User talk:WGFinley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:32, 30 November 2011

Feel free to use this page to reach me. If you are in need of more personal, private, or immediate assistance, feel free to email me. Thanks!.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Whisperback|your username|Topic section}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Whisperback|WGFinley|Topic section}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

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

Making WP:Mediation meaningful

Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who you will know is the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.

As context, please scan "Hands off" mediation plan.

Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to wade into this at this time. MedCom is discussing this case per the request made, we should have something shortly. --WGFinley (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an invitation to "wade in" -- no.

My purpose was more subtle, more indirect. In posting this note on your talk page (and on the pages of your mediator colleagues), it was a good guess that your "back channel" comments might bolster Feezo's resolve, patience and flexibility.

Also, I thought it very likely that Bobthefish2 would closely follow my edits. If so, he would notice the sequence of diffs posted on mediator talk pages; and the cumulative effect of my carefully mild words might cause him pause.

My guess is that this gesture achieved no discernible goal. At best, these were a small things. These small "nudges" represented the extent of my ability to affect the momentum of things spinning out of control.

I adopt Feezo's argument that "mediation requires honesty, but also a willingness to engage." This small strategy demonstrates both honesty and willingness and an investment in speculating about the probable consequences of a few words. --Tenmei (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MedCom mailing list is no secret, it helps coordinate the assignment of cases, manage caseload and handle requests such as those made in this case. It's not something I would reply to individually at this point as it's under review. --WGFinley (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous‎'s talk page.

Nableezy AE case

Case Concluded

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

I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with some of your comments in this case. Nableezy made one revert, of two for the show. He then came up with a compromise edit which eliminated, or should have eliminated, the source of friction, by simply substituting "Israeli occupied territories" in place of the disputed list of territories. That was a good solution in my view, and the dispute should have ended there, except that an IP (since blocked), clearly bent on harassment of Nableezy, then began reverting him.

Quite frankly I am getting extremely tired of seeing admins in effect enabling disruptive users by rewarding them with blocks and bans of the opponents they set out to harass. There is no moral equivalence here. Users are entitled to edit pages responsibly without fear of sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty simple, follow along.

Two for the show did the 4th revert which brought it back to the status quo it had been for 5+ months and asked for the warring to stop and to discuss building a consensus. [1]
Nableezy appears to think that is The Wrong Version and reverts [2] = bad.
He does explain on the talk page.[3]= good. But he had already reverted which makes his claim of seeking consensus appear less than genuine. He ignored the call for discussion and consensus in favor of restoring his own preferred version.

This is the essence of P-I edit wars and as anyone who edits in P-I knows your actions are subject to sanction if you can't edit harmoniously. Nableezy has repeatedly been subject to sanction for tendentious editing in the P-I space, this is nothing new or invented on my part. --WGFinley (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief edit war over this issue back in June; Nableezy wasn't involved. Sean Hoyland triggered it again a few days ago when he added an article about murdered Israeli settlers to the category and adjusted the definition accordingly. Two for the show reverted, calling for consensus. Nableezy reverted him, leaving a message on the talk page as to his reasons. Brewcrewer then reverted Nableezy, and Nableezy swiftly came up with a compromise edit. He did not "restore his own preferred version", he came up with a fresh solution which he obviously hoped would resolve the dispute quickly, and which indeed seems to have stuck.

This is no more than standard BRD, and there is no reason to suppose the debate would not have ended there with no drama at all had not the IP turned up to continue his campaign of harassment against Nableezy. It's precisely what I meant when I said that users have a right to edit responsibly without having to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of sanction.

As far as the charge of "tendentious editing" on Nableezy's part, I don't recall any such cases against Nableezy, all those I have seen have been about either technical breaches of the rules or incivility. AFAIK there have been no successful cases against Nableezy for adding substandard or biased content, ie tendentiousness. On the contrary, every time Nableezy has taken a longstanding dispute to the wider community, his position has been endorsed and that of his opponents rejected. That ought to tell you something about who is contributing positively to the topic area and who is not. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Further_remedies -> search page "Nableezy" -> grok to the fullness of Nableezy's TE affliction. I'm not saying he's the sole person at fault here, there's some blame to go around but Nableezy is always in the fray and can't seem to stay away from JJG no matter how many interaction and topic bans they get. --WGFinley (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Nableezy's past history of sanctions only confirms my view that he has not previously been banned for tendentious (ie biased) editing. His sanctions are virtually all over technical breaches like 1RR and occasionally, incivility. It's also worth noting that most of his opponents have eventually been banned for tendentious, or biased, editing. Nableezy generally edits in accordance with core policy, while it's been demonstrated repeatedly that those who have dragged him to AE either could not or would not do the same. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read closer, I can also see your arguments haven't changed in a year. [4] --WGFinley (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments haven't changed because the facts haven't changed. However, I see I'm wasting my time here, so I won't trouble you any further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, if you can't see he's the owner of:

P-I Related Topic Bans

Oct 2009
Jan 2010
Apr 2010
Jul 2010
Aug 2010
Dec 2010
May 2011

Interaction Bans

Shuki Jul 2010
Jaakobou Nov 2010
Cptnono Dec 2010

~~# JJG Feb 2011~~

Cptnono Jun 2011

and four related blocks and that's not from TE? We truly don't have any more to discuss because that could well be the definition of WP:TE. He's had numerous chances to remediate his behavior in the topic space and doesn't appear to have any intention to do so. --WGFinley (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You simply do not know what you are talking about. I have never had an interactoin ban with either Shuki or Jiujitsuguy, and the Jun 2011 interaction ban was placed at my request. The Jan 2010 topic ban was lifted on appeal. The May 2011 ban was replaced with a revert restriction. And each of the bans were on issues with reverts, not tendentious editing. Being an admin is more than counting on your fingers how many times you can find a username in a sanctions log. Finally, I would like to ask you a question. Were you contacted off-wiki by Jiujitsuguy? nableezy - 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't see reverts as a symptom of tendentious editing is a large part of your problem working on the project. And no, I wasn't contacted by JJG, the Cubs have a new manager and his page was being vandalized so I checked back in. Feel free to analyze my edits though I'm sure you already have, it's far easier for you to project deviant behavior on me than take responsibility for your own behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also my apologies for saying you had an interaction ban with JJG, I read that entry wrong. However, saying your situation with Shuki wasn't an interaction ban may technically be correct but it's splitting hairs. --WGFinley (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the difference between technically correct and correct is what is splitting hairs. As for The fact that you don't see reverts as a symptom of tendentious editing is a large part of your problem working on the project., it depends on what is being reverted, and the fact that you are only able to make a determination based on counting is why you shouldnt be involved at AE. nableezy - 12:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Case Concluded

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

I think maybe you are a bit confused. Most of the diffs Jordgette mentioned, as I noted on the ArbCom page, were from the week-long block. Even then, I explained my reasoning for all of those changes before the block (mainly that I was moving the information to another article and leaving a summary in the building 7 article). If you want a concise explanation for why I do not think the block was correct see here: User talk:The Devil's Advocate#Response. Those edits after the block have all been explained on the article talk page (in very short paragraphs just so you know), or in the ArbCom.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs of me explaining the post-block edits to help you out: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting what you wrote on the AE page isn't abundantly helpful. --WGFinley (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was "too long didn't read" So I figured I'd point to each relevant paragraph to make it easier for you to read, as well as pointing to where I address all of the diffs mentioned(I also included two paragraphs from the article talk page and my position on the pre-block edits).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a much more concise diff of me addressing the post-block changes: [10].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chopping it into bits doesn't make it shorter. Stay on topic and away from grandiose rationalization of what you did. Why didn't you work with others to fork that part or discuss your changes? --WGFinley (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my move of information and consequent shortening of the collapse section in the building 7 article was before the block. However, even then, as I have said, I did discuss it. Immediately after the first effort at shortening I started a section on the talk page. As for the edits after the block expired, would two paragraphs be short enough? The last diff I gave and the third diff I provided in this section of your talk page covers those post-block changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For most of the articles on Wikipedia your actions would be pretty standard, be bold make some big changes and see what others think. You can't apply that logic to a testy subject like 9/11. If you had been editing that page for a while you would know the constant battleground that exists with the conspiracy theories, etc. What others tried to encourage you to do is to discuss first and then edit. Make some concise points and get to what you think could be improved on the talk page, always propose forks (there's a template to do it) and let it stay up there for several days (biggest mistake many make, they act like everyone edits WP daily, they don't) and then see what happens. If you showed some contrition and misunderstanding instead of protracted denials it would go a lot better for you. --WGFinley (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware this subject would make related articles a battleground. My thought was that by moving the information to the collapse article the Featured Article covering the building itself could have less exposure to that battle. That is the reason I gave and I still consider that one of the main reasons for shortening the section. I had thought other editors would like to take the battle over conspiracy theories to another article about the actual subject in dispute, rather than have it fought over in an article about the building itself. What it seems to me is that those editors resisting that effort are not interested in keeping the article from being a battleground so long as they have command of the field.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously still trying to go for a topic ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

Hi Nableezy displays battleground approach. You saw his conduct in your talk when he asked you if you were contacted by somebody. Now please see his conduct in BorisG talk, and in my talk.70.231.238.93 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3

Care to add yourself as a party commenting as one of the AE patrollers? --Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE case about Jiujitsuguy may be ready to close

The request at WP:AE#Jiujitsuguy might close without action, but you have raised the question of an interaction ban. "Seems we have a consensus to close, is there a support for an interaction ban for JJG and Nableezy perhaps modeled on the one with Cptnono last year?" This might be considered but I think it would take some evidence (diffs showing personal attacks or whatever). Do you want to add a couple of sentences on why an interaction ban is needed? I was thinking of closing the request myself with no sanction but saw that this item was not answered or resolved. If you are not around, I will try to do something anyway. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no consensus for the interaction ban, just with two of them filing on each other I thought it may be appropriate. I just closed it out as there wasn't any support for that vocalized. --WGFinley (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't notice the diffs provided by Nableezy that showed a long-term habit of Jiujitsuguy falsifying what sources say, or the message from T. Canens in which he acknowledged those problematic diffs and wrote "I think a topic ban is in order." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I didn't, I have reopened the case, thanks for bringing my error to my attention. --WGFinley (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE decision

I do not understand this action at all. For one the editor who actually filed the report had at the end suggested possibly moving it off AE as the editor felt it was no longer as serious. Not to mention that, since the main objection any of these editors raised (including the main issue you raised) was me not discussing changes before making them, your decision to bar me from all related talk pages as well seems excessive and contrary to what you claimed was the issue. So, what exactly did you think justified barring from me the talks pages as well as editing despite the editor who filed the request having a change of heart and suggesting my actions may not warrant the more extreme sanctions that result from AE?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues were detailed in depth in the AE report, I made my suggestion on the AE report and it was there for a week without any objections noted from any other uninvolved admin and therefore made my decision accordingly. I think your refusal to look at the totality of your conduct and how your actions disrupted editing in a controversial topic area were a large reason for indicating to me the block clearly wasn't sufficient as you don't think you did anything wrong. I went forward with the topic ban per the AE report to prevent further disruption. Try to get over it, learn to lose gracefully and take a break if needed. You're not helping things with walls of text, drop the stick instead. --WGFinley (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a short explanation for why I am so insistent that I did nothing wrong? How about the fact that at every turn, no matter how many times I got reverted, no matter how many times those reverts unnecessarily removed material that was of no controversy, no matter how many times I found myself struggling to get any real discussion going, no matter how many bad faith accusations I faced, no matter how many uncivil remarks I received, I still tried my best to work out the issues with those editors calmly and respectfully?

The problem I have with being accused of being disruptive is that it implies my actions were inhibiting progress, when the opposite is true. In several cases I corrected issues that had been standing for years, on one occasion as a direct result of my involvement another editor also noticed such an issue (though the editor seemed to blame me for it the error was around for four years). Generally many improvements I made still stand with no objection, most of them part of the very edits cited in those noticeboards as examples of my "disruptive" behavior. The problem I have with being accused of edit-warring is it implies that I simply tried to reassert myself over and over without considering what others were saying when, again, I did the opposite. I immediately sought the opinions of other editors and repeatedly made changes to accommodate their concerns, letting go of issues even when I found the reasoning flimsy or poor. No editor or admin has yet to actually dispute that this was the case.

Despite being on the right side of the facts and policy, I was fully ready to accept what I thought was coming in this instance. Barring me from editing said articles, no matter how much I may dislike it or see it as unequal, is something I at least could accept. Barring me from discussing changes altogether? That is another matter entirely. So, I have a very simple request: if you are unwilling to reverse your action entirely, it would be nice if you would at least allow me to contribute on the talk pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions in the article space and the talk space were the reasons for the AE report, hence your topic ban from them. If you go and read WP:TBAN you will see this is the standard of almost all topic bans, I'm not meting out cruel and unusual punishment specifically for you. In fact that's your main issue, I'm not meting out punishment, I'm preserving the peace there since you have demonstrated your are unable and unwilling to work collaboratively with others as demonstrated in your response. I have one more essay for you, I hope you actually read them (starting to doubt it): don't be a fanatic. Take care. --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re

That's drawing us into content where we shouldn't be going

WG, I'm afraid that this comment of yours demonstrates that you simply aren't up to speed with the current state of play at AE. Over the last 18 months, administrators have increasingly recognized that simply handing out speeding tickets for technical violations, while ignoring obvious abuses like misrepresentation of sources or adding outright falsehoods, doesn't work. You are trying to drag AE back into an earlier era where civil POV pushers could run rampant while those attempting to prevent their abuse were given no support from dispute resolution and frequently penalized. I would strongly urge you to read the comments collected by NuclearWarfare at his candidate guide, under the "On administration" section, they summarize the problem very well in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 ::Despite being on the right side of the facts and policy, I was fully ready to accept what I thought was coming in this instance. Barring me from editing said articles, no matter how much I may dislike it or see it as unequal, is something I at least could accept. Barring me from discussing changes altogether? That is another matter entirely. So, I have a very simple request: if you are unwilling to reverse your action entirely, it would be nice if you would at least allow me to contribute on the talk pages.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 08:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 :::Your actions in the article space '''and''' the talk space were the reasons for the AE report, hence your [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from them. If you go and read [[WP:TBAN]] you will see this is the standard of almost all topic bans, I'm not meting out cruel and unusual punishment specifically for you. In fact that's your main issue, I'm not meting out punishment, I'm preserving the peace there since you have demonstrated your are unable and unwilling to work collaboratively with others as demonstrated in your response. I have one more essay for you, I hope you actually read them (starting to doubt it): [[WP:DBF|don't be a fanatic]]. Take care.  --[[User:Wgfinley|WGFinley]] ([[User talk:Wgfinley#top|talk]]) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
+==Re==
+''That's drawing us into content where we shouldn't be going''
+WG, I'm afraid that this comment of yours demonstrates that you simply aren't up to speed with the current state of play at AE. Over the last 18 months, administrators have increasingly recognized that simply handing out speeding tickets for technical violations, while ignoring obvious abuses like misrepresentation of sources or adding outright falsehoods, doesn't work. You are trying to drag AE back into an earlier era where civil POV pushers could run rampant while those attempting to prevent their abuse were given no support from dispute resolution and frequently penalized. I would strongly urge you to read the comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011 collected by NuclearWarfare] at his candidate guide, under the "On administration" section, they summarize the problem very well in my view. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)