 related areas actually continuing my contribution to Wikipedia. Those accounts are used to "clear the path" from the enemy, so to speak, by edit-warring, provocation and dragging into arbitration, because the established accounts such as that of Marshall make author-bashing remarks ([6], [7], [8]) themselves eventually ending up being reported by administrators and indefinitely sanctioned for making derogatory statements about sources or their authors on the sole basis of their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion. So, my question is, if you're so "worried" and complaining about my comparison of an Armenian author and 4 neutral authors, why won't you complain about MarshallBagramyan as well, who continues to do the author-bashing even after he was put under sanction? Let's see you do that first.

By the way, Ashot, contirbutions by Winterbliss and George Spurlin sharply fell after WGFinley suggested a TBAN and requested to see their contributions in non-AA2 areas. Any ideas why the over-eager activity fell so fast? :) Tuscumbia (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The note above is yet another proof that Tuscumbia cannot accept that an Armenian author can be neutral (furthermore, he considers ethnic background of a person as a critical factor of neutrality), which means he deserves a special attention from admins and totally misunderstands why he has been topic banned.

As per weird allusions about me, I even don't want to spend my time to get into that. I have already explained my position here. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ashot, appealing a decision I made that referenced a lot of the material as stale with more stale information isn't likely to gain much traction. We can't be going back in time and review actions made and take action there. We have to stick to current and recent behavior otherwise our actions are merely punitive. Sanctions aren't designed to be punitive they're designed to prevent disruption. --WGFinley (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. And my question (please note that it is not an appeal, which means I simply want to understand the background logic) was not about punishing the editor (e.g. with a topic ban), but warning and explaining to prevent further misconduct.

Whatsoever, right today and right on this talkpage Tuscumbia clearly demonstrated that nothing has changed since then. He wrote:

Where do you see me "criticizing" Armenian authors. All I did was compare (within the discussion of conflicting data) application of a source (written by an Armenian-American) by MarshallBagramyan and his selective dismissal of neutral (that is, Persian, Jewish, Swedish and American) authors who provided data conflicting with that of written by Marshall's source...

Isn't this enough demonstration that he still judges of neutrality based on ethnicity of the authors and hence the issue is still due?-- Ashot  ^(talk) 15:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ashot, are you even reading what I wrote? What part is unclear to you? The part that the quote relates to an conflicting data discussion or the part that you don't seem to be an impartial editor to complain about the activity of one editor and completely turn a blind eye on the activity of another? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really get into that as the crux of my decision to close. My decision was mostly based on the standing of those that made the complaints (obvious SPAs) and that most of the behavior was too old to take action on. As to your question I don't see a problem with stating a source has a nationalist point of view, that happens many times in these cases. I think you are focusing on the phrasing instead of what the position is, here at Wikipedia we prefer reliable secondary sources as our best source of information. If someone points out an author has a nationalist point of view that is criticizing the author as such. --WGFinley (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but I'd like to ask for some further clarification. I didn't find in WP:SECONDARY that if a source is authored by a well-known scholar of a certain ethnic origin then it cannot be secondary. How can an author be discredited as nationalist only for being a representative of a certain ethnic group? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm no, because that would be found under WP:RELIABLE which I linked immediately before it. --WGFinley (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can read in WP:RELIABLE, the ethnic background is nowhere mentioned as criterion of reliability. I am editing WP for several years already, and your reference to that particular WP rule is somewhat surprising for me. I'd be grateful if you could further clarify your point: i.e. which is the rule that allows to discredit an author merely for being a representative of a certain ethnic group? - something that Tuscumbia once was topic banned for, something he continuously does afterwards, and something that for some reason is now justified by you. Please explain. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me to paste the whole guideline here? It goes into great depth about how scholarly sources are not preferred, secondary sources are. Reliable sources states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That is, the scholarly work of an author is frequently considered a primary source and not a secondary one, it leads you down the road of synthesis and original research which are not allowed. Also primary sources are frequently used to push fringe theories and give them more prominence in an article than they would otherwise merit. Presenting sources and discussing their applicability to the article is part of the process of editing on Wikipedia. One must be prepared to back up sources mentioned and defend it as a reliable source that can be used in the article. I'm not seeing your source being dismissed by your opponent for nationalistic reasons as much as I'm seeing you say that's what it's being dismissed. --WGFinley (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree with all of the first part (that is why for me ethnicity has never been a criterion of reliability, instead the scholarly authority of the source and its publisher are the key criteria), but probably we read different discussions or read them very differently. What I read is this one. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clearly looks like questioning of your source, which I stated you should expect when relying on a primary source. He/she further outlined other sources that are third party (what I just quoted for you in my last response) and thus less likely to have a biased point of view. That is fully consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --WGFinley (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How am I suppose to reach a consensus with someone who brashes aside every source as Armenian or Armenian influenced[9]. --George Spurlin (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that User:Tuscumbia is totally refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion about any subject. Evidence from the talk pages on Murovdag shows that well. I and User:George Spurlin have recently been cleared of suspicions of being socks. This begs the question of how the AE case against User:Tuscumbia should be re-filed. Winterbliss (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see Tuscumbia has successfully stonewalled the discussion and is refusing to reach consensus. We are exactly where we started a month ago. What would you suggest I do next? --George Spurlin (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have refrained from reverting the article, but I can't say that I have unlimited patience. What do you propose I do with Tuscumbia's stonewalling? --George Spurlin (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. --WGFinley (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AE case

You made the following statement on AE:

This one is completely frivolous and justifies a 90-day TBAN for SonofSetanta (talk · contribs), the diff provided even shows where information in the article was sourced. I am of half a mind to do 90-days simply for invoking the cabal but the bad faith behavior demonstrated here is enough for me. Unless there's a serious admin objection, since the filer has continued to violate 1RR since these were filed I intend to issue the TBAN.

The diff you are referring to was provided by me and shows how information I edited in with sources was removed. 4 reversions in one edit. I have not edited the Ulster Defence Regiment article since and feel that you are aiming your gun at the wrong person. The editor who did what you are accusing me of is Mo Aimh who is the subject of the complaint. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to keep your statements on AE. --WGFinley (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

IP edit on 1948 war article

An IP tried to insert the Nazi flag to the 1948 Palestine War article. The timing seems suspicious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

AE appeal of sorts Mo ainm~Talk 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious is it even an appeal or another attempt at getting AE sanctions on editors? Mo ainm~Talk 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"You need to keep your statements on AE. --WGFinley (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)" SonofSetanta (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mo ainm saved your appeal being dismissed outright, you can't appeal without notifying the admin that issued the ban. --WGFinley (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you replied to this topic in depth and not to mine says it all. You think I'm a troublemaker? That means none of my requests or complaints will be treated in good faith by you - considering you've already made your mind up. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It means when you have a pending AE case and that's what you are contacting me about the conversation should be there and not on my talk page so all the information is in one place for admins to review. --WGFinley (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My statement was already on the AE page. It was copied and pasted here for your attention. I felt, in the circumstances, that was the correct thing for me to do because I feel I am getting an unjustified reputation when I am just a new user. Mostly because it has alleged that I am a sock so many times that admins are believing it now without hesitation. I've been well gamed and I don't have the experience or knowledge to know how to fight it. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your account is a year and a half old, how are you a "new user"? --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been using it very often until recently. When I first joined I went to the UDR article and got my fingers burned and really felt violated and very angry. I stopped editing for some time after that and only worked up the courage to come back in a couple of months ago. I edited other articles instead of that one until I had the confidence to go and try again. That includes raising a couple of articles to B Class and producing a B Class article from scratch. This time I was determined not to be caught out on the UDR article but I'm not smart enough (it would seem) to be able to fight the gamers. I've got a name now and I'll never be able to lose it unless I actually do what they've been accusing me all along of doing: that is creating a sock account. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read your report here I noticed that you used the incorrect link to illustrated the offending action. I believe this is the link you need. Regards, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks for catching my mistake. --WGFinley (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lima

Is Esoglou the same as Lima? 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, after some socking it appears the user was allowed a WP:CLEANSTART.[10] --WGFinley (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, WGFinley. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

slide-rule article external-link

I recently requested mediation in regard to Dr.K having deleted the link to my webpage in the external-links section of the slide-rule article. You rejected the request for mediation on the grounds that nobody except myself wanted to participate in mediation. Does this mean that I can go ahead and include the link? Is this like a court case where I win automatically if the other person doesn't show up?

You said that I should be aware of the Wikipedia policy against self-promotion. That doesn't really make any sense to me. As I stated in my argument: every link in every external-links section promotes somebody's webpage. What is different about my webpage, as compared to anybody else's? The self-promotion warning page that you directed me to mostly frowns on frivolous self-promotion, such as links to personal pages. That is not the case here. My program took over a month to write --- it is not so trivial that anybody could do the same with a day's effort --- there are no other programs available that generate both CNC gcode and PostScript for slide-rule images. Having this software available is a huge step forward for anybody trying to build a slide-rule. I really don't understand why there is any question at all about providing the link --- it obviously belongs in the slide-rule external-links section --- you've got other links in there to webpages that do seem to be the work of one day by somebody who barely knew the rudiments of the subject but yet wanted to present himself as a great expert.

All in all, I'm really unimpressed by Wikipedia. I think that your editors are mostly people who don't know anything about any subject, but who get a thrill out of pretending to be great experts and bullying people like me. Wikipedia is hardly alone though. On the comp.lang forums, there are abundant trolls who have told me that my novice package "sucks." It is not just myself who gets attacked either. I have seen HLA get denounced similarly by self-proclaimed assembly-language experts, and HLA is a really big development system that must have taken many years to write. The whole situation with the internet reminds me of the "last man" that we were warned about in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" --- who makes small of everything and believes in nothing, except the wisdom of the crowd. Hugh Aguilar (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Two strange incidents and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Granateple (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On tendentious editing as continuing to make edits like that one ...

The above message title is text you posted on my talk page. I'd like to advise you to educate yourself about Italian Renaissance and medieval history before deciding to throw accusations as the one in this message title.--71.178.106.120 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The notice was given to you in an administrative fashion, admins don't get involved in content disputes to maintain neutrality and remain WP:UNINVOLVED. The warning wasn't regarding your content, it was regarding your behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Take care about your own behaviour. My behaviour is strictly academic. You are the one who support forgeries therefore you are very involved, not neutral at all!--71.178.106.120 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone35 and your reference to WP:CIR

Hey WGF. Thank you for your work last month in replying to Someone35 regarding his concerns about his topic ban and related topics. I have a couple of concerns that I wanted to mention here.

First, WP:COMPETENCY. This essay specifically states that "it is usually not appropriate" to tell an editor that the essay applies to them. I'm not sure if there was an unusual situation that demanded it in this instance, but in general it's best to follow the guidance in the essay that you're citing!

Secondly, you referred to that essay because you felt that there was "continued insistence of no wrongdoing in the face of ample evidence" that made the essay relevant. However, the implication of any reference to WP:COMPETENCY is that what may be required is an indefinite block. Although I agree that Someone35's excuses and statements aren't especially credible, I do not feel it's reasonable to imply an indef block is required just because he doesn't agree with your point of view. Indef blocks are for serious disruption, or for editors who clearly incapable of editing constructively. They are not for editors who merely happen not to agree with how topic bans should be applied or how their actions are viewed by administrators.

I do have some more general concerns about AE and decisions that seem overly harsh, and indeed I worry that there might be a touch of "I was harsh on Nableezy and got lots of criticism, so now I should be harsh on someone from 'the other side' to balance it out". However, that's quite separate to the concerns I outline above, and overall the community seems rather supportive of the current approach taken at AE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I only use a reference to that essay in the gravest of circumstances, and yes, indefinite block is what I had on my mind. Someon35 needs to accept the ban, he doesn't seem to want to as he's violated the ban multiple times. He could appeal the ban, but he never has and given his repeated violation of the ban since it was instituted I think he would have a difficult time appealing it but he still could. With the ban in place he doesn't have a choice, he was given a chance with a mentor after his last TBAN and went right back to what he was doing and that triggered the ban. If he doesn't follow the terms of the ban he will be blocked, up to and including indefinite if that's what is required to prevent further disruption in WP:ARBPIA articles.

As far as your reference to bias on my part I am strict across the board and don't favor one side over the other. If you go back and look at the ban I think you will find Ed had recommended an indefinite TBAN for him where I gave him a year. This is the way AE works, everybody sees it a different way, sometimes people think I go too light, sometimes too harsh, it's endemic in the process and a part of reaching consensus as admins. --WGFinley (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues with multiple editors

During discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article different editors have been subjecting me to personal attacks. One editor just called on other editors to "shun" me. Now another is rejecting my calls for going to DRN because they wants to have me topic-banned. All of this has arisen because of several disputes, but most notably it has arisen because of my recent insistence on the talk page against creating an "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" category and adding it to the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. One more editor just took the step of moving the section on antisemitism in the conspiracy theories article and placing it prominently above every section but terminology, meaning antisemitism is mentioned before the history of the theories or what the main theories involve. Given that this includes numerous editors I am not sure how to deal with it. I am not particlarly interested in taking this to AE, let alone filing four or more separate AE requests, but they will probably all step in on an AE request against me to insist on sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in production week for a play this week so I don't have much time, particularly when there aren't any diffs submitted or where the conversation is taking place at for me to quickly give you my thoughts. --WGFinley (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided to file an AE request with regards to one of the editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be the best place for it. BTW, I found your conduct on Golan Heights, working with others to fairly resolve the dispute, to be exceptional. --WGFinley (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Hello WgFinley. Could I ask you, please, to lift my topic ban related to this report? I was already inactive from all related discussions for more than 2 weeks before you topic banned me, so it can hardly be considered preventive of anything, but rather purely punitive. Beside, in all discussions between us afterwords when I tried to understand the reasons of the ban, you never assumed any good-faith to me, as per policy recomendations, but you rather allways tried to find more and more excuses for the ban. Recapitulating, you topic banned me mainly for Wikipedia:TE which is quite absurd as I didn´t edited the article in question, and then you further backed your action with Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP which is kind of disputable as I never doubled any thread but they were diffent complains. Even if we suppose that forumshop accusation is right, I still can´t see how can be worth 6 months ban...

You may not be aware of, but I have been quite productive and policy following editor in the area, and because of one dispute, in which I actually limited myself to discuss, I am being deprived of editing for half a year. If you want to know, I am really not very enthusiastic in further digging the same issue that got me into the dispute (as I already had removed myself 2 weeks before your late ban), so I see no reasons for you to assume in antecipation any problematic behaviour on my behalve. Also, I am very much aware that any minor action of mine that may need any admin attention will be immediatelly brought to your or any other admin attention as those users will certainly make it sure that it does, so I see no reason for you to assume that I could be anyhow problematic in the future and passing unoteced. What I mean is that you could really give me the benefit of a doubt at least one time, as the hole issuse is pretty much behind our backs now, and any tone of discontent from my side that may have not worked in my favour when asking for a ban lift in the past is now gone, so I really want to continue contributing constructively on WP. FkpCascais (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just the closing admin, you should make your ban appeal at WP:AE, there was a consensus there to ban you and really no edits since you were banned I can't see lifting it on my own. Topic bans are definitely preventative: preventative of further disturbance in a heated topic area subject to sanction, hence ARBCOM adopting them. Its purpose is to allow you to edit elsewhere in Wikipedia while being banned from an area you have caused disturbances in. --WGFinley (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hey Wgfinley! There seems to be a small dispute that has come to the Mediation Committee (the request for mediation here). I would like to inquire if there is any possibility I could assist in this mediation, if accepted. I am considering applying to join the Mediation Committee and I read somewhere that a way to demonstrate experience in dispute resolution was to assist in an actual MedCom case.

If I can be of help in anyway, please ping me back! Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had to reject that case. I would definitely recommend The Mediation Cabal as a good place to start helping with mediation. We frequently select new MEDCOM members from their ranks. --WGFinley (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate

Noted this is being lobbied in various venues, this one is closed. --WGFinley (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, could you take a look at these talk page threads? That is only the first one of many threads he has been involved in, but The Devil's Advocate, and editor you sanctioned back in November with a topic ban on all 9/11 articles, has been tenditiously and consistantly POV pushing ever since he came back from the ban. I think some action is warranted, so you take a look and see? You were the closing administrator in his last case, so I figured I'd bring this to you. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Wgfinley...you seem to be a reasonable sort...but I don't understand at all why you supported an indefinite topic ban on Tom harrison and only 30 days on the fellow mentioned above.MONGO 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC) You gave The Devils Advocate (TDA) a 30 day topic ban yet supported a indefinite ban on Tom Harrison...therefore, all TDA had to do was wait out his topic ban, but you put Tom Harrison in a position whereby he would be forced to seek a lift of the ban, either via a direct appeal to the three admins involved or by an appeal to arbcom enforcement board directly. Now, Timotheus Canens has stated that since one of the involved admins has handed in his tools and apparently retired, the only way Harrison can get the ban lifted is via a direct appeal to the board...I've worked with Harrison for some time on these articles and I assure you he would never ask for clemency on this matter...you guys have eliminated one of the most constructive contributors to these difficult pages with your overzealous approach.--MONGO 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Two cases are not even remotely similar. While TDA can get on the nerves of people and was blocked for 30 days for WP:TE what Tom Harrison did is, as I said, "beyond the pale" and was a clear consensus ban until the user can demonstrate contributions made harmoniously in other areas. --WGFinley (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC) He has been doing that for many years in difficult topic areas, including this one. I'm not here to plead with you, I'm here to tell you that your decision was preposterous. That you would fail to realize the real difference between Tom the editor who must ask for clemency and TDA who only had to wait out the 30 days indicates you're too biased or ignorant of the issues to render a fair assessment here. You say you're open to recall...what criteria is that under?--MONGO 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I partially agree with Wgfinley in that the situations are very different. In one case, you have an editor with 8 years of service and a clean record show a momentary lapse of judgement (3 edits). In the other case, you have an editor returning from a 30 day ban for WP:TE and immediately and repeatedly (dozens of edits) resuming the tenditious behavior that got him topic-banned in the first place. Which is worse? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Not to mention that it's usually the POV pushers that are the ones that plead for clemency, but it is extremely unlikely that Tom is going to do so...as I summed up here--MONGO 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC) There is a long history of IP's and trolls at the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article trying to add reference to Jewish/Israel involvement in the 9/11 attacks...a quick check of the talkpage archives demonstrates this...like here and two other examples just in that one archive alone...that Tom Harrison was trying to add about the history of such issues in a NPOV manner seems to have escaped the involved admins in this matter. It's not new...all Tom was trying to do was put it into context.--MONGO 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I issued TDA's TBAN as closing a case based on a consensus of admins on WP:AE. If you believe his behavior has resumed and merits further consideration I would suggest making a report at WP:AE and cite your evidence. I will be happy to review it then along with other admins. --WGFinley (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Hum..that would be retalitory on my part...so it would have to be a third party...unlike TDA, I don't do retaliation reporting.--MONGO 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC) How would filing an AE Case be retaliatory but going directly to an admin would not? AE is clearly the proper place for this request to be made. --WGFinley (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC) The scope of this discussion is why were giving a 30 TBAN to one guy yet an indefinite ban to the other, when the report by the 30 day banned editor was done as a means of retaliation. You may think Tom Harrison's edits were problematic enough to reach the conclusion you did, but myself and a few others involved (the case was closed before I even saw it under discussion, had I seen it, I would have chimed in then) believe that your reaction is exceptionally excessive. The situation of Harrison's topic ban was based on your opinion...that is why I am here...I do not expect to ask other admins to get involved and start some kind of infighting issue, nor am I seeking anything to have TDA re-banned unless he continues to be disruptive...and even then, as I explained, I won't file the complaint there, but instead let someone else bothered by it enough to do it, as some editor named Jorgette did the first time. The issue with the indefinite TBAN is that Harrison apparently must apply for clemency, whereby the 30 TBAN was just a matter of allowing the ban to expire. Given the 7 plus years and many thousands of edits to this difficult topic material Harrison has made and that he has never been blocked or topic banned before anywhere, even a first time (if this is even the case) offense deserves some latitude. Do you really think that he's going to disappoint you again...an indefinite ban is generally reserved for egregious POV pushers, trolls and repeat offenders.--MONGO 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Two other uninvolved admins in addition to myself were of the opinion that ban was merited. This diff reads like an ADL press release, this diff cites PublicEye with an openly stated left agenda and this diff makes a blanket statement "like all conspiracy theories" with a "For Dummies" source that I hardly think qualifies as a reliable source in this topic area. These are blatant and obvious POV pushing edits and regardless of how long one has edited, blatant tendentious editing like that does not belong in this content area. There are enough problems as it is with the other side bringing in endless poorly sourced claims, the response to that is to challenge the sources, not respond with similarly unreliable sources pushing a POV. Since I don't allow for third party appeal of bans I have concluded my explanation here. He is free to appeal his ban at any time on WP:AE which is where it belongs as there was a consensus of admins to ban him, not just me. Just as TDA was banned by me and that ban was upheld by a consensus of admins. --WGFinley (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC) We are not arguing to lift it right now - we are arguing the ban is excessive, which it is. Tom has made thousands of contributions to that subject and you topic ban him indefinitely because of a couple ones you think are bad. That doesn't match up. Tom has to ask for clemency and wade through the likely WikiStorm that will accompany it. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure it would be worth it to spend weeks on that. We are simply asking for a 30-day ban - not an indefinite ban, which is ridiculous for a first-time offender with 8 years of editing behind him - so as to avoid such a massive dispute and save Tom and everyone else valuable time they could use to edit. I think an indefinite ban is, quite frankly, illogical given the situation and experience of the editor. The best solution, if you want a ban, is a temporary 'cool-down' ban - not an indefinite ban. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC) One last time, I don't honor 3rd party requests for bans to be lifted, the user in question needs to make the request. As far as your continued arguments about 8 years of editing to me that only worsens your position. Someone who has edited for 8 years knows full well those edits are completely unacceptable and shouldn't be made. "Cool down" bans are not allowed, it's a policy that carries over from the "not punitive" purpose of the blocking policy. They are intended to prevent further disruption of the topic area. It seems you are making a claim there should be some back door way for him to get the ban reduced, there isn't one. Arbcom has ruled that any admin who does so is subject to de-sysopping. The request has to go to WP:AE or another board. --WGFinley (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC) And as I pointed out at AE talk, there was no evidence that the conduct extended beyond this single article. A 30 day article ban would have been more than sufficient. Why you went for the nuclear option is beyond me, and had there been more discussion before the ban was imposed, the subsequent sh*t storm could have been avoided. In fact, the sanction is more disruptive than those 3 edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Further discussion is not merited when you have clearly tendentious edits like that, they're blatant. That's why it was indefinite and that's why it was closed in short order. --WGFinley (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I will say that a rewording of the information was in order, for example this diff...I would have changed "9/11 conspiracy theories, like all conspiracy theories, have their origin in hatred and fear of secret societies, and hatred and fear of Jews." to "Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories had an origination from anti-Semitic propaganda, or due to a hatred and fear of secret societies".....the "For Dummies" series of books are actually generally well reviewed and fairly authoritive, while they are certainly not considered scholarly by any standard, I've surely seen far whose sources, even in featured articles...I get the impression you think Tom was deliberately trying to do something wrong here...I suppose that would explain the type of TBAN...the type of TBAN generally reserved for trolls, POV pushers and wiki-anarchists...having worked off and on with Tom for many years, I highly doubt he vapor-locked here...oh well.--MONGO 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Was it worth it? Was implementing a complete and indefinite topic ban really worth losing two editors over? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I am not surprised by Tom's post here...I know that WGFinley doesn't "know" Tom, but I called it right for a change...so in effect, he's perma-banned...meanwhile, the retributive one is digging holes for others...here..no takers yet...and more trouble here!...anyway, this is my last comment here so all the best.--MONGO 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) You keep bringing in what TDA has done or is doing in reference to this TBAN and it has nothing to do with anything. What TDA says various places has nothing to do with the diffs in question. Also, using a "For Dummies" book as the source for a statement of that magnitude (i.e. hate of Jews is the origin of all conspiracy theories) is plainly unacceptable. There are also three diffs I referenced and not just one. So again, last time here, I'm thoroughly confident that Tom has the ability to ask to have the terms of the ban changed, he can do so. --WGFinley (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm

It seems a little troll wandered on to my user page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So you know, another admin already commented about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was being all thespian the past week solid. --WGFinley (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)