User talk:WGFinley/Archive 5

how to withdraw my threat?
you didn't say .. should i do something in particular or just delete the text or what?! Maysara (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replacing it with an apology would be good. --WGFinley (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TechnoFaye
Hi... just checking that you're aware this user isn't yet blocked right? Also, your summary suggests you've not actually read through the thread properly, so why close it? Unless you're going to close it properly, I personally don't feel you should be closing it at all. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't state the close correctly, I meant to say the offender pics were removed and she has outlets available regarding the other actions. I don't see anything productive coming out of the discussion that's there.  --WGFinley (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I say, she isn't blocked (the block seeming to be the "other actions" you mention. I don't think you should just be ignoring the discussion because you can't be bothered to read through it properly.. which is what you give the impression that you're doing. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't fix it all, fixed now. I read through a lot of it but it's over 50k of text.  I'm an uninvolved admin and I'm allowed to wrap up AN/I conversations that have run their course or are no longer productive. --WGFinley (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a somewhat uninvolved administrator myself (per WP:INVOLVED) I was kind of thinking it was clear that there was support for at least some kind of action being taken against the user, if not a block than at a strong warning. The threads only been open three days, and editors are still looking through her contributions to see if there is a problem (which there does appear to be). As an admin you may feel you are allowed to close the thread, but maybe you would at least give the users you have commented there the courtesy of actually reading it properly? Or if not, then leave it to a user who is actually aware of the whole issue.. If you haven't even read through the AN/I thread properly, I'm sceptical as to if you've looked at diffs etc...? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been engaged in that AN/I from the start and you wiped her user page, are you sure you're not involved? AN/I is for admins to address issues and resolve them, not to publicly fillet people.  If there's further action to be taken against her then take it or move along.  There's no reason for the conversation to meander on for days because someone posted some naked pictures.  --WGFinley (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have interacted with this editor in a purely administrative role, even if it has been at some length. I believe that per WP:INVOLVED I am not considered an involved administrator. I think that per the thread there is further action that should be taken, are you saying you're happy for me or another administrator to override your decision? Not meaning to be blunt, but have you read any of this thread? The problem is quite clearly not the pictures of herself (although it may be why the thread was started, no one except the person who started it have seemed to have a large problem with them on enwp). - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying if she's committed offenses block her. If she hasn't, then don't.  AN/I is not RfC so either take action on it and move it along or don't take action and move it along.  --WGFinley (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an uninvolved (really) admin and was reviewing, as the last section and my posts last night and this morning indicated...
 * I'm going to indef block, with standard "if can demonstrate ability to edit constructively any admin may unblock" condition.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kingpin13 beat me to it. Ah well...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted my wrapup so feel free to add, I just wanted the spectacle to end. --WGFinley (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting WGfinley :). Now closed with a block. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack comment
He made a couple recent comments and I thought it was OK to say something. Appreciate the warning but a block would not be necessary or appropriate. This is shown since I did not dispute it when he said it wasn't an attack. I had dropped it already. Watch that trigger finger. I will take the advice and keep it to user talk page if at all of course. The last thing the conversation needs is more bickering. I have opened up separate discussions to alleviate some of excess issues that are now surrounding the request.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I said ban and not block and if there are editors there who demonstrate they have no intention of getting along and just want to bicker and throw out charges then yes, it is necessary and appropriate and will be done. --WGFinley (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, ban then. I hear ya. I hope I didn't come across like I just wanted to bicker but will read it over and see if I need to make any behavioral changes.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal it's not like you were the only party. If you get to fee that way it's better to walk away and take a breather before doing more editing.  --WGFinley (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know its not a huge deal. I was all pissy so that is that. I had to go hit work for a few hours and a game so I am much better now! Your comment got under my skin a little bit but when it all comes down to it I do appreciate that you are being more firm in the topic area. I have commented previously that you could improve your clarity but that was awhile ago and you are doing what needs to be done.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry it got under your skin it wasn't directed at any one person it was a blanket statement and yes, a bit strict but I think some of that is needed so there's no mistake about it. --WGFinley (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey, sorry bout that. I took a long time to pick a name lol. What's up? I don't come on WP much anymore, got sick of dealing with the majority of the community, who are the type of people that i absolutely cannot stand. :) I try not to remember the wikidrama from back then. :D --Lexi Marie talk 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was similarly burned out for a while and then got dragged back in via email. I've had some time to recharge will see how it goes.  Hope to see you some!  --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heheh. I have been doing some editing but i am very busy. I just started a DJ business and just bought a 1500 watt sound system this week...hehehehehehehehehe... :D :D :D :D --Lexi Marie talk 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1500 watts? Not bad.  I tried DJ'ing and KJ'ing for a couple of years (in fact it was back when I was heavily editing) but then I decided I needed health insurance. :P  Good luck with it!!  --WGFinley (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More profound non-English sources
Hi, Wgfinley. I've seen your message here. I agree with you that, if possible, we should give sources in English, as more as possible. But what if the non-English sources are more profound, more available/checkable (online!) and more up-to-date? I agree - English is primary here. But that's not the reason to move aside non-English sources, just because they're not in English. That's almost like censorship. Also, I kindly ask you to sanction this kind of attacking behaviour ("sod off") and comparing the opponents' cultural magazines with Stormfront (!!!). That way he etiquetted all writers, scientists and publicists that worked with that magazine. That's violation of WP:BLP. He already used such comparisons against his opponents "Croatian Nazi-pedia", "hardline nationalist". Non-English sources are very informative for certain part of non-English community, especially knowing that many involved users are non-English and that they find those sources as informative. E.g., many users find these kind of informations as helpful (this is blog, but the article is from national daily newspaper, not available online, possibly on some archives). It's about the decision of ISO 639-2 Registration Authority and Joint Advisory Committee about abandoning of "scr" and introduction of "hrv" and "srp"); the decision was brought after joint Croatian and Serbian action (national libraries). The article contains that info. This is also helpful, since deals with the matter. Also, this is helpful Hrvatski jezik - poseban slavenski jezik (1996)] (attitude of Croatian national Academy of Sciences and Arts), Promemorija o hrvatskom jeziku (1995) (attitude of major Croatian national cultural institution) and this  (table of contents). I don't intend to engage in the edit war. I just want to create the atmosphere of constructive dialogue and to use the arguments, to make it easier for the opponents's side, as well as for the (un)involved monitors/readers. Thank You for your attention. Bye, Kubura (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear where you are coming from but it's very difficult to verify the veracity of a non-English source as a reliable source. I'm not saying it can't be used I'm saying you should use English sources wherever possible and only use non-English sources if you can't.  You've cited some articles where this bears out, one person cites a source in another language and another person says that source is not reliable and an English speaker has no way of evaluating it one way or the other.  --WGFinley (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to your statement in my appeal
You might want to notice my response to your statement and also my response to Future Perfect at Sunrise which you mention in it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply here. You might want to take note of the following discussions with regard to the procedure to follow in my appeal: Cirt against threaded comments Action of Amatulic in response to Cirt Subsequent debate Removing valid threaded comments anyway It is amazing that this minor procedural issue has taken such a proportion in my appeal. You might also want to note Double Standard Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The process on overturning a sanction by an uninvolved admin is clear -- there needs to be a consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn the ban. I haven't seen a single uninvolved admin support overturning the sanction let alone a consensus to do so.  --WGFinley (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature change
I'm sorry, I don't know how this happened. I think when I was doing "copy-paste" I accidentally made an error. My apologies again.--Jacurek (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Per your closing of the AE appeal on User:Edith Sirius Lee
I noticed you've closed the AE appeal on ESL. Since my Request for clarification butts onto the ESL case and since I have information that may also pertain to this case, I thought you should have pertinent and critical information which you may not have been aware of:
 * The AE appeal falls under the umbrella of this arbitration case discretionaary sanctions.
 * Per the TM arbitration case decision and as clarified by the arbitrators: Editors must be warned by an uninvolved editor . ESL was not warned appropriately.

''I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies talk 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)''

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors
 * Further ESL was sanctioned for making one revert and there is no evidence of edit warring despite the claim of such by Jmh649. I'm adding the sequence of edits here so you can see the sequence easily.

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: 06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC: 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C

This case was not about the appropriateness of the restriction. The case centers around whether there was wrong doing in the first place. Please reconsider your position on this case. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC))
 * While a self applied 1RR sanction is commendable, a 1RR sanction applied to an editor as a sanction or restriction where wrong doing has not been shown is quite a different matter. Sanctions and restrictions are reserved for violations. The sanction is one issue, clearing one's name is another important issue.


 * I was summarizing consensus, the consensus is the bans have been effective in curtailing disturbances. The requirement for general sanctions bans is there needs to be a consensus to overturn them.  There wasn't consensus to overturn nay, only the involved (including yourself) wish them overturned.  Therefore a consensus to overturn hasn't been met and the bans remain in place.  --WGFinley (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I don't see that this was a general sanction, and I'm sorry you didn't look more closely at the case. I'm afraid this editor has been treated to a lynching since oddly the "consensus" included all involved editors. Why is it acceptable to sanction any editor for one revert. Have you ever been sanctioned for making one revert?(olive (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
 * No, but then I don't have a single purpose account and edit tendentiously either. Someone needs to fill me in about what is so awful about 1RR, it's a very mild sanction and continuing to stir this up is not doing anything towards getting it lifted.  Honor the terms of the sanction (or appeal to Arbcom if there's been the injustice you're insinuating) and get on with life editing.  After a few months of harmonious existence ask for the sanction to be lifted, simple.  --WGFinley (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wgfinley. As I said, the issue for anyone isn't the restriction its whether there was guilt in the first place. We have no right to issue restrictions willy nilly nor to decide what other editors should or should not be happy with when they aren't guilty of anything. The restriction we're talking about isn't mine, so i'll assume the single purpose account you're talking about isn't mine nor the tendentious editing. As well the issue was 1RR. Adding your own caveat as to what constitutes a right to restrict this editor  is unfortunate. I have a right to question your decision and I do especially on behalf of another editor who seems to be unclear about processes. Thanks I think you've made your position clear. I won't bother you again on this.(olive (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC))


 * If there was an issue with the sanction (resulting from a request on AE) being inappropriate that should have gone immediately to AE to be remedied. In my review it did go to AE, it was asked to be refiled properly and it wasn't.  It was now brought to AE again to be removed, again, there was no consensus to remove it.  Also I took particular note of the exchange on on JamesBWatson's talk page.  If you (and yes you are a subject of the sanction) or the person you are advocating for have an issue with the decisions made on AE you can now take them directly to Arbcom.  I am not going to go rogue admin and deem a consensus exists where there isn't one and overturn the ban.  Further, if the claim is she was not warned or notified by an admin, she was., it's difficult for many to see because she removed it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You accused an editor of tendentious editing and of being a SPA. There are specific points made by the arbitration committee that reference this case which you are probably unfamiliar with including where to post concerns. Jmh649 (Doc James) was not an admin at the time, and he was not uninvolved, on the contrary.   As clarified, a warning should be given "by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute." wbich Doc James was. My post to you had to do with your support of a 1RR sanction,  when there was no wrong doing and when due process had not been followed. I know nothing about this editor and actually have not really followed most of his /her posts.  However, I don't like to see injustice. As well this is a complex situation and unless you are very familiar with it relying on a few editors for information can only give you one side of the story. I can't say more. Perhaps the editor in question will take their concerns elsewhere. Thanks for your responses.(olive (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

I didn't accuse her of it, it's what's in the sanction and comments by other uninvolved users that led to the sanctions. While the arbitrator may have said his intent was that uninvolved admin give the warnings it's not in the decision that was voted on by Arbcom, it states: ''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.''

Nowhere in there does it say uninvolved admin or even an admin at all. It just says they shall be given a warning. In my experience doing admin work an Palestinian-Israel conflict, Eastern Europe and Mecedonia, all of which under general sanctions as well it is customary for warnings to be given by editors and not just admins. If you feel this is an inappropriate warning then, again I would urge you to take your appeal to Arbcom so they can adjudicate this matter of how and what shall constitute a proper warning. --WGFinley (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks you've made your position clear, and I'l add, again, this case is not under general sanctions. (olive (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Interesting, they wrote an entire section on discretionary (aka general) sanctions but it's not subject to them? Curious.  I would definitely take that up with Arbcom then if there have been sanctions when no sanctions exist.  --WGFinley (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "not" under "general sanctions" or general sanctions as you mistakenly note above. Yes, there are specific sanctions particular to this Arbitration.(olive (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC))

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis's block
Hello Wgfinley. I think that Count Iblis's block may be be based on wrong information. As far as I am aware the Brews ohare advocacy restrictions have expired. I cannot currently supply a diff but you may have to ask an arb to verify this. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this amendment. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked for a block review at ani. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not to be meant to reflect poorly on you, just want the block reviewed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot ask for an Arb related block review on AN/I, it needs to be on AE. The amendment fixed the time of the advocacy bans to the same time as his probation, he's still on probation therefore the advocacy bans still apply. I would consider carefully your actions here Hell as you are under the same ban and this very action would be in violation of it. --WGFinley (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not on shaky ground at all, you on the other hand are.. Our topic ban expired, Brews was then reinstituted. George William Herbert tried to reimpose but the Arbs voted and decided that this was not needed for us []. I have absolutely no intentions of not advocating for brews or iblis. If a block is made I expect in good faith after reading the above you will immediately will remove any and all blocks with a apology for not being cognizant of the case facts. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for Risker's intervention. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the amendment and the prior amendment request, I will undo the block. That case is very difficult to follow with the various dates and restrictions.  --WGFinley (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it. All is well that ends well, thanks for fixing it! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. FYI this was my concluding (and only) comment at ANI. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, not the first time I've screwed up and won't be the last. In the future I would just ask a citation of where a ruling was changed (which you did get me eventually) and some time to review it.  Going to AN/I was premature here I think.  --WGFinley (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be my fault, I have little patience. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On retrospect not only ANI but even going to Risker for clarification may have been premature given your openness and integrity. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're all fine, apologies all around, it got straightened out and I'm working on some requests to make arb pages like that easier to read. --WGFinley (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Decision
Got the message about your decision Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hounding
Since you said Nableezy was hounding ynhocky based on one incident, what do you have to say about this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you go back and reread what I added I accepted his explanation for how that happened. --WGFinley (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nableezy explained his one incident. Now if we move on from that one incident that you reacted to, and look at the six incidents above by LibiBamizrach all happening within a couple of hours. What do you think about these six incidents? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will try to when I get an opportunity to look at them all. --WGFinley (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you now managed to put aside 1 minute from your schedule to look at the diffs above? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cuivis dolori remedium est patientia --WGFinley (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in here, but SD this pretty obviously constitutes WP:HOUNDING. Six reverts of your edits across multiple articles within 48 hours. Could it be anything else? Why wait for WGFinley. Isn't AE the correct forum for this? NickCT (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is another possibility. The editor in question could have had the articles in question on their watch list. The fact that the editor in question did not show up here to defend themselves proves that they were not wikihounding SD. For example I came here because I have this talk page on my watch list, and not because I am watching SD or NickCT contributions.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow great "proof" of no wikistalking, that he hasn't shown up here. But that LibiBamizrach reverted my six edits just a couple hours after the LibiBamizrach account got registered is plausible for you that he had all those six articles on his watchlist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mbz1 - 6 different pages over 48 hours? Has anyone ever done that to you Mbz?  You seem willing to give the gross benefit of the doubt Mbz. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WGFinley, I want a real reply from you about this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a life, a son and a job -- those things all come before WP.  I will look at your multitude of diffs when I get an opportunity to do some work on WP but please refrain from making demands on my talk page.  --WGFinley (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My Review

 * Israeli salad - best example I am going to have a word with him. Yet again proof there is no end to P-I disputes, salad??
 * List of terrorist incidents, 2010 - reason why you should be careful submitting a bunch of diffs, you were out of line POV pushing a flag that had been agreed by others to be left blank to avoid the very dispute you decided to start again.
 * Second Battle of Mount Hermon - second best example.
 * Third Battle of Mount Hermon - another case where you were out of line putting a POV tag on an article with no discussion on the talk page, you put it there after he pointed it out.
 * Geography of Israel - third best example.
 * First Battle of Mount Hermon - don't you think a trend was started by the other two battles? Only makes sense.

As I said, I will have a word with him however any even thinly veiled attempt to use this as leverage against him will be most unwelcome. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was discussions at the Third Battle of Mount Hermon talkpage before, and I had specifically pointed out the pov problems, at the point of time I added the tag, the issue was still not dealt with. So how was I "out of line" and how was there "no discussion" ?
 * Please explain how adding a Palestinian flag for a place in the Palestinian territories is "pov pushing" ? And please show me where there "had been agreed by others to be left blank to avoid the very dispute you decided to start again." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop splitting hairs, you didn't add any reason for adding the POV template in before you did it. It doesn't matter you discussed it three months prior, it matters at the time you're adding the template.  Those templates are there to encourage discussion of a particular issue.


 * You're just being disingenuous on the last matter, you removed text that said not to add a flag to add a flag, there's ample discussion on the talk page of leaving that reference with no flag. You ignored it and added the flag which then started edit warring until the flag was removed again and things returned to what was agreed upon.  --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought up pov problems at the talkpage, just because I forgot to ad the tag at that point of time doesn't mean I cant ad it later if the pov problems aren't fixed. I cant encourage people to discuss pov problems later on if I forgot to ad the tag? I removed text that said do not ad flag at 19:15, 9 September 2010. Where at that point of time time at the talkpage is there discussion or agreement to not have the Palestinian flag for this place in the Palestinian territories? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK --WGFinley (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wgfinley, LibiBamizrachs wikihoundaing has now continued:, are you gonna do something here or do I have to request enforcement? Also you called me "disingenuous", I want to know why. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous would be the perfect word. You are pretending you didn't see clearly marked text, which you removed, that said not to put a flag there. You are further pretending that putting a Palestinian flag there is not pushing a POV, it most assuredly is. Need proof? There was clear and immediate edit warring that ensued directly because of your actions. And, I say to you again, WP:STICK. --WGFinley (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you are changing the reason for why you called me "disingenuous". Earlier you said I was "disingenuous" on claims of: "there's ample discussion on the talk page of leaving that reference with no flag.  You ignored it and added the flag", then I asked you above where at that point of time I added the flag was there discussion on the talkpage for not having the flag, and you didn't reply. And now instead you claimed I was disingenuous for pretending to not see text marked not to ad flags in the article, When did I pretend or say that I didn't see that?  And you will do nothing about the continued wikihounding?  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe, after you've finished consulting WP:STICK, you will see what I'm doing a few lines under this. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * After you told him about the wikihoudning, the hounding continued. So now what? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing, that's not hounding. Are you really that surprised that someone with an Israeli point of view would be editing the same group of articles as you with the Arab point of view.  Again, disingenuous.  --WGFinley (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So considering those six incident above, and his comments below where he talks about following other editor's edit history, you believe it was coincidence that LibiBamizrach walked into the talkpage here ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi WGFinley thank you very much for teaching me about this policy and making sure I understand and be able to stay out of trouble in future. Now I do not plan to get involve in this argument here with user Supreme Deliciousness because I think he is going overboard, but I just do have to ask you question about WP:HOUNDING to clarify and make sure I understand fully to not break rules in future. Is it ok to look at another editor's edit history? And then if I see they are doing something totally wrong and POV to revert them? Or is this considered "hounding" and is against wikipedia rule? If it is against rule, I will stop doing it. But from what I saw on that policy page, it shows that it is only a problem if I do that as well as personal attack him or something else harassment. But I did not do that - so is it ok if I continue to watch some people's edits? Because to be honest it is obvious he watches my edits already like crazy, much more than I watch him. He submitted SPI against me trying to link me to someone account by saying I edited the same article as that user 4 years ago. It seem very crazy to me and even like harassment that he looked so carefully at every single one of my edits. But anyway, I appreciate your clarification in advance. Thank you. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at someones contributions to see if they are POV could be considered WP:HOUNDING. I would suggest going about normal editing and watch articles or categories of concern to you and it those.  --WGFinley (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I will do that. Thank you. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

continued
Following your advice to this "new" editor, the editor has repeatedly shown up at articles after I edited having never shown an interest in the article prior to that. Here are some recent examples: Could you at least give the user the needed notice of the ARBPIA case so that such matters may be handled at AE in the future? I dont particularly enjoy dealing with people whose only apparent purpose is to goat others into edit wars and provide their "side" "backup" in the form of reverts and votes at various discussions and if I can avoid dealing with such people that would be ideal. Having them following me around to various articles makes that impossible. I would inform the user that I made this post, but as I have no doubt they check my contribs I dont see the need.  nableezy  - 03:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) User's first edit to page shortly after I edited the article
 * 2) User's first edit to page shortly after I edited the article
 * 3) User's first edit to page shortly after I edit the article
 * Nableezy, are you saying that no one can edit articles that you edit? Do you and SD have a monopoly on these articles? As an aside, you are "guilty" of the very same conduct you complain of and I can provide examples if you wish. People in glass houses should not throw stones.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that and if you feel I have violated any policies or guidelines you are free to make a report. This user has continually hounded the contributions of others. Your attempt to distract from the issue is noted, but, as usual, meaningless.  nableezy  - 04:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, this is blatantly hypocritical of you. You yourself followed me to the Yonatan article and had never edited that article ever and have taken up the flag there to edit war. You should be 'warned' for bringing up this frivolous libel and wasting Wgfinley's time. I remind you of User talk:Shuki --Shuki (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a falsehood. I did not follow you anywhere, you already know every Israeli settlement is in my watchlist and has been for some time. I would not accuse you of following me to an article on an Israeli settlement even if you had not edited it, as you have a number of times, as I know you watch all of those articles. But back to the point, this user has followed me to multiple articles after being warned not to do that very recently. Am I missing something here besides the fact that you and Jiujitsuguy see this user as an "ally"? Or is that the only reason you are attempting to distract from the issue here?  nableezy  - 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, the very fact that you would employ the term "ally" in this context represents the clearest example yet of your taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I have no idea who this user is and am wholly unfamiliar with his/her edits or personal beliefs. I view him/her neither as an ally nor axis. He/She is simply an editor hoping to make a positive contribution to the project. I agree with Shuki and I may add that you are once again bringing an unnecessary level of drama to an already volatile topic area. Just end it please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is actually an examply of me accusing you and Shuki of taking that approach. There is no reason for either of you to distract from the issue of this supposedly new user repeatedly hounding me and others to a number of articles except for you wanting to protect an "ally" or attack an "adversary". My use of that word was to highlight the fact that you and Shuki are doing exactly what you accuse me of. But I suspect this will either be lost on you or willfully ignored as it does not advance your cause whereas protecting a user fighting the "Islamofascists on Wikipedia" does.  nableezy  - 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not know that you bothered to build up a comprehensive watchlist, that is sort of disturbing actually. Your prerogative I suppose to 'watch' many things. I have many places on my list because I have either created or expanded them, maybe I should go around and watch the others as well? FWIW, if you don't like the use of 'accusations', then let's just AGF everyone and say that this is our perception of you. It really stands out. Even your 'allies' are not so agressive, and this is just a friggin hobby I remind you. --Shuki (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats nice. It doesnt address the issue, but it is really, truly, very interesting. There is an issue here and if you are only here to distract from it I politely ask that you find some other way to get your kicks.  nableezy  - 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had much time to be on the past few days and didn't see this. My honest opinion is both sides in this tend to if not hound each other, hound articles and seek to further the battleground mentality on these articles. Both sides are continually pushing their POV and the battleground rages from article to article to article. Frankly, getting fed up with it and if I keep seeing the same names again and again and again it may be time for topic bans until editors can show they can edit harmoniously. --WGFinley (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? "Both sides" are equally at fault here? One editor who has done nothing since registering this account but edit-war and hound other users is not the problem, we all are the problem? You issued a warning to the user not to hound others' contributions. I show above the user continued to do so. If you have no intention of backing up warnings you issue dont issue those warnings. If all you have to say is that you think you see the same names too often there isnt much of a point in discussing this with you.  nableezy  - 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can hound people, which is wrong if you harass them:

"If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
 * If there isn't a personal attack or the edit on its face isn't disruptive that's not hounding. As far as it being tendentious, I think that whether the edit in question is tendentious is a valid case of both sides being wrong.  As this whole issue was outlined, in one edit SD deliberately ignored an agreement to leave a flag off of a disputed item by putting a flag on it.  Textbook tendentious editing and a valid reversion.  You can also hound articles -- by that I mean aggressively edit articles in a topic to advocate a point of view, both sides here do this regularly.  --WGFinley (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you repeat the same baseless accusations does not make it true. I asked you before repeatedly to show me where there was agreement to not have a flag when I added one, and you did not respond. And here you are again with the same baseless accusation. Since you are now continuing to repeat the baseless accusation, then please at least back up your claim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only person repeating himself is you. The consensus on that page is there should be no flag, that's NPOV, it's been the accepted practice for some time.  Putting a flag, indicating sovereignty, on territories in dispute is not NPOV.  If you continue to do it you are going to be su19:15, 9 September 2010bject to sanctions.  --WGFinley (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if there was consensus, why don't you show me it? I removed the flag at 19:15, 9 September 2010, show me the consensus that took place before my edit. Where is it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus need not be on the talk page, the article has a history of leaving flags off of disputes, attempts to change that have been reverted, that indicates consensus. You've reached your WP:STICK moment SD.  --WGFinley (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not what you said before: "there's ample discussion on the talk page of leaving that reference with no flag.". And now instead you are saying that consensus does not need to be on the talkpage. "Consensus need not be on the talk page, the article has a history of leaving flags off of disputes"... so what you want me to do before I edit any article is to go through the entire editing history of the article and look at every diff before I make an edit? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

AE
Looks like you've been picking up some of the slack. How are you coping?--Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping my flame retardant suit well groomed! --WGFinley (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! Its a tough racket.--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR notice
OK, I have to ask: How did you get that 1RR notice to appear on Six-Day War on any attempt to edit the article? The participants over at Libertarianism want the article under 1RR probation when I lift the full protection, but can't figure out how to display that message. I don't see a template anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to do edit Template:Editnotices/Page/Libertarianism. Then just put the notice as you would like it in there.  --WGFinley (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. You've been an administrator for a good while, so here's a hypothetical question that your experience might illuminate: Your 1RR probation allows each involved editor 1 revert per day. Say a group of editors have split into factions who keep reverting each other. Is a 1RR probation as you set it up for Six-Day War still effective (giving each involved editor 1 free bite as long as it's discussed on the talk page), or would it be more appropriate to restrict the article to having 1 revert per day instead, no matter who does the reverting? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That happens quite frequently and that's why I was very explicit on Six-Day War that if someone put back previously reverted material, as long as that reversion was explained and done properly, you can't put it back without violating the 1RR on it without further discussion. I think that you're suggestion may be far simpler though and could work but it is awfully tight.  --WGFinley (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination to the Mediation Committee
It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, AGK  21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Got your e-mail. You should be subscribed now :). AGK   22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AE
With regards to a possible interaction ban, he is the one hounding me, not the other way around. He also regularly uses IRC to make accusations behind my back, which I find extremely backhanded and uncool and really really needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make comments that are misinformative because I've mentioned you only twice and you were warned both times about your edits(and btw you have started reports or complained about me too many times), but I made a proposal and I hope you agree with me.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 22:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how Athenean is misinformative. I fully agree with Athenean and Timotheus also agreed about Zjarri's hounting activity.Alexikoua (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally
Hi Wgfinley, I put a new notice at the admin noticeboard for the Restoring Honor rally. You locked this article a few weeks ago so disputes could be resolved. Now two editors who hardly participated in those discussions have reignited the disputes and refuse to look through the archives to see consensus is against their agenda. I am requesting the page be locked again and/or the editors be blocked. Please contact me with any concerns. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Wgfinley. I see BS24 is requesting that you block other editors (without notifying them) and has presented his version of events claiming "consensus" against our "agenda".  Here's the diffs so that you can quickly see what has transpired: BS24 cited WP:BOLD and removed all the text regarding crowd estimates at the rally (in excess of 5K characters) with his edit here.  Per WP:BRD, I reverted here and posted comments on the Talk Page objecting to the wholesale deletion.  Within minutes, he deleted it again here and stripped the section back out.  For my 2nd revert here, I again explained in edit summaries and on the Talk Page that I was objecting per WP:BRD.  BS24 then returned to edit warring with User Xenophrenic by removing information from the scientific crowd estimates which he has repeatedly removed before so I undid that edit here.  I wish BS24 would adequately address Xenophrenic's comments in this regard on the Talk Page, but he has not yet done so.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BS24 shouldn't have been discussing your potential block without proper notifications. Perhaps you shouldn't have invited Xenophrenic (whom shares your POV) to an article that you're were having trouble getting your way on. Is it an accident that now you and Xenophrenic have teamed up in attempting to have BS24 violate the 3 revert rule? Which it has been decided he/she did not. prickly pete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.240.226 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, rather disingenuous that you would return as an IP and level accusations that Xenophrenic and I have "teamed up" to try to get you to violate 3RR! My comment on his Talk Page on September 9th speaks for itself and contains nothing inappropriate.  No offense, but are you sure you're not the one here who is having difficulties dealing with frustration over having your way on the article?  Why resort to a sock? --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not BS24 nor a friend or family. You may believe you did nothing inappropriate by soliciting a particular editor to watch over the article with you. I sir, strongly disagree. Why only 1 editor that undoubtedly shares your POV? Why not 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20? Perhaps next time you need help [...] Um, er [...] An outside opinion you should try creating an RfC thread. prickly pete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.240.226 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we're not going to entertain having silly conversations with socks. Somehow, you would have us believe that a disinterested IP with no edit history suddenly found this discussion here and purports to have knowledge and perspective on disagreements between other editors spanning a number of weeks? Don't insult everyone's intelligence; please have the decency to sign in and comment as yourself if you want this conversation to continue. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just noticed that you have been blocked for edit warring and thus can not sign-in to reply. I truly mean you no harm and I'm not trying to purposely frustrate you with a secret "agenda".  Content disputes are rarely resolved with unspecified claims of "consensus" and accusations.  Let's use the cooling off period to reflect on what happened and how we might engage in constructive discussion going forward from here please.  Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not blocked and no reason for you to continue with these accusations. I am not BS24 and don't care for being called a liar. If you do not appreciate some constructive criticism, then no editor can help you. We are in full agreement that all 3 of you could use some time for reflection, you especially. prickly pete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.240.226 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and now we see that you are indeed blocked for an entire year as a proxy IP. As I said before, very disingenuous to resort to sock puppetry!  It was patently obvious; I hope you realize that and will refrain from such behavior in the future.  After your block expires, you'll have a chance again for constructive engagement.  If content disputes in an article become too frustrating, it's better to give it a rest and come back at the problem another day.
 * ...and you've obsessed over a false belief that I am BS24 (which it's obvious that I'm not) instead of addressing the valid criticisms that has been bestowed upon you. You ought not have solicited the help of only one editor to an article in which you were engaged in a content dispute. Especially, when that editor shares your POV proven through your histories of coediting. Next time try inviting many editors from different backgrounds. If you can't think of enougheditors, then RfC is the way it should done. I'm here to help you, not to hurt you. prickly pete. Recovering Obamunist (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably false; I was not engaged in any content disputes when I told him he might find the article of interest on September 9th and my completely justified WP:BRD reverts for wholesale deletion of the crowd controvery section occurred three weeks later on October 1st. I've done nothing wrong and will not be falling for your efforts to try and make me the focus as "the problem" here.  You have made a patently absurd accusation that Xenophrenic and I "have teamed up in attempting to have BS24 violate the 3 revert rule," to use your exact words.  I suppose that in spite of this, you would continue to have us believe somehow you've just showed up here by chance to offer help and constructive criticism after first using a proxy IP (now banned) and have now created a brand new account called "Recovering Obamunist" with no edit history.  Obviously you're not a brand new Wikipedia user and you steadfastly deny that you're BS24, so if you want to show us your good faith intentions "prickly pete", simply refer us to your prior edits, be they by IP or by autoconfirmed user.  If you're not going to do that (and we all know why), this conversation is over.
 * For Wgfinley, my sincere apologies that this conversation ever took place on your Talk Page, and for any time you wasted having to read it.--AzureCitizen (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of an unreliable source to make an unverified claim at 242 article
The use of information from CAMERA articles and the legal opinions of Alex Safian has been discussed at length on the article talk page and at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nonetheless, editors have repeatedly reinserted the same unverified claim citing a CAMERA article by Alex Safian.

Safian is a particle physicist and CAMERA staffer with no apparent qualifications to "argue" about the standard practices of the UN Security Council or its rules of procedure. Shuki agrees that CAMERA is not a reliable source, but apparent thinks CAMERA arguments about the standard practices of third-parties can be cited inline without violating Wikipedia policy. WP:V says that questionable sources can only be used as sources on themselves. The UN is obviously not part of CAMERA. The Safian and other CAMERA articles cited in the resolution 242 article mention many other third parties and claim that they have grossly misstated the facts.harlan (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything approaching consensus on the noticeboard. I can't make calls on the reliability of a source I just try to make sure people are working within community guidelines and trying to build consensus.  I'm certain you have ample sources that offer an opposing viewpoint Harlan, why can't information from both sides be represented?  --WGFinley (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I went back and looked at this again, it appears to me that CAMERA in this case is just serving a a repository for secondary sources, I wouldn't even consider them a tertiary source. For instance, one of the citations is here.  It's just a listing of Lord Caradon's comments after the resolution and the multiple sources of those comments.  I realize the stigma that CAMERA has for prior Wikipedia shenanigans, however, that doesn't disqualify sources listed on their site.  --WGFinley (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted here because there have been multiple reverts over the insertion of an argument from the Alex Safian editorial. His article does not provide a repository of quotes to support the claim that only the English version of resolution 242 is binding according to standard UN practice. It was suggested at WP:RSN that another source be cited which makes that same claim, but apparently no other source can be supplied which does that.


 * Both sides are not being fairly represented. We are quoting a particle physicist, but every time that the material about the official UK policy statements on withdrawal are added, they are deleted. The same thing happens when Brown's remarks about the legitimacy of the French version and his discussions with the Israelis are added. Those are all discussed in a multitude of secondary sources including Perry, Lall, Bailey, and Lynk. FYI, CAMERA misuses cherry-picked quotes from a Georgetown symposium and a Journal of Palestine Studies interview with Lord Caradon to support their position, but they completely omit the remarks he made on those occasions about the necessity of returning East Jerusalem and the West Bank to Jordan and the fact that the settlements had been established in defiance of resolution 242.


 * I posted another example of CAMERA shenanigans at WP:RSN that Gerson Gorenberg wrote about. The fact that President Carter did not grossly misrepresent the policies of the Johnson Administration is relevant to the article about resolution 242. harlan (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you are talking about now Harlan and I have protected the page to bring the edit war to a stop. I have posted my thoughts on this as an outsider and hopefully some agreement can be reached on it.  It does seem to be a pure opinion piece that's not really relevant to the article when secondary sources have been provided for the reader to make up his own mind on the subject of the opinion piece that was quoted.  --WGFinley (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. harlan (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)