User talk:WGFinley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:59, 8 April 2012 editWGFinley (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,088 editsm →9/11 AE case: gr← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:26, 9 April 2012 edit undoThe Devil's Advocate (talk \| contribs)19,695 edits →9/11 AE case Next edit →
Line 217:		Line 217:
	::Asking the admins involved in the case to explain their reasons for the action is not forum shopping, they may each have unique reasons or simply be more willing to respond, and the only mention of "forum shopping" was from DHeyward who claimed that my suggestion of taking the entire content dispute to mediation was forum-shopping a sanction even though sanctions are not intended as the result of a mediation case.--] (]) 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)		::Asking the admins involved in the case to explain their reasons for the action is not forum shopping, they may each have unique reasons or simply be more willing to respond, and the only mention of "forum shopping" was from DHeyward who claimed that my suggestion of taking the entire content dispute to mediation was forum-shopping a sanction even though sanctions are not intended as the result of a mediation case.--] (]) 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Let me make myself clear, one last try at least. Either accept the decision and move on or file your appeal. Continued pleas here or to other admins is ] and will result in you being blocked. --] (]) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)		:::Let me make myself clear, one last try at least. Either accept the decision and move on or file your appeal. Continued pleas here or to other admins is ] and will result in you being blocked. --] (]) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
			::::How am I supposed to appeal if none of the admins involved are willing to say what in a 5,500 word case served as the basis of their decision? What assurances am I supposed to give or arguments am I supposed to refute if I don't know what specific behavioral issues you were looking at?--] (]) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:26, 9 April 2012

My Email Rules

Due to emails I get related to Admin or Medcom duties you need to know if you choose to email me using this link or by using the email user function my rules are as follows:

I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki.
If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you do not have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so.
Whether you follow my email rules is up to you but be aware I may refuse to engage in the use of email with you if you refuse to follow them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.
— Thomas Jefferson

Appeal

Hello. It’s been nearly 9 weeks since the sanction and I’d like to ask for a reprieve or pardon based on the following considerations.

1. Since the sanction I’ve done a lot of content work in the article space, focusing on military history, though I’ve also expanded or created articles on subjects as varied as orthopedics, archeology, logistics, weapon systems and sports personalities. See Contributions

2. I’ve made good use of article talk pages in an effort to work collaboratively. On one occasion, this effort bore fruit and rectified a technical inaccuracy and in another, it facilitated a successful compromise. See for example and as well as See also this where I made use of talk pages before adding content.

3. In addition, I acknowledge less than stellar behavior in the actions which led to the sanction. My use of the talk pages was belated and should have been contemporaneous given the controversial nature of the edit. In addition, the usage of the flag icon was in poor taste and in hindsight, should have been dispensed with. I did not act collaboratively and should have known better.

4. I give you my solemn promise that the events that led up to the imposition of the sanction will not be repeated. This will be ensured by a promise to make better use of talk pages when making substantive edits and a good-faith effort to work collaboratively in the topic area.

5. I have a lot to offer in the topic area, especially in the field of Israeli military history and geography. I think that my contributions during the period of the sanction demonstrate that I am not here to indoctrinate but rather to educate and edit in a neutral dispassionate manner. If you grant my appeal, I will strive to do just that with the understanding that my edits (at least for the next few months) will be subject to much scrutiny and that will further ensure compliance.

6. I am also willing to undergo a period of probation (the duration of which to be decided by you) whereby if you feel that I am out of line, you can re-impose the sanction unilaterally and I will accept it without question.

I hope that you will look favorably on this application and believe me when I tell you that I am sincere in my desire to edit neutrally, collaboratively and in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy.

Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Given your contributions without incident elsewhere since the TBAN I will lift the ARBPIA ban with the understanding any future violation would result in reinstatement of the indefinite ARBPIA ban and wouldn't be eligible for reconsideration for a much longer time than this one. Please acknowledge your consent below and I will lift it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

TBAN lifted, don't disappoint. --WGFinley (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

self-block?

Good afternoon,
I saw your comment on "Drowning is generally a bad idea," and would like to request that you please block me from editing from work for two weeks. By blocking me from editing "from work" what I mean is that I'd like you to please block this IP address, regardless of whether I log in or not (that is, "blocking edits by logged-in users" enabled, or "Block anonymous users only" disabled), but with autoblock disabled (so that if I test to verify that the block still works after I log-in, I won't be blocked at home). Please note, in case it is relevant to your criteria for issuing self-blocks, that I already asked one of your colleagues and received no response.
Thanks.
68.55.112.31 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocking an IP is problematic because IP addresses are sometimes shared or can be dynamic. It could inadvertently block someone else and since it would be a block with or without logging in it would leave them with little recourse. If you want to email me privately some more information so I have some confidence you are the only one using that IP I might be willing to consider it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on your email request granted. I will be forced to remove the block if any users from that IP come forward as being unable to use their accounts. Best of luck. --WGFinley (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Hi, regarding the dispute Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Vito Roberto Palazzolo. How long do we need to wait before any serious complaints are filed? Isn't it about time to remove the POV template? I don't know what the rules are in this case, but it seems to me that we cannot maintain this template forever. Sorry to bring this up, but some action seems to be necessary. Kind regards. - DonCalo (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I have closed the case. --WGFinley (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

Thank God you're back. AE has grown substantially during your absence (now at 342 kbytes). I did reply to you about the 500-edit proposal for Nagorno-Karabakh. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help out Ed. If you want to discuss that any more here, in case I'm missing something, feel free. --WGFinley (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

AE case

In summary WP:HOLES, WP:STICK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest you thoroughly look over my comment there and the diffs presented about the warnings section. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC) You realize how pretentious that sounds right? --WGFinley (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I made a ton of comments on AE today and you comment all over AE where's "there"? What warnings section? Everyone here whether they have a mop or not volunteers their time, your statements sounds like a directive, I would work on that. --WGFinley (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, for not being specific. I am talking about the MONGO case at the top of the page. You commented there about me having "issues" in the topic area and I was suggesting you read over the comment I left on that case to get a little context on the main thing being brought up there. The reason I was saying "thoroughly", since I think that is what gave you that perception of my tone, is because it is four paragraphs long and includes a lot of evidence. A thorough reading would probably be necessary to fully understand the context of the situation since it is rather complicated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Now see, that's what I'm getting at with pretentious. You're assuming I didn't read your missive, that's not true. You realize you are coming to harangue the only admin thus far who has said a TBAN is a bit too much for you? Might want to stop by Wiktionary: don't look a gift horse in the mouth. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Well then, can you tell me what I see as the inappropriate behavior there? You don't have to say you agree, but just sum up what you think I was saying was wrong. I would prefer to have some assurance that you understand the situation in this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC) One of my other objections to your comment at the case is that you are accusing me of battleground behavior, which simply does not apply. None of the things WP:BATTLE mentions are evidenced by my actions. I am not one for grudges or prejudice. The ideological battles of this topic area don't particularly interest me. Just because I recognize there is a battleground atmosphere in the topic area does not mean I am contributing to it by making such an observation. Even in the toxic environment these editors have created I have always tried to reach a compromise position with them. That is the opposite of battleground behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC) WP:HOLES? --WGFinley (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Can you demonstrate in any way that I have failed to seek compromise in this topic area?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Can you explain in any way why you are here, on my wall, demanding explanations when I am the only admin who has said you haven't done anything to deserve a TBAN? You are doing little else than make me think I was wrong and they are right about you and your behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC) You are right to say I haven't done anything to deserve a TBAN and I appreciate that you recognize this, but that doesn't mean I accept your other accusations. Per WP:BATTLE we are "expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation." Asking you to explain why you think I have failed to adhere to that standard is not indicative of a problem with my behavior. People typically don't like being accused of things without there being an explanation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC) I am not going to parrot back information in the report to you. There are numerous citations by several editors showing clear instances where you have not reformed your WP:TE habits and are happy to edit war away with people. I was of the opinion they were a bit too harsh and you needed a chance to work on it still. However, your comments here make it clear to me you do not possess the perspective required to edit in this space. You show a complete lack of any regard for the position of others, if you are not fully supported 100% in your positions you nag people as you are right now to me. I asked you a few times to drop this but you persisted, you've left me with no choice but to change my position. --WGFinley (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Battleground behavior and tendentious editing are inherently different conduct issues. One implies a lack of desire for compromise, the other just implies an editor is biased and edits in a biased manner. You suggested an admonishment for "battleground behavior", not tendentious editing. Changing your conduct objection and pushing for a topic ban because I kept asking for an explanation of the initial conduct objection does not inspire much confidence. I don't expect 100% support, but I do expect people to provide a clear explanation and that is all I have asked of you here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC) They aren't "inherently different" they are frequently part and parcel of each other. That is one of the symptoms of an editor who is displaying battleground behavior is to tendentiously edit articles. Any assertion otherwise is splitting hairs. Based on your repeated requests I have changed my position, you win. --WGFinley (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In summary WP:HOLES, WP:STICK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I suggest you thoroughly look over my comment there and the diffs presented about the warnings section. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You realize how pretentious that sounds right? --WGFinley (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a ton of comments on AE today and you comment all over AE where's "there"?
What warnings section?
Everyone here whether they have a mop or not volunteers their time, your statements sounds like a directive, I would work on that. --WGFinley (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, for not being specific. I am talking about the MONGO case at the top of the page. You commented there about me having "issues" in the topic area and I was suggesting you read over the comment I left on that case to get a little context on the main thing being brought up there. The reason I was saying "thoroughly", since I think that is what gave you that perception of my tone, is because it is four paragraphs long and includes a lot of evidence. A thorough reading would probably be necessary to fully understand the context of the situation since it is rather complicated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Now see, that's what I'm getting at with pretentious. You're assuming I didn't read your missive, that's not true. You realize you are coming to harangue the only admin thus far who has said a TBAN is a bit too much for you? Might want to stop by Wiktionary: don't look a gift horse in the mouth. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then, can you tell me what I see as the inappropriate behavior there? You don't have to say you agree, but just sum up what you think I was saying was wrong. I would prefer to have some assurance that you understand the situation in this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One of my other objections to your comment at the case is that you are accusing me of battleground behavior, which simply does not apply. None of the things WP:BATTLE mentions are evidenced by my actions. I am not one for grudges or prejudice. The ideological battles of this topic area don't particularly interest me. Just because I recognize there is a battleground atmosphere in the topic area does not mean I am contributing to it by making such an observation. Even in the toxic environment these editors have created I have always tried to reach a compromise position with them. That is the opposite of battleground behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOLES? --WGFinley (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate in any way that I have failed to seek compromise in this topic area?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain in any way why you are here, on my wall, demanding explanations when I am the only admin who has said you haven't done anything to deserve a TBAN? You are doing little else than make me think I was wrong and they are right about you and your behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right to say I haven't done anything to deserve a TBAN and I appreciate that you recognize this, but that doesn't mean I accept your other accusations. Per WP:BATTLE we are "expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation." Asking you to explain why you think I have failed to adhere to that standard is not indicative of a problem with my behavior. People typically don't like being accused of things without there being an explanation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to parrot back information in the report to you. There are numerous citations by several editors showing clear instances where you have not reformed your WP:TE habits and are happy to edit war away with people. I was of the opinion they were a bit too harsh and you needed a chance to work on it still. However, your comments here make it clear to me you do not possess the perspective required to edit in this space. You show a complete lack of any regard for the position of others, if you are not fully supported 100% in your positions you nag people as you are right now to me. I asked you a few times to drop this but you persisted, you've left me with no choice but to change my position. --WGFinley (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Battleground behavior and tendentious editing are inherently different conduct issues. One implies a lack of desire for compromise, the other just implies an editor is biased and edits in a biased manner. You suggested an admonishment for "battleground behavior", not tendentious editing. Changing your conduct objection and pushing for a topic ban because I kept asking for an explanation of the initial conduct objection does not inspire much confidence. I don't expect 100% support, but I do expect people to provide a clear explanation and that is all I have asked of you here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

They aren't "inherently different" they are frequently part and parcel of each other. That is one of the symptoms of an editor who is displaying battleground behavior is to tendentiously edit articles. Any assertion otherwise is splitting hairs. Based on your repeated requests I have changed my position, you win. --WGFinley (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia Block

Hi Wgfinley, I've responded to your message at your comments on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Russavia. The Helpful One 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Critical Race Theory

Hi WGF - don't know if you saw my comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Critical Race Theory#Reason for rejection - I'm not comfortable having this rejection hung on my declining something that is not a mediation matter in the first place - and anyway, I've been away from that article for weeks. Would appreciate it if you can reconsider the reason given for rejection - the way it is now doesn't seem fair to me and I think it gives the wrong message to the filer. Thanks Tvoz/talk 02:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The filing party listed you as a participant and you refused to participate. That's your right and there's nothing hanging over you per se. Mediation is a voluntary process, if you don't wish to participate in it then you don't. However, the paragraph you wrote about not wishing to participate is the reason for the rejection of the case. --WGFinley (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me there were better reasons to reject the request, namely there were no issues presented that mediation is appropriate for - this was a complaint about alleged behavior. I declined to participate because I have not been a participant in anything there for several weeks, so am not an involved party - I don't like the implication that declining to participate in a mediation suggests a refusal to cooperate in resolving a dispute. That's not the case here, is not fair to me, and I think, again, that the wrong message is being given to the filer who obviously did not get what mediation is for. And if he was talking about the content disputes that had been discussed weeks ago, there were many more editors involved than the three (plus an IP) that he mentioned. Tvoz/talk 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I will modify the closure wording some, I hope you will find it acceptable. --WGFinley (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry for being so sensitive on this. I appreciate the addition. Cheers Tvoz/talk 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia AE

Hi, Wgfinley. Reharding your post at AE: apparently you have missed some points from the discussion, made by other admins.

T. Canens wrote that "As it is not clear how much of Russavia's block log was tainted by WP:EEML, the history of blocks prior of that case is of somewhat limited value, in my opinion."
Russavia claimed that his "7 blocks are what T. Canens has called "EEML tainted"."
Elen of the Roads said on March 30: Russavia appears to have asked User:Thehelpfulone to block him for three days
Thehelpfulone has confirmed recently that he blocked Russavia because "Russavia asked to be blocked so that he would not be tempted to respond and say something stupid, that could ultimately cause more drama than already exists."
Russavia acknowledged his guilt that he acted wrong with i-bans: "I was wrong to have reverted Marek"
Russavia promised at his statement at AE he will not revert the editors who contact him despite i-bans and to report any future i-ban violation to an uninvolved admin and asked Edjohnston if he could point out such violations to him to which Edjohnston agreed

Please take all this into account. Nanobear (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I asked Helpful to chime in on the block I doubt that I missed it. I see Tim's opinions regarding the block history, even if I were to agree with throwing out the EEML related ones it leaves the most recent ones where he was blocked for violating an IBAN. At a certain point you are accountable not for what you say but what you do. He has shown on multiple occasions now that he will baltantly violate an IBAN as it suits him, there's no assurance it won't happen again. When that's the case long-term blocks are the only tool left to prevent the disruption as chances to allow the person to edit have clearly failed. --WGFinley (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:68.55.112.31

Hi, I just saw your block of the anon, but couldn't see a block request. Did you interpret the 'this is a work computer' notice as a block request, or am I overlooking something else? Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I am. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Yeah I don't often block anons like that but based on information I gathered I'm comfortable with allowing the self-block. Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

United States Education Program: Wiki-Project Management -- Interview Request

Hello User:Wgfinley,

I am a student of Michigan State University working under Dr. Obar on an exploration of the Misplaced Pages adminship process. Thank you for volunteering to be a part of our project; we are glad that you have expressed interest in participating in our interviews of Misplaced Pages admins. I apologize for the lateness of this message, but if you are still willing to join in our work, please email me using Misplaced Pages's email function so that we can contact you formally.

Vert3x (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:IBAN policy

Hi, the view that Volunteer Marek's posting of a note on a DYK nomiation and commenting at an AfD is a violation of WP:IBAN is contrary to all earlier understanding of what is permitted after a clarification related to a previous AE report. This understanding was demonstrated by the participation by those under a mutual iBan including VM in a subsequent AfD. To state VM's note to the DYK page and AfD is now a violation when participation in an earlier AfD was perfectly okay seems to be rather unfair. --Nug (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wgfinley, I'd just like to say that I support your interpretation of events. 2 years of fighting between these editors (and them with others), has not been to WP's benefit and they have had too many shots across the bow for anyone to complain that they didn't have this coming. Regards, Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it appears I was in the minority though. Cases like that it always takes two to tango. --WGFinley (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

An observation on the ongoing struggle between Russavia and VM. It seems that some editors feel they have a sacred duty to stand their ground, regardless of consequences. This happens at the 3RR board also: 'I knew I would be blocked, but I had to do it.' If they don't do so, it is like letting their side down. It is hard to think of a way of discouraging this approach. One idea is to say that this philosophy is simply WP:BATTLE and go for the strong sanctions. Can't think of much else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

AE case (2)

In summary, WP:SHOT, WP:STICK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for closing this case. What would you say was "unrelated" in the report I made? I don't think I have made an AE report before and a good answer will help me do it better the next time. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC) There was no need to bring up the fact he was de-admined, it didn't have anything to do with the conduct in the report, was piling on and will never bode well with other admins. --WGFinley (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC) He was de-adminned for his misconduct in the same area to which the complaint related. The pattern of misconduct goes back over six years and this was a data point which formed part of the report. --John (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC) A admonishment per your closing remarks here to User:John on his talkpage would balance the one I received from you...if you don't mind.--MONGO 02:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I think I've just done that, I chose to explain what the decision was getting at on your talk page, it wasn't necessary for John. John, you asked what was wrong and I gave you the answer. Something that happened some time ago that has nothing to do with the current case is not welcome at AE and is something that can WP:BOOMERANG and find yourself subject to sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Nothing to do with the current case? --John (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC) He was desysopped for misuse of administrative tools. Your complaint had nothing to do with his use of administrative tools since he doesn't have any. Thus, your complaint has nothing to do with him being desysopped and does little more than try to negatively portray him to obtain a favorable finding aka "demonize". That is poor form. It is not looked upon favorably on AE. It should not have been in your filing. --WGFinley (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, now I see what you are missing. Read a little up the same page and you'll see he was desysoped for misuse of administrative tools in relation to the same area my report concerned. "On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks , which was protected after a dispute he was involved in." Hence the relevance of including it in my filing, as it forms a part of a long term pattern of misbehaviour. --John (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC) You wanted to know what you did wrong, I passed it on to you. There was no consensus to take action against him so you might want to keep that in mind. --WGFinley (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I know I have played the 9/11 pages with a gloves off manner in the discussions there, but I have never tried to promote fringe/conspiracy theories at those pages...my actual editing history to the pages themselves has been to try and address the issues with MOS, add reliable references and to keep the articles on focus as much as possible. All this has a heck of a lot less to do with my sometimes less than cordial talkpage banter (which I vow to correct) than with the simple fact that since at least 2006, myself and others, but especially me, have roadbocked John's desires to add more and more fringe issues to those articles...he has long seen me as an obstacle in his path, and has, on dozens of ocassions, chimed in whenever someone tried to get me sanctioned. In all honesty, it feels like a long term vendetta to me..a witch hunt even...every little (and sometimes big) error I make and there's John...I get no break from this guy. Long ago, John was roadblocked by myself and numerous other editors when he tried to put fringe theories in the WTC 7 article...then he made peace with me and I even supported his Rfa...others who did not support him stated their concerns over his work on 9/11 pages...and some supporters only supported him after seeing I had...arguably, my good faith definitely helped him gain adminship...some time elapsed, I was desysopped for good reasons and then John resumed his on and off efforts to promote fringe theories in these articles..John supported self acknowledged SPA Thomas Basboll, whose purpose was to add fringe theories and undercut the known evidence...Basboll was eventually topic banned indefinitely...appealed and John was there to support his appeal. How do I get an interaction ban placed between John and I so this guy stops his crusade against me? Can we have you admins simply do this and limit our interactions solely to 9/11 pages? I already self imposed a ban on myself in regards to him even though I had a mountain of evidence I could have presented at a recent arbcom case in which he was named? Or do I have to use my limited time to open a case on him myself...and possibly look like I'm trying to be retributive? I am exasperated...MONGO 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC) WGFinley, your comment above seems logically wanting; I'll ask one more time if you can justify the characterization of MONGO's desysopping as "unrelated", when I have demonstrated above that it is related. If you can't, I'd be grateful if you could refactor your close to take account of that. MONGO, I am truly sorry if you feel badgered by me. I know you are a good guy trying to do the right thing to improve the encyclopedia. The problem seems to be that whenever you get involved in this area you seem to get very emotional about it, and that seems to be a long-term thing with you since at least 2006, as my AE report tried to show. Judging by your post above that level of personalization seems to be an ongoing thing with you. Even if there is no consensus for a topic ban, I think it would benefit both you and the project for you to stay away from the area for a while. I've taken the article off my watch list for now; maybe you would consider doing the same? --John (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Asked and answered, time to move along. --WGFinley (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Happy to move along, but please be advised I do not regard the "admonishment" as in any way binding on me as you have failed to explain it (as indeed you are required to do). I am unimpressed in general with the degree of thoroughness you have brought to this; I see you weren't above editing the closed and archived case to correct another of your errors. I hope you can learn from this and do a better job in future if you intend to continue in this difficult area. MONGO, I'll stay out of your way for a year, how does that sound? Cheers, both. --John (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC) There is no part in WP:ADMINACCT that says I have to answer as many questions as you would like to ask because you won't accept the answer. I answered why you were admonished multiple times. You can choose not to like or accept my answer but that doesn't change the fact that I have, in fact, answered it. Just like you can choose to pretend you weren't admonished for your conduct on AE, it doesn't mean that you haven't. I also didn't make an error on TDA, I knew exactly what I was doing. After he said well it should be all of 9/11 who am I to argue with someone he should have a broader ban than what I gave him. --WGFinley (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC) No, I didn't ask for it to be broadened. I noted that AQFK was right about ARB911 covering all 9/11-related articles, but that ultimately you were free to limit a topic ban to just 9/11 CT-related edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC) WP:PETARD --WGFinley (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I am saying I did not say something you claimed I said, how is this a legitimate response to that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I'm trying to say that perhaps if you didn't pick every nit you wouldn't find yourself in the position you're in. Even when I attempted to get others to go lighter you felt it necessary to come here and pick nits with me. Then I ban you and give you a bit of room to still contribute to the topic area if you are careful, even defend my decision to do that and you have to chime in and pick nits on that as well. If you took a moment and considered these things maybe you would realize that you wouldn't be in the situation you are in if you could drop small issues and move along. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and you are where you have put yourself by your own actions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC) You are changing the subject. Just up there you told John that I said the topic ban should be broadened. That claim is false. Saying it on my talk page is one thing, but saying it to another editor on your talk page is another thing entirely. Are you going to admit that you were wrong to claim I said something I did not say?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I am going to explain this in as clear as terms as possible and for the final time. It is not my fault you can't accept any of the answers you are given, one would think that after numerous editors chiming in at AE on multple occasions you would get the point, alas, that has not been the case. Another editor inquired on your page about your ban notice. That wasn't the proper place for that inquiry, it should have been on my talk page. I decided to respond and explain my reasoning and advise that editor it wasn't the proper venue for the question. As I a) took a position to your benefit (allowing you to conceivably edit in 9/11 related articles) and b) said it was not the proper venue, the best position for you would be to stay out of it. In a repetition of your usual behavior you show no ability to stay out of it and say that the editor challenging my relaxed restriction was "right that ARB911 technically applies to all 9/11-related articles", No good deed goes unpunished as they say. Since you yourself said that technically the other editor was correct you left me with little choice but to change my position. While you go on to say it's admin discretion it's a bit late at that point, you've already conceded the other editor was correct. This behavior, this complete and total inability to let it go and not get tied up in knots over minor issues is exactly why you have been sanctioned. I hope that is sufficient detail for you because that concludes it. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Again, you are dodging the question. Is it really that hard for you to simply respond "Sorry, I was wrong to say that you said something you did not say"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In summary, WP:SHOT, WP:STICK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for closing this case. What would you say was "unrelated" in the report I made? I don't think I have made an AE report before and a good answer will help me do it better the next time. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no need to bring up the fact he was de-admined, it didn't have anything to do with the conduct in the report, was piling on and will never bode well with other admins. --WGFinley (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He was de-adminned for his misconduct in the same area to which the complaint related. The pattern of misconduct goes back over six years and this was a data point which formed part of the report. --John (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A admonishment per your closing remarks here to User:John on his talkpage would balance the one I received from you...if you don't mind.--MONGO 02:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I've just done that, I chose to explain what the decision was getting at on your talk page, it wasn't necessary for John. John, you asked what was wrong and I gave you the answer. Something that happened some time ago that has nothing to do with the current case is not welcome at AE and is something that can WP:BOOMERANG and find yourself subject to sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the current case? --John (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He was desysopped for misuse of administrative tools. Your complaint had nothing to do with his use of administrative tools since he doesn't have any. Thus, your complaint has nothing to do with him being desysopped and does little more than try to negatively portray him to obtain a favorable finding aka "demonize". That is poor form. It is not looked upon favorably on AE. It should not have been in your filing. --WGFinley (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you are missing. Read a little up the same page and you'll see he was desysoped for misuse of administrative tools in relation to the same area my report concerned. "On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks , which was protected after a dispute he was involved in." Hence the relevance of including it in my filing, as it forms a part of a long term pattern of misbehaviour. --John (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You wanted to know what you did wrong, I passed it on to you. There was no consensus to take action against him so you might want to keep that in mind. --WGFinley (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I have played the 9/11 pages with a gloves off manner in the discussions there, but I have never tried to promote fringe/conspiracy theories at those pages...my actual editing history to the pages themselves has been to try and address the issues with MOS, add reliable references and to keep the articles on focus as much as possible. All this has a heck of a lot less to do with my sometimes less than cordial talkpage banter (which I vow to correct) than with the simple fact that since at least 2006, myself and others, but especially me, have roadbocked John's desires to add more and more fringe issues to those articles...he has long seen me as an obstacle in his path, and has, on dozens of ocassions, chimed in whenever someone tried to get me sanctioned. In all honesty, it feels like a long term vendetta to me..a witch hunt even...every little (and sometimes big) error I make and there's John...I get no break from this guy. Long ago, John was roadblocked by myself and numerous other editors when he tried to put fringe theories in the WTC 7 article...then he made peace with me and I even supported his Rfa...others who did not support him stated their concerns over his work on 9/11 pages...and some supporters only supported him after seeing I had...arguably, my good faith definitely helped him gain adminship...some time elapsed, I was desysopped for good reasons and then John resumed his on and off efforts to promote fringe theories in these articles..John supported self acknowledged SPA Thomas Basboll, whose purpose was to add fringe theories and undercut the known evidence...Basboll was eventually topic banned indefinitely...appealed and John was there to support his appeal. How do I get an interaction ban placed between John and I so this guy stops his crusade against me? Can we have you admins simply do this and limit our interactions solely to 9/11 pages? I already self imposed a ban on myself in regards to him even though I had a mountain of evidence I could have presented at a recent arbcom case in which he was named? Or do I have to use my limited time to open a case on him myself...and possibly look like I'm trying to be retributive? I am exasperated...MONGO 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, your comment above seems logically wanting; I'll ask one more time if you can justify the characterization of MONGO's desysopping as "unrelated", when I have demonstrated above that it is related. If you can't, I'd be grateful if you could refactor your close to take account of that. MONGO, I am truly sorry if you feel badgered by me. I know you are a good guy trying to do the right thing to improve the encyclopedia. The problem seems to be that whenever you get involved in this area you seem to get very emotional about it, and that seems to be a long-term thing with you since at least 2006, as my AE report tried to show. Judging by your post above that level of personalization seems to be an ongoing thing with you. Even if there is no consensus for a topic ban, I think it would benefit both you and the project for you to stay away from the area for a while. I've taken the article off my watch list for now; maybe you would consider doing the same? --John (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Asked and answered, time to move along. --WGFinley (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to move along, but please be advised I do not regard the "admonishment" as in any way binding on me as you have failed to explain it (as indeed you are required to do). I am unimpressed in general with the degree of thoroughness you have brought to this; I see you weren't above editing the closed and archived case to correct another of your errors. I hope you can learn from this and do a better job in future if you intend to continue in this difficult area. MONGO, I'll stay out of your way for a year, how does that sound? Cheers, both. --John (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no part in WP:ADMINACCT that says I have to answer as many questions as you would like to ask because you won't accept the answer. I answered why you were admonished multiple times. You can choose not to like or accept my answer but that doesn't change the fact that I have, in fact, answered it. Just like you can choose to pretend you weren't admonished for your conduct on AE, it doesn't mean that you haven't. I also didn't make an error on TDA, I knew exactly what I was doing. After he said well it should be all of 9/11 who am I to argue with someone he should have a broader ban than what I gave him. --WGFinley (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask for it to be broadened. I noted that AQFK was right about ARB911 covering all 9/11-related articles, but that ultimately you were free to limit a topic ban to just 9/11 CT-related edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:PETARD --WGFinley (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am saying I did not say something you claimed I said, how is this a legitimate response to that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that perhaps if you didn't pick every nit you wouldn't find yourself in the position you're in. Even when I attempted to get others to go lighter you felt it necessary to come here and pick nits with me. Then I ban you and give you a bit of room to still contribute to the topic area if you are careful, even defend my decision to do that and you have to chime in and pick nits on that as well. If you took a moment and considered these things maybe you would realize that you wouldn't be in the situation you are in if you could drop small issues and move along. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and you are where you have put yourself by your own actions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. Just up there you told John that I said the topic ban should be broadened. That claim is false. Saying it on my talk page is one thing, but saying it to another editor on your talk page is another thing entirely. Are you going to admit that you were wrong to claim I said something I did not say?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to explain this in as clear as terms as possible and for the final time.

It is not my fault you can't accept any of the answers you are given, one would think that after numerous editors chiming in at AE on multple occasions you would get the point, alas, that has not been the case.
Another editor inquired on your page about your ban notice. That wasn't the proper place for that inquiry, it should have been on my talk page.
I decided to respond and explain my reasoning and advise that editor it wasn't the proper venue for the question.
As I a) took a position to your benefit (allowing you to conceivably edit in 9/11 related articles) and b) said it was not the proper venue, the best position for you would be to stay out of it.
In a repetition of your usual behavior you show no ability to stay out of it and say that the editor challenging my relaxed restriction was "right that ARB911 technically applies to all 9/11-related articles", No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
Since you yourself said that technically the other editor was correct you left me with little choice but to change my position.
While you go on to say it's admin discretion it's a bit late at that point, you've already conceded the other editor was correct.
This behavior, this complete and total inability to let it go and not get tied up in knots over minor issues is exactly why you have been sanctioned.

I hope that is sufficient detail for you because that concludes it. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are dodging the question. Is it really that hard for you to simply respond "Sorry, I was wrong to say that you said something you did not say"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh article Arbitration request

I noticed your posting where you said you hadn't realised the proposal was intended to cover just one article. However, an earlier working version of the proposal, here , said: "This would apply to all articles on Misplaced Pages wherever the issue being reverted is something to do with the AA dispute." - EdJohnston 27 March 2012 (UTC). That editor has not explained why he is not now advocating a topic-wide application, so we do not know if he wishes it eventually to be topic-wide. "Thin end of the wedge" might be an overused cliche, but the idea behind it is still a valid warning. Meowy 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I accepted Tim's suggestion that the 500-edit rule only apply to Nagorno-Karabakh. The version in my AE statement is limited to that one article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the opinion section in this AE has grown to such proportions that sysops are lost in the massive body of text. It seems that administrators feel tired and under pressure to close this request with some action regardless how controversial it may be. Don't succumb to that temptation. There are several serious objections to EdJohnston’s suggestion, and I just want to highlight them again. They come from uninvolved parties like User:Paul Siebert who believes that there are no grounds for article-wide sanctions. Paul also agreed with the latest posting by User:Dehr that a contagion is possible, and wiki may become a moderated rather then free resource. I agree with them both and with User: Meowy's argument about the “thin end of the wedge.” My and Meowy's additional concern is that “higher seniority” users are likely to misinterpret what they can do with the input of “lower seniority” editors or even with former “lower seniority.” EdJohnston’s proposal is poorly worded. It says explicitly “established accounts can revert edits by IPs or low-seniority accounts without breaking the 1RR, but are still subject to the general edit warring policy,” which is likely to be misinterpreted in the spirit of “established accounts are given carte-blanche to revert any edits by IPs or low-seniority accounts.” A statement that follows only reinforces this notion: “My proposal would give an advantage to experienced editors when working the Nagorno-Karabakh article, while still allowing all editors to make uncontroversial improvements.” The word “advantage” contains the subliminal message “reverting is ok and even encouraged.” So, this will stimulate edit war instead of directing editors to discuss sources, references and other subject-matter and content-related issues. And here is yet another issue - most “higher seniority accounts” associated with the Azeri side are likely to be trans-wiki meats who came under sanctions in ruwiki. They have the same user names and evidence exists on likely coordination of their edits; the meats are managed by none other than Grandmaster, an account that has just recently been accused of witch hunt by WGFinley. Empowering these suspected meats is a bad, bad idea. But if you want to implement the 500/1RR rule regardless how “unconstitutional” it may be (which is likely to trigger a tough protest action), then you should also take simultaneous measures to control the suspected Azeri meats, curbing their ability to ”own” the article. It will have the effect of a partisan remedy. Winterbliss (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARB911 Log

No worries on revert. I replied on my talk page and was based on discussion here. Concern is the indefinite civility warning. Not a pressing issue but I didn't want a new or uninvolved admin to get played into enforcing something that would be controversial without a way to see why it would be controversial. We recently had an admin quit after a controversial topic ban that could have been avoided. I'd rather give the uninvolved admin the information before they act rather than having them try to defend themselves against the tide. It's a double-edged sword of wanting uninvolved admins but also wanting them to be aware of history. Someone will try to use that civility ban in the future and while the end result will be okay, the process to get there might be unnecessarily bloody as we saw with the recent admin departure. --DHeyward (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ARBCOM oversees what goes on at AE and they are always available to anyone who feels they haven't received a just remedy. I don't think noting that in the block log will have much effect. As you have seen on this page and on the result of MONGO's case, there's a disdain for reaching this far back to try to make someone look bad. In fact, ARBCOM reacted strongly to those who tried to do that to members of the EEML case. --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello WGFinley. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 AE case

To make this easier for me to understand, how about you cite one of the diffs from the case and explain what in that diff is evidence of the tendentious behavior you were talking about?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues are clearly outlined on the AE report. --WGFinley (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am asking why you see it as evidence of said behavior, not what you see as evidence of the behavior. Saying "these edits represent tendentious behavior" is nowhere near as helpful as "these edits represent tendentious behavior because of x". If it is really so obvious to you then it should not be difficult to explain.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have two entire collaped threads on this page already trying to explain things to you where it's always "I'm just asking for..." and you refuse to accept my answer. I've answered this multiple times, the information is in the AE report from a half dozen or so other users and unanimous concurrence among the admins who commented. Accept it and move on or appeal it. --WGFinley (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Answering with "read the AE case", a case that is 5,500 words long and includes numerous comments and responses, is not even remotely helpful. I addressed pretty much every comment at that AE case to explain what those editors were leaving out. Saying "read the AE case" doesn't tell my why you gave their objections more weight than mine. That is something I can only reasonably find out from you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Accept it and move on or appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to make this really easy for you. Were these comments by Tom and AQFK the primary basis of your argument, or were there other comments that you considered? A simple answer to that question will allow us to proceed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, accept it and move on or appeal. I would also suggest posting on all the admin walls is the type of behavior (forum shopping) that was cited as problematic in the AE report. Before you respond to that, accept it and move on or appeal, that is all. --WGFinley (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking the admins involved in the case to explain their reasons for the action is not forum shopping, they may each have unique reasons or simply be more willing to respond, and the only mention of "forum shopping" was from DHeyward who claimed that my suggestion of taking the entire content dispute to mediation was forum-shopping a sanction even though sanctions are not intended as the result of a mediation case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear, one last try at least. Either accept the decision and move on or file your appeal. Continued pleas here or to other admins is WP:FORUMSHOP and will result in you being blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to appeal if none of the admins involved are willing to say what in a 5,500 word case served as the basis of their decision? What assurances am I supposed to give or arguments am I supposed to refute if I don't know what specific behavioral issues you were looking at?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)