User talk:WGFinley/Archive 4

Spic & Span
All cleaned, feels nice. :) --Wgfinley (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please point me...
Please point me to the discussion that led to you softening User:TVFAN24's indefinite block. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello.
Hello, nice to see you. (Also left a note on my own talk page). Also, I did some talking at wikimania, which I'll provide more data on as soon as they post the videos et al. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

New Edits
Sorry Guy. I made the soap edits early this morning and forgot to tell you ahead of time. Please forgive me. Thanks :)  Also, just added end date for departing Early Show co-host Julie Chen and added reference to it and added new Nightline co-host Bill Weir to the template. TVFAN24 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just updated McPherrin's page. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, updated the second sentence in Novarro's page, meant to do that yesterday. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Space your comments so they don't end up all on one line and if you can Wiki the links so I don't have to go searching for the articles that would be great :) --Wgfinley (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated the WFLD's Jeffcoat by changing morning to afternoon anchor TVFAN24 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

TVFAN24 reprise
Please see my talk page in section "Chicago Stations Former Staff Lists w/ Reference Tag Added" for a new missive from this editor and my reply. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of JRHammond
Hello Wgfinley. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein   14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Please see now WP:AN.  Sandstein   17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked, and your decision to block is under discussion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks!
Wgfinley,

Thanks so much for the barnstar! Plus I totally agree with putting "Pending Changes" on Six Day War. Thanks again&bull; Ling.Nut 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
It is for this. Bravo.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Very good work. He says he hasn't tried to hide it, but he hasn't been very forthright with the information, so I'd say that's hiding it. He has a clear POV problem and really should not be editing that article.  Enigma msg  06:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to bring it to the other editors on his talk page and he's refusing. I've politely pointed out his use of original research and synthesis, he wants to string sources together to reach his own conclusions instead of citing what those sources say.  I've asked him not to do it, hopefully he'll get the point, it doesn't look like it though.  As usual I'm wrong and I'm making a personal attack on him which is his M.O., I'm hopeful he might listen to others shortly.  And in all honesty I wasn't looking for anything on him at all, I just searched Google for "six day war preemptive" and his article is on the 3rd page of results.  --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What you did was attempted WP:OUTING. A user is by no means required to reveal that he is doing research on his own. Doing research on you own is not a bad thing, and it is not what the WP:OR policy is there to prevent. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about you on my talk page.
Hello. Could you please comment about a user's complaint about you here? Thanks,  Sandstein   13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

IPs, email

 * I thought there was an unwritten rule that admins should make email addresses available? I've seen it mentioned in many an RfA. Anyhow, isn't there also some sort of rule about roaming IPs or similar? All these "172" IP edits (172.190.138.97, 172.190.31.25, probably others that i can't be arsed to find) are coming from the Washington DC area. Same guy, duh. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but mine is if you look at the top of this page or my user page. Yes, he's been warned and given some of his comments is on a short leash. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Wgfinley, could you please notify user Chesdovi of ARBPIA and then log it?

His behavior at the Golan heights article is far from acceptable. He first repeatedly removed a quote when there was no consensus at the talkpage to remove it. His "summary" did not follow the source and twisted what the source said: He also added that "which according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source clearly did not say that:

You can clearly see from the entire Dayan quote interview that its about that Moshe Dayan saying that Israel provoked Syria. After having repeatedly removed this he then cherry picks that 1% of the quote he personally likes and puts it in large quotations: clearly out of context, really twists the entire meaning of that interview.

Another admin has reacted to this, but he is involved

A uninvolved admin need to notify him and log it here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * why didn't you notify Chesdovi and log it? Answer here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't log user warnings, you log actions taken on articles and on users. I agree a warning was in order but these actions were several days ago so I thought a warning was best. --WGFinley (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a warning, its making him aware of the rules and that needs to be logged as can be seen here: If you think this notification is not needed because it was "several days ago" then why did you notify this user  who made his edit at that article one day after Chesdovi? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Supreme Deliciousness, Chesdovi does not require notification as he was a named party in the original case. No opinion on whether his edits warrant a warning, however. CIreland (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, didn't see that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, confusing issues and confused myself. I put the wrong user on notice.  What Chesdovi did is a few days old, there wasn't a notice on the article, there is now.  I'll continue to keep an eye on it.  --WGFinley (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1/rr violation
It is good to see an administrator who is able to make tough calls in such a controversial topic area that has had edit warriors running rampant but I am confused by your edit summaries here. That editor did not make more than 1 revert. If anything you are in violation from what I can tell. Would you mind clarifying?Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Disregard. I did not realize that you had altered the meaning and explained it on the talk page. It might help editor's understanding if you linked that in your reverts.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk

 * Here ya go: User talk:Jimbo Wales. &bull; Ling.Nut 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Six Day War
|He reverted yet again, violating 1RR, even after your warning to him on the talk page that he doesn't have consensus. Can you please do something to stop this continuous edit warring? Obviously he doesn't get it. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Recall
Hi, I have left a comment about your administrator action at WP:AN and would like to ask you, are you open to recall of your tools? Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't done anything wrong, if you feel I have you're free to take the appropriate measures. --WGFinley (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You clearly did not do anything right either, please as you are not a regular user, state that you will not block any accounts yourself. Or, as simply take an administrator break and drop the tools yourself, your edit history does not assert you have the experience or authority required to use themOff2riorob (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And i would humbly disagree, I've worked on the project for over 6 years, that didn't change because I took a break from heavy editing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have 2389 edits in six years and have never ever been a heavy contributor in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is your repeated inability to see that your actions were wrong that is the biggest problem, please do not use the tools as you have not the acquired authority to use them, you are almost imo a newbie and should not touch the tools at all, if you assert that you would have the community's support to use them for blocking people and such like then please remove the bit and apply for RFA. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I clearly stated where I was in error, I think I clearly indicated agreement with Sandsteins points and I think I clearly agreed to let matters lie? Where are you unclear?  If there was concern in the community that people would take a break and come back and have no clue that would have been part of the Admin process, it is not.  There is not and never has been a requirement for edits for an admin.  There is not and never has been prohibition from taking a break for a while.  There was no consensus on the process you want me to submit myself no.  So I humbly decline.  --WGFinley (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. He is not a "newbie" and this thread is highly disrespectful and offensive.  Enigma msg  01:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You can decline as much as you want, but I will state to you now, you are not a regular contributor at all at wikipedia and you have no assumed authority here and you should not claim or assert that you have, please do not use tools previously acquired in a different time zone without reconfirmed authority and community support. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll need to direct me to where you have that authority. --WGFinley (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it from me, I have it. It is not so much as I have it, but that you don't have it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have anything. Wgfinley gained his tools legitimately, and this thread has zero basis. You're attacking an administrator for daring to use his tools? As for the "he got them a long time ago", so what? Do you want a list of every active admin who got his tools more than a few years ago so you can harass them? I can provide it.  Enigma msg  01:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have my present day to day quite extensive present involvement and general knowledge as regards the current community actions and precedents. Admins are a couple of buttons and a few looks ok to me won't make the wheels drop off comments, the tools themselves give him no authority at all, it is how and when you use them that asserts that authority. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response had nothing to do with what I wrote.  Enigma msg  16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

48 hr ban
Pardon, but Arab refusal to recognize Israel was the primary cause of the war and remains a primary cause of conflict to this day. So what's wrong with saying "the status of the territories as well as continued Arab refusal to accept Israel remains," etc... In truth, I'd rather the whole para be knocked out entirely from lede since it is synth. It is summary opinion that doesn't even belong and is not encyclopedic. However, since it was already there and mindful of certain restrictions on the page, I just added another sourced reason. Actually 5 sources and it's hardly a minority opinion. So now you ban me?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No Problem. A more practical question, When does my exile expire?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hind sight
I think this was a bit harsh. Jiujitsuguy, as you can see from the comment above, did not seem to understand why his edit was inappropriate, please see Talk:Six-Day_War. Fred Talk 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he understood later and in fact he thanked me for this block later on, it gave him an opportunity to step back from it. I've been trying to work with him since this block and it's been successful for the most part I think, I don't think recent behavior has much to do with the current block.  --WGFinley (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's part of the problem with the current block. What I'm seeing is a clumsy, actually, somewhat inexperienced, editor, not a pack of POV editors. Although I've seen at least one case of someone following him without putting too much thought into why. Fred Talk 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with both of your assessments there. Presently I am of the opinion this whole matter and conduct on both sides is going to need to go to Arbcom.  --WGFinley (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jiujitsuguy has treated Wikipedia as a battleground from the start. He's definitely not inexperienced or clumsy. He was here to push his POV, that's all. Tariqs block of him was well-deserved (although a topic-ban could also had been ok). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending protection on Six-Day War
I just wanted to notify you that I removed the pending-changes protection from Six-Day War. I noticed you added it several days ago, and, partially out of laziness, didn't say or do anything it about it then. And, as I expected, it had little effect on the article. First, as you yourself noted, most of the editors involved in the article are reviewers. Secondly, reviewers are supposed to reject edits only if they're obviously inappropriate (e.g. vandalism). So, they should, from what I understand, approve nearly all of the edits involved in the edit-war there, even if they're POV, the third revert in a day, etc. The result was that the pending protection did nothing to stop the edit-warring. --  tariq abjotu  16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I feel like an idiot. This is what happens when you write most of a post, realize you should be working, can't find the tab with the post until it's time to go home, and then decide "ah, okay, might as well post the darn thing" without checking to see if there are any new talk page messages. Glad to see we agree. --  tariq abjotu  16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have protected the article. As the protection reason says, I admire your courage to do anything other than protect the article, but basically the only edits have been reverts, which you have taken the unorthodox approach of quickly reverting. There are so many editors interested in the Israel-Palestine area who can, and will, come along and make major, undiscussed changes. If people can't make major changes to the article anyway without discussion beforehand, it might as well be protected. Your response, including additional ideas, if you have any, is welcome. --  tariq abjotu  14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR on Six-Day War
I appreciate that the intent of 1rr is to try to ensure that editors turn to discussion rather than editwarring, but it would be nice if you could go the final step and uphold that silence ( of actual arguments ) is consent. Otherwise we are simply facing filibustering and stonewalling. Unomi (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1RRs protect the status quo but they don't endorse it. The intent is to avoid the needless inclusion of disputed material and then reverting and then it being put back in again.  By putting it back in you only continued it.  If you had sources or changes you should have put them on the talk page.  There are editors who want to work out the disagreements on that page but they are being drown out by the edit warring.  By just coming into the article, having never edited on it before or participated and then putting back in disputed material is the equivalent to tossing a grenade into it and was not at all helpful.  --WGFinley (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Unomi (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know from the outside it looks like removal of sourced material but it's at the center of an ongoing dispute on the page. I welcome you into the conversation on the talk page to get some consensus on including it in some form.  Form and representing the disparate points of view seem to be the main issues with it.  --WGFinley (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, what, if any, issues do you see with the level of engagement on the talk page? Unomi (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On Six-Day? --WGFinley (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Unomi (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most people are taking a deep breath and there's some helpful discussion going on there that isn't being exacerbated by edit warring. Sometimes protection is a good thing for a "time-out".  --WGFinley (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you offer a recommendation of which venue to take dispute resolution to? There seems to be distinct lack of engagement by those who seemed to object to Harlans edit. un☯mi 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see much discussion since the article was protected, it should start on the talk page with a proposal of what the change should be and requesting input on the change. --WGFinley (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Whu4 - unblock request
I've left a comment on the user's talk page. I'm happy for you to make your own judgement on the unblock request.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Next time remember to put the collapsebottom template after you put collapsetop. When you closed the Mbz1 proposal you inadvertently collapsed three-quarters of WP:ANI. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh! Thanks.  --WGFinley (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Golan Heights
In your message, you refer to Six-Day War instead of Golan Heights. You might want to fix that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)]
 * Sloppy paste, thanks for catching. --WGFinley (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

excuse me
But could you explain this please? Is the user indefinitely blocked? Is there anything in that template that says that only the blocking admin may add that template? And where exactly did the user request that you fully protect the user page or are you just making up reasons for the protection log?  nableezy  - 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That template puts the user in a category that isn't even used. Templates shouldn't be used as scarlet letters see Protection_policy if you have more questions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, we should not have templates for users blocked as socks because they are "scarlet letters"? And what category does the template put the user in? I dont see one in that version of the page. Also, you did not answer my question. In the protection log you said it was fully protected at the request of the user. I see no such request. Was such a request made or did you invent it for the log entry? (No need for a talkback, I have this page watched)  nableezy  - 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He has contacted me, I would suggest dropping this and moving along. --WGFinley (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ill move along when you answer my questions. There were a few that you missed. Ill pretend that I believe you when you say that he has contacted you and that he requested the page be fully protected, AGF and all that, so that answers one of the questions. The others were as follows: should we not have templates for users blocked as socks because they are "scarlet letters"? What category does the template put the user in? I dont see one in that version of the page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained this on his talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw what you wrote there and none of that explains either of the outstanding questions. As you seem to either be incapable of or unwilling to answer those questions I suppose that I will "move along" now. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that if Tariq thought it was imperative it be there he would have put it there, why don't you ask him? --WGFinley (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tariq's lack of adding the template does not concern me. Another user, not me mind you, did add the template. Shuki removed it saying that the blocking admin lacked the "mandate" to issue the block. I reverted that edit as clearly the blocking admin does have the "mandate" to issue an indef block. None of this answers my questions though. You said that tags should not be used as "scarlet letters". I asked does that mean we should not tag those blocked as socks. If so, you have a lot or work to do. Or, if just restricting it to the template you removed, you still have a lot of work. You also said that the template places the page into a category that is not used. I asked which category. As far as I can tell the template places the page in no categories at all. Do you care to answer either of those questions? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to put them in a category that isn't used for anything. They are listed using special pages. As I said, if you think it is so crucial for this to be on his user page you should bring it to the blocking admin. I'm merely following the user's wishes and maintaining the status quo on his user page. --WGFinley (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WHAT category does the template put them in? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if you pulled up the template you would see but you seem to be having a WP:NOSE moment. --WGFinley (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have pulled up the template. I have also looked at pages that have the template, such as this. There is no category that I can see. Can you please tell me exactly what category the template places a user in? (and fyi, the cetagory that you may be thinking of is only placed if the "historical" tag is used, it wasnt) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me explain this clearly to you for a final time. The templates are for the use of admins, I've advised you to contact Tariq if you feel that strongly his user page should have it.  I can see you haven't done so therefore I'm starting to wonder if this is an honest inquiry or if this is WP:POINT.  Here's the point for you -- it's HIS user page, he's entitled to have a say in what's on there since he's blocked he can't fix it himself so I did.  I changed it to what HE wanted and protected the page from further harassment.  If Tariq believes the template should be on there he can put it on there, my protection of the page doesn't stop admins from making changes as needed.  Thanks for your concern.  --WGFinley (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is so very interesting. An admin claiming that a template is only for use by admins, not backed by any policy or even the documentation of the template, who mistakenly thinks that the template placed the user page in some unknown category (it did not place the page in any category) and is unable to articulate what category the page was placed in, thinks he is "explaining" things "one final time" but has yet to "explain anything" one first, second, or final time. This whole conversation is useless, you have yet to answer the direct questions addressed to you and instead try to shift the discussion to some other topic that I personally have no interest in. But to answer your final point, a blocked user is not entitled to have to have their user page they way they want it. Using terms like "harassment" without basis only shows how irrational you are being here. Ill be taking this page off my watchlist now. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a stark difference between not answering and not getting the answers you want to hear. I think you are confusing them because I think I rather clearly stated why I did what I did and gave you an outlet for redress if you didn't like it.  Cheers.  --WGFinley (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

AE close
i think you should reword your close summary. Jiujitsuguy's block was overturned. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He voluntarily withdrew it, I think the summary is in order, they have both been blocked accordingly. In JJG's case it was shortened.  --WGFinley (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * editors that saw all the evidence were of the opinion that it was not strong. additionally the consensus of editors were that if he indeed was involved in meatpuppetry he should be indef blocked, not blocked for 48 hours. thus, your close does not reflect the consensus at the discussion. i will ask Tariqabjotu to chime in here.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a simple SUMMARY, I can't possibly put every little nuance in the summary, you're splitting hairs and it's unnecessary. --WGFinley (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you inadvertently closed three discussions in one go, or at least that's what it looked like confusing me and probably others, so I've fixed it to I think what you intended.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching my typo! --WGFinley (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WGFinley, but I agree the summary is inaccurate. For starters, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, User:No More Mr Nice Guy has never been blocked regarding this. Second, the reversal of the block against Jiujitsuguy was intended to make it as if it never happened -- zero sum. The original block also wasn't related to the charges made against him in the AE thread. So I don't think it's clear or fair to him to even mention the block in the closing reason. The rest of the closing summary -- "admonished to abide by WP:CANVASS or risk further discretionary sanctions" is your perogative, but they don't represent what I did (I'm not saying I disagree with you doing that; I'm just making no further comment on the case). And it's fine that that doesn't represent what I did; you're the one closing the case.

In summary, I think you should nix the mentions of any blocks, but, beyond that, say whatever you want. --  tariq abjotu  08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think it's splitting hairs but I have clarified my closing summary. Personally I think a lot more brevity is needed in this subject matter and a lot less nitpicking and Wikilawyering of everything an admin says.  But that might just be me.  --WGFinley (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also appreciate it if it were made clear that I wasn't blocked nor admonished for anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It notes that now. --WGFinley (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Violations of your sanction
Hey, you put the Golan Heights article on a 1rr and that all: required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (i.e. not just in the reversion notes). If you violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked."

In this edit IP 79.181.9.231 reverts several things without discussing them at the talkpage. For example he re ads "until 1967 " "(הרמה הסורית (Ha-Rama Ha-Surit)," he re removes "Israeli settlements" you can see that its a revert by his earlier edit and I don't think he has discussed these reverts at the talkpage before.

Also note that he performed this edit changing "occupied" while 4 editors objected to it at the talkpage.

In this edit IP 174.112.83.21 reverts several things without discussing them at the talkpage. He changes the position of the names in the infobox, he removes the Baruch Kimmerling source, and he removes the "Who" tag. You can see that its a revert in these edits: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to enforce this or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And IP 79 just violated the 1rr again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re current discussion on Golan Heights
Hi, can you please advise on a proper course of action regarding this edit in the face of the current discussion on that articles talkpage? Thanks, <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#636">u</b><b style="color:#535">n</b><b style="color:#435">☯</b><b style="color:#335">m</b><b style="color:#235">i</b></i> 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's correct that 208 didn't explain his revert. --WGFinley (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think that continuing the same edits as the currently blocked-for-editwarring 79. was the right thing to do in the face of an ongoing discussion? Please do note the voluminous discussion and the rather conspicuous lack of sources supporting the arguments of 79/AgadaUrbanit. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#649">u</b><b style="color:#548">n</b><b style="color:#448">☯</b><b style="color:#348">m</b><b style="color:#248">i</b></i> 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE  Just like Rob Base, it takes two.  --WGFinley (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on a sec, in the midst of a discussion 79 decides to jump to the edit, in the face of 4 dissenting editors who have argued from sources and policy. And I am a bad guy for doing a partial revert, one that retains wording which in truth I am not sure is entirely justified per the sources that I am aware, but I retained it in an effort to generate a more collaborative atmosphere, and I am a bad guy? I can tell you exactly what is going to happen in the face of your page protection (thank you for reverting to the majority wording btw.), nothing. The article will be largely abandoned until the protection is lifted and then it will flare up again. There seem to be no consequences for those who show no interest in engaging in honest debate that springs from sources and policy. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#614">u</b><b style="color:#513">n</b><b style="color:#413">☯</b><b style="color:#313">m</b><b style="color:#213">i</b></i> 14:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't presume me to be dumb and unable to recognize the group of you has marshaled your forces well and thus has "majority" when editing these articles (i.e. WP:GAME). He hadn't used his revert, plain and simple.  I don't judge content disputes, I judge behavior and he had not used his revert yet and was fully entitled to use it.  Also don't presume that I have missed that while 79 was jumped all over for being anon you are here to valiantly defend 208's brave revert since he was on your side.  Enough is enough.  I protected the article and I will be putting an arb filing together to deal with the constant and never ending disruptions on these articles that continue to brew people people won't put down their axe and make Wikipedia a battleground.  --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What? When did I defend 208? And when did I jump on 79?, have a look on my talkpage where I try to explain what I assumed to be Nableezys rationale, all but apologizing for his manner. Have a look through the start of that Golan Heights discussion, where I try to get the edits that I believed we could quickly agree on into the text and defuse the tension. Also have look thru the previous discussions on this very topic notably [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive_6#General_discussion_on_Israeli-occupied_territories. here] and see that the very same arguments have been done to death. Notice, if you will, that (who apparently was a sockpuppet of a long banned user) forwards nearly verbatim many of the same points, but I don't see any reason to accuse 79 of being a sockpuppet, because it simply doesn't matter, the arguments fall flat in the face of overwhelming majority of sources that use exactly these terms. I understand that you don't want to become embroiled in a content dispute, but in order to effectually judge behavior it is imperative that you understand the context. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#721">u</b><b style="color:#620">n</b><b style="color:#520">☯</b><b style="color:#420">m</b><b style="color:#320">i</b></i> 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And give someone a chance to yell "he's involved!!!"?  Not a chance.  --WGFinley (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, where are we at then? What can we reasonably do? We seem to have reached an impasse where discussion simply seems to not work. I am personally at a loss here. I don't like the idea of some kind of war of attrition, I don't believe that my position wrt to the sources is such that it should be necessary, and I believe and hope that if I did find that my position necessitated it that I would abandon it. I can absolute grok that there may be an unwillingness to upset the perceived 'status quo' vis a vis so called "pro" vs "anti" whatever but the net result here is a deep imbalance wrt what is expected of editors. Thank you for letting me vent on your talkpage. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#941">u</b><b style="color:#840">n</b><b style="color:#740">☯</b><b style="color:#640">m</b><b style="color:#540">i</b></i> 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. The protection template says that it does not mean the admin endorses the current version. However, before you protected it you self-reverted yourself after 208 violated 1RR. Why would you self-revert? It's perfectly reasonable of you to have reverted his 1RR violation, just like was done every time anyone else violated 1RR on the article. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to revert to a certain version and then protect it and thereby showing bias towards a particular version. I don't have any so I put it back to status quo.  --WGFinley (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy
Please notify me if you submit anything to the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter, or off-wiki canvassing in general. Meanwhile I'll try to pay a little more attention to what is going on from day to day in this area. Fred Talk 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Golan Heights
Please read my remark there and lift the ban you imposed on the article. If you think the task of introducing the necessary edits is too delicate for me to handle, please introduce them yourself. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As an admin I don't do content, I deal with behavior. I haven't seen anything on the talk page leading me to believe the edit warring will stop if I lift the ban.  As a matter of fact your contribution there almost assures me that it will start up again. Please, go review WP:TEND, after you've read it read it again, particularly the section about pulling back from the brink.  --WGFinley (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there people on WP who do only policing and never write content? That sounds a bit peculiar. Is this an obligation? Once you are selected to a policing position you must stop writing? This way or another, what you did is freezing the article on an incorrect version from any point of view (for example, currently the article present the pre-1967 demilitarized zones as if they were not annexed to Israel). Secondly, and with all due respect, you have an obligation to assume good faith. This is much more important than fighting "edit wars". KnownAs-79-181-9-231 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at my user page you will see articles I have edited. Articles I work on as an editor I do not work on as an admin, admins need to be WP:UNINVOLVED in articles they are doing admin duty on.  I don't think you read WP:TEND twice, especially since you replied back in 12 minutes :)  --WGFinley (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban violation and sock puppetry
Hello. You had some interaction with IP in connection with the Golan Heights  so accordingly, I am notifying you and Stifle of a matter that is of serious concern. I have reason to believe that this IP user is Nableezy trying to circumvent a topic ban imposed on him by Stifle. The ban forbids him from editing or commenting on the Golan Heights and all areas of Israel and its environs including cities, settlements and regions. The IP in question geolocates to Chicago and the edit in question is consistent with Nableezy’s POV. Prior to the instant edits, the IP never made any edits to the topic area and the first edit that he makes in the topic area is to The Golan Heights.

Nableezy is also from Chicago as evidenced from his early Trait Page But there is more. The subject IP also made edits to a hockey article involving players in the NHL. Nableezy has expressed more than a passing interest for this subject as evidenced by this But the similarities between the IP user and nableezy do not end there. The subject IP made this edit on a very technical subject involving circuitry and electronics. Nableezy attended Illinois Institute of Technology, a school that emphasizes engineering and IT evidenced by his early Trait List So now we have an IP who, like Nableezy, comes from Chicago with interests in the Golan Heights, Hockey and IT. The coincidences are too great to ignore per WP:DUCK. The evidence suggests that The IP is Nableezy's sock puppet used to circumvent Stifle's topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That IP is not me and a CU can verify that I am not editing from over 100 miles of Chicago (at least on the days of those edits, I do come closer to Chicago on a somewhat regular basis, but I havent edited from the city itself even then). I also dont think I have ever made an edit to a hockey article (though I am admittedly a hawks fan) nor have I ever made any edits to the topic of circuity in telephone networks, a topic that I have no knowledge of or interest in. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, Your edits when compared with the IP aren't just similar, they are exactly the same.
 * Nableezy edit:
 * IP edit:
 * In any event, I filed an SPI--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, those arent the same edits. Similar, but not the same. But since you appear on being intent in making me respond in several places, at least five different users have made the same edit as the IP or as the one you linked to now. Are all 5, 2 of whom are admins, my sockpuppets as well? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is not a good place for sockpuppet investigations, they need to go over to SPI. --WGFinley (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. My Bad--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War
Replied on my talk page. On another note, personally I think the article should be indef full protected in the event edit warring resumes in a couple of weeks. I've seen precedent for this; The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (which is now a redirect) is one example. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you've banned JRH.... I thought we were making a tiny bit of progress there, although it was like walking a mile only to gain an inch. My own patience hadn't run out yet, although I agree a ban should alleviate the stress one editor has induced in the community. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a valiant effort I had hoped you might be able to help him but I can see the same strain of replies that he has with any admin who's tried to work with him. For me it's not a question of my patience, it's the fact it is clear to me he has drowned out discussion, people have stopped participating.  Can't have that.  --WGFinley (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not good when the constructive folks are driven off. It's just as well for me personally; I just received a consulting contract today that I'd been negotiating for a while, so for the next few weeks I may have less time to devote to conflicts like this. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeal
I'm appealing your ban. You've been notified. JRHammond (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ehlichman
I redid the mention of his book The Company merely noting it was adapated as a miniseries and including a citation to IMDB verifying that fact. Hope that meets NPOV criteria.Dgabbard (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better! Thanks.  --WGFinley (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Hi Wgfinley, I made an embaressing mistake here where I put your name instead of an editor's. Sorry. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I always thought that was a typo and you would correct it in due time if it was. You may want to take a look at his contributions, looks like he's lobbying to me. --WGFinley (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WGFinley, you are a really easygoing man, you know how to take things easy. I wish I were as you are. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks MBZ, I just wear different hats. If it's something I edit I don't know if I'm always easy going!  I'm also human and can make mistakes, I try to recognize them when I do.  --WGFinley (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn and Collect
Dear Wgfinley, although the issue seems to be resolved, I feel I have to comment on this your decision. It is not clear for me why did you issue a warning to Petri Krohn, because no violation of a spirit of 1RR (if not of a letter) occurred. I believe I persuasively demonstrated that by his revert Petri Krohn just restored the edits that were accidentally removed by Collect: Collect himself acknowledged that he just restored a "stable version", thus reverting several edits without any attempt to analyse them. Petri Krohn did not re-revert the edits which caused Collect's objections (judging by Collect's edit summary), he just fixed Collect's technical mistake. We have here a classical case of wikilawyering from MarkNutley/Colect side, so I conclude that neither a warning nor any sanctions are justified in this concrete case. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He clearly violated the 1RR and the warning is just that, a warning: making him aware of how the editing rules are different on that article. That's all it is.  --WGFinley (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think a single violation of 1RR's letter by a user who never did that before is sufficient to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although there was a consensus of no action I'm AGF that those who brought the action thought it was the proper venue. He is the owner of two previous one year bans, one doled out by Arbcom and, unfortunately, that puts a bit of a target on him.  All such editors have a clean slate in my eye unless they go back to old behaviors.  His actions there hint at that possibility.  I think the warning lets him know what the appropriate behavior is and hopefully he uses that opportunity to edit harmoniously with others.  --WGFinley (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I must correct you on this point. I have only been banned for one year by the arbcom. I have been blocked for a year by a single administrator. I never asked to be unblocked, although the block was questionable to say the least. Please do not make conclusion based on what you think you see in a block log. The real story behind all this may be hidden somewhere in the WP:EEML case and the secret evidence. I would not expect you to read any of it.


 * P.S. – Reading the argumentation I kind of get the impression, that I am far better informed about the DIGWUREN procedures than Wgfinley. Checking the log I see that this is Wgfinley's first DIGWUREN action. As I have suggested below Wgfinley should either familiarize himself with the topic or ask another administrator to review the case. Especially I would object to his statement "the warning is just that, a warning". Anyone involved in the DIGWUREN area knows that it is a crucial part of the WP:GAMING implicit in the system. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to revert formal warning
When I say "I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN" I mean that I still do not fully understand why I was involved in it. I withdrew from all related conflict long before the case started. I never participated in the case proceedings in any way or even read any of the pages – except for posting a request for extended time to prepare a response a few day before the case closed.

I have followed a voluntary topic ban on anything that might be of interest to or his supporters from June 2007. I am thus quite inexperienced of the workings of the DIGWUREN processes in practice, at least from the editors point-of-view. As you see, I have never been given a Digwuren warning have not been involved in any conflict before in the DIGWUREN/EE topic area. I am especially offend by the idea, that because my name is mentioned in Digwuren editors and administrators are allowed to treat me like scum.

I am however fully aware of the WP:DIGWUREN amendments, Meaning everything on the case page bellow Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. I am especially aware of section Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and the articles listed there. Believe me, I *HAVE* read all the fine print. I would avoid any article listed there as I would the plague.

I did not see Mass killings under Communist regimes listed there. I had absolutely no knowledge that the article was under these levels of sanctions. What I understood from the edit template was that the article was somehow in the general scope of the DIRWUREN disputes, meaning Eastern Europe, and that it had some special restriction listed somewhere. I do not think I ever even read the template, as it only appeared when I was about to press the save button and vanished afterwards. Neither have I followed the talk pages, as I do not think I have ever edited the article before.

Note As of this summer the list contained exactly one article: London victory parade of 1946. It is not hard to memorize.

Now the technical point: The Mass killings under Communist regimes was only added to the section today in this edit by user User:NuclearWarfare. The DIRWUREN process follows very strict procedural rules. In this case they were not followed. I therefore ask you to remove me from the list of List of editors placed on notice.

As to me retuning to "old habits". I have learned my lesson. I believe my good name is far too valuable to be risked in petty ethnic disputes. I cannot however change history, the DIGWUREN disputes started in 2007 with the Bronze nights. I was the one who asked my friend to risk her life to take these pictures. I was however "involved" already in 2006, when I took this famous set of pictures for Commons. I had no idea at the time, that WP:DIGWUREN would come and walk over me. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The warning stays. The 1RR restriction is clearly labeled at the top of that page when you go to edit it.  The warning is simply making you aware that discretionary sanctions apply to that article and you should keep that in mind when editing it.  --WGFinley (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are other things to think about then the interpretations of 1RR when you have text on your clipboard and a hurry to press save before your browser freezes or something. If it was clearly labeled, you would have to go through an extra confirmation page of something. This is however irrelevant. What is relevant per WP:DIGWUREN is that the restrictions are properly logged on case page. Think this over. I you are unable to reconsider, I will take this up somewhere else tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Petri, what is your objective? You claimed you didn't know about sanctions and now you want me to remove something where it was clear you were notified about them.    --WGFinley (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I was not notified about them. I follow the Requests for arbitration/Digwuren section very closely and it was not there. (Many people do, as it has become kind of a social calender.) Per DIGWUREN it has to be there to be there to have any validity. This is not merely a technicality, as I really did not know about this sanction. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question about what your objective is. --WGFinley (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My objective is that you remove the warning from the log. For the motivation, see my comment above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S - As to other objectives, I do believe people should be able to use their real names on-line, even when involved in controversial topics. From some of your comment I do get the impression that you look at me like some scumbag. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To what end? --WGFinley (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are defaming my honorable name. I object to that very strongly. If this goes on I will have to start editing Wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymous. This would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia or the community. Now, how many people have you seen in this conflict area who are using their real names and have been here for as long as I?
 * You do not seem to have the email function enabled. not everything can be said on line ... ouch, found the mail link... -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe, I can explain. The wholesale revert made by Collect restored the text removed initially by Fifelfoo and re-removed by Petri. However, Perti simultaneously made another edit, followed by the edits made by me and Fifelfoo. Collect reverted all these edits, however, in his edit summary he explained that the reason for the revert was to restore the large piece of text removed initially. Since he didn't mention other changes, it was natural to conclude he reverted them by accident (which appeared to be the case, according to his later posts). I see no reason why we cannot assume Petri's good faith: he restored the text which was, to the best of his understanding, removed by accident (and without explanation of reasons). He definitely didn't violate 1RR spirit. In addition, he reverted his changes himself before he was reported (thereby observing 1RR even formally). I see no reason why additional formal warning was needed: all page history is stored indefinitely, so this incident is per se the evidence that he became aware of all these rules.
 * In connection to that, let me ask you what is a reason for issuing a formal warning for the editor who did not violate 1RR spirit and committed only a minor and non-intentional violation of the 1RR letter, by the way, due to the technical mistake of the user who later reported him? In my opinion, it would be correct to revert this formal warning.
 * This is especially necessary because by making this warning you encouraged some (few) editors who are active on that page to continue their wikilawyering. I believe I have a right to make such a statement because I am active on several WP pages and, as a rule I established good and productive collaboration with others, including some members of EEML. I very unfrequently face so blatant wikilawyering, unproductive behaviour and inability to accept logical arguments on the pages others than the Mass killing... page. And, in my opinion, revoking the warning would have a sobering effect on these users, thereby helping to remedy the situation.
 * Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the impression I think you're a "scumbag"? I recall stating I believe you may not have been aware of it .  Whatever the case you are reading too much into this.  It's a warning, it doesn't say you did anything wrong and it doesn't affect your editing in any way.  I'm not going to remove it because the whole point is you said you didn't know, the warning is there to record that you do know now.  No other editor should treat you differently because you were warned or use it as any means to Wikilawyer.  --WGFinley (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No! You are not following DIGWUREN. The formal warning is not a warning but a license to issue other sanctions; it is a form of intimidation. It is a sanction in itself an cannot be issued without a finding of guilt. It is not issued for ignorance. When I said to Collect that I was not part of DIGWUREN I meant that I was not in the Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and could not be sanctioned as he argued. I did not mean that I did not have the information about the general DIGWUREN remedies. I do not need the "warning" for its information content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S - Sorry for all the lawyering, but DIGWUREN is legal practice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. – I also said I did not know about the article sanctions, as legally speaking they did not exist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't say he did anything wrong, it should be not a warning, but explanation of what 1RR means in this concrete case. In my opinion, this minor change would be sufficient. BTW, although I myself am active on this talk page, the 1RR rule is still somewhat obscure for me (I believe, not because I am stupid, but because it is counter-intuitive). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is OK for Wgfinley to place a warning on my talk page, preferably using free form text: I welcome it. What I object to is him recording it in the log. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This need not be complex:


 * 1) Petri violated the 1RR restriction on the article.
 * 2) I am AGF that he didn't know about it.
 * 3) He recognized it and self-reverted, an excellent display of etiquette.
 * 4) Because he said he didn't know about it the warning is placed to record that he has now been notified.
 * 5) The warning includes helpful links to the decision so he can read exactly what general sanctions are and what it means to editors.

That is why I did what I did and why I don't intend to remove it. Now, if there is really some angst over it being a "warning" then I will agree to remove it if Petri posts he acknowledges disretionary sanctions apply to Eastern Europe articles where the warning currently is. However I will not remove the log entry that he has been notified. That is not negotiable. --WGFinley (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand you point, but find it unacceptable. Will wiki-lawyer this tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish but announcing your intent to Wikilawyer is usually not a good idea. --WGFinley (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)