This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
After explaining to him several times over the last few weeks that I don't find his messages helpful, and that as a party to edits and someone's who's himself been banned recently, he's not in a position to issue warnings around edits he's involved in, The Devil's Advocate ( talk · contribs)... persists on badgering. This is shortly after I asked him to stop the harassment. The edits of mine that he references were not tendentious nor POV, that I can see. The first, in Ofra was taken verbatim from a source already in the article, for balance. He modified it very slightly and I was fine with it. The second, in Palestinian exodus, was to tone down the edit already made by JJG, for form and neutrality. It was reverted and I didn't pursue it. I made no other edits since. My few comments on that talk page were courteous, short and concise. He's done this quite a few times already. Here, and here are examples where others also show dismay at his behavior. I think he's stepping way overboard into harassment and hounding. He seems to be looking for conflict. I don't want to report him to AE, though I think he's deserving of it right now. I know you're busy but any advice would help. Thanks in advance. -- MichaelNetzer ( talk) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I was recently in contact with AKG regarding my request for mediation on the Occidental Petroleum page. He says you are handling mediation now.
I invite you to review the talk pages on this matter. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but I have tried in good faith to follow the policies. I added material that I believe to be completely appropriate. I have been hit pretty hard by the other editors. One has admitted a potential COI in that the editor works for Occidental indirectly through another party. Yet another has written a number of articles about Vintage Petroleum, a subsidiary of Occidental yet claims absolutely no connection to the company. Others have not even contributed to the article and have automatically reverted edits and offered disparaging remarks about me without any specifics. I researched old, archived talk pages and saw a pattern of control over this material by a select group of editors that basically results in the partial or even complete deletion of material that is factually accurate and widely reported in major publications and hugely relevant and yet the editorial pattern is to retain unverifiable company generated slogans, outdated exploration and production facts-- barrels of oil and operations, etc) and industry awards that have no real meaning. It reads largely like a corporate annual report.
If I am wrong I will simply rethink this and try to become a better editor.
Best regards,
Cowboy128 ( talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had a chance to look at this now Cowboy and I had to reject the request as none of the others responded. Looking at the dispute and your edit history it seems you are pretty close to this issue and you have a single purpose account. While there is no rule against SPAs it is difficult to overcome objections by other editors that you are there with an axe to grind. As such you need to make sure the edits you make are backed up with solid reliable sources and are with proper weight within the article. Please take a look at these policies and essays and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about them. -- WGFinley ( talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Cowboy128 ( talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You asked me to let you know if this user continued the misbehavior, so I'm disappointed to have to report that he's inserting the same anti-Pelosi press releases as sources on Pelosi here (as well as repeatedly inserting RSN-rejected sources here and here etc. in order to push fringe views about abortion, using other advocacy sources as citations for facts here and passim, etc.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a new comment since your latest comment in the JJG A/E thread, and I was wondering if you had considered it or not. I am not planning on getting in a back-and-fourth with you here, though I think the comment may have just gone unnoticed. - asad ( talk) 21:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, very busy week and I was out of town a few days. I took a look at the information both of you have provided. There is no disputing that JJG edits from his POV, if we banned everyone in I-P for that things would be marvelous as we could readily ban partisans on both sides, such as yourselves as well, and be done with it. I don't think we would make a very good encyclopedia that way though. Everyone has their bias, even me, and edits with some bias from their own POV, it's our job to collaborate with others to reduce bias wherever possible. There's a line on when bias becomes TE though and it's tough for me to describe. It is something more felt and is very subjective. I think everyone has a line in their head when someone goes from vigorously defending their POV to engaging in TE, it's not clear and obvious, I wish it were. It is usually characterized by repeated behaviors or those that thwart the collaborative process.
In the information Ohio submitted that's all content dispute stuff. I don't see much wrong other than the typical bickering in edit summaries instead of discussion on the talk page where it belongs. I looked at JJG's behavior on the '48 Exodus and to be honest I don't really see a problem other than really bad phrasing. There is constant bickering over the leads of most of these articles so that is of no surprise. Introducing the concept of "ethnic cleansing" is throwing a bomb into any article and is something I can attest to from some Armenia/Azerbaijan admin work lately. It got put it in from the Palestinian/Arab POV that the Israelis were conducting ethnic cleansing, you can't really expect those from the Israeli POV to NOT contest that and seek to balance out the equation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it is sourced, just like there's nothing wrong with the accusation there was as long as it is sourced. Looking at the talk page there the conversation seems productive with both sides trying to come up with a way that will properly present both views. That's what should be happening.
I know there were other diffs submitted in the complaint but we can't go along with the tit-for-tat nature the partisans want to insert into all of these reports. We look at what's submitted, cull what is useful and what we don't think is. There's some consensus on his belligerent edits and the flag nonsense that we was engaging in TE, we're trying to focus in on that consensus and get it wrapped up. I hadn't planned on doing anything with it until Tim and probably Ed care to comment again. It seems JJG is voluntarily staying away from ARBPIA areas at the moment so there's no urgent need to close that one. -- WGFinley ( talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In considering User:LAz17's block I think it is relevant to note that the user has recently posted a thread on the Serbian Wikipedia with the title War on our people" (Rat na nas narod). It is, of course, chock-full of personal attacks leveled against others and myself ("greater-croatianists", "terrorists", "scum" etc.). The apparent purpose of the thread is to canvass Serbian Wikipedians into "counter-attacking" here on enWiki, as well as to have others lobby for his unblock. -- Director ( talk) 13:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I ran the comments on SR through Google translate and it seems to me several folks are telling Laz he is going about it wrong. I don't see any off-wiki canvassing going on there. As far as our new friend claiming the socks weren't used maliciously I would state clearly, you are in error. Using a sock to evade a block is probably the most egregious of sock violations, again, go read WP:EVADE and stop pretending Laz didn't have more than several chances to change his behavior and avoid blocks. Judging by what he wrote on SR he still doesn't get it. -- WGFinley ( talk) 05:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to ask a question about a recent AE case you have closed, i.e. the case of Tuscumbia.
Tuscumbia was topic banned about a year ago following an AE case with the following reason:
The same editor, however, makes a similar statement soon after topic ban is over:
As far as I am aware, WP rules haven't changed during 2011 and it is still not acceptable to criticize sources on the basis of the alleged ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are.
So after this long intro my question is why Tuscumbia's case was closed even without warning? I agree that evidence was somewhat stale (i.e. related to mid October), but the misconduct was such an impudent one (in the light of preceding topic ban) that once brought to the attention of the administrators, perhaps should not be ignored.
I think that the ability to enforce a civilized and argument-based dialogue is the most important virtue of WP and any attempt to misuse WP as a vehicle for ethnic conflict should be cut in roots. -- Ashot ( talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ashot, appealing a decision I made that referenced a lot of the material as stale with more stale information isn't likely to gain much traction. We can't be going back in time and review actions made and take action there. We have to stick to current and recent behavior otherwise our actions are merely punitive. Sanctions aren't designed to be punitive they're designed to prevent disruption. -- WGFinley ( talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see me "criticizing" Armenian authors. All I did was compare (within the discussion of conflicting data) application of a source (written by an Armenian-American) by MarshallBagramyan and his selective dismissal of neutral (that is, Persian, Jewish, Swedish and American) authors who provided data conflicting with that of written by Marshall's source...
Are you asking me to paste the whole guideline here? It goes into great depth about how scholarly sources are not preferred, secondary sources are. Reliable sources states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That is, the scholarly work of an author is frequently considered a primary source and not a secondary one, it leads you down the road of synthesis and original research which are not allowed. Also primary sources are frequently used to push fringe theories and give them more prominence in an article than they would otherwise merit. Presenting sources and discussing their applicability to the article is part of the process of editing on Wikipedia. One must be prepared to back up sources mentioned and defend it as a reliable source that can be used in the article. I'm not seeing your source being dismissed by your opponent for nationalistic reasons as much as I'm seeing you say that's what it's being dismissed. -- WGFinley ( talk) 22:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How am I suppose to reach a consensus with someone who brashes aside every source as Armenian or Armenian influenced [9]. -- George Spurlin ( talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see Tuscumbia has successfully stonewalled the discussion and is refusing to reach consensus. We are exactly where we started a month ago. What would you suggest I do next? -- George Spurlin ( talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have refrained from reverting the article, but I can't say that I have unlimited patience. What do you propose I do with Tuscumbia's stonewalling? -- George Spurlin ( talk) 11:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You made the following statement on AE:
This one is completely frivolous and justifies a 90-day TBAN for SonofSetanta (talk · contribs), the diff provided even shows where information in the article was sourced. I am of half a mind to do 90-days simply for invoking the cabal but the bad faith behavior demonstrated here is enough for me. Unless there's a serious admin objection, since the filer has continued to violate 1RR since these were filed I intend to issue the TBAN.
The diff you are referring to was provided by me and shows how information I edited in with sources was removed. 4 reversions in one edit. I have not edited the Ulster Defence Regiment article since and feel that you are aiming your gun at the wrong person. The editor who did what you are accusing me of is Mo Aimh who is the subject of the complaint. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP tried to insert the Nazi flag to the 1948 Palestine War article. The timing seems suspicious.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
AE appeal of sorts Mo ainm ~Talk 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Your account is a year and a half old, how are you a "new user"? -- WGFinley ( talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Esoglou the same as Lima? 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Tuscumbia ( talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I recently requested mediation in regard to Dr.K having deleted the link to my webpage in the external-links section of the slide-rule article. You rejected the request for mediation on the grounds that nobody except myself wanted to participate in mediation. Does this mean that I can go ahead and include the link? Is this like a court case where I win automatically if the other person doesn't show up?
You said that I should be aware of the Wikipedia policy against self-promotion. That doesn't really make any sense to me. As I stated in my argument: every link in every external-links section promotes somebody's webpage. What is different about my webpage, as compared to anybody else's? The self-promotion warning page that you directed me to mostly frowns on frivolous self-promotion, such as links to personal pages. That is not the case here. My program took over a month to write --- it is not so trivial that anybody could do the same with a day's effort --- there are no other programs available that generate both CNC gcode and PostScript for slide-rule images. Having this software available is a huge step forward for anybody trying to build a slide-rule. I really don't understand why there is any question at all about providing the link --- it obviously belongs in the slide-rule external-links section --- you've got other links in there to webpages that do seem to be the work of one day by somebody who barely knew the rudiments of the subject but yet wanted to present himself as a great expert.
All in all, I'm really unimpressed by Wikipedia. I think that your editors are mostly people who don't know anything about any subject, but who get a thrill out of pretending to be great experts and bullying people like me. Wikipedia is hardly alone though. On the comp.lang forums, there are abundant trolls who have told me that my novice package "sucks." It is not just myself who gets attacked either. I have seen HLA get denounced similarly by self-proclaimed assembly-language experts, and HLA is a really big development system that must have taken many years to write. The whole situation with the internet reminds me of the "last man" that we were warned about in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" --- who makes small of everything and believes in nothing, except the wisdom of the crowd. Hugh Aguilar ( talk) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.
While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.
If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Two strange incidents and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Granateple ( talk) 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The above message title is text you posted on my talk page. I'd like to advise you to educate yourself about Italian Renaissance and medieval history before deciding to throw accusations as the one in this message title.-- 71.178.106.120 ( talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey WGF. Thank you for your work last month in replying to Someone35 regarding his concerns about his topic ban and related topics. I have a couple of concerns that I wanted to mention here.
First, WP:COMPETENCY. This essay specifically states that "it is usually not appropriate" to tell an editor that the essay applies to them. I'm not sure if there was an unusual situation that demanded it in this instance, but in general it's best to follow the guidance in the essay that you're citing!
Secondly, you referred to that essay because you felt that there was "continued insistence of no wrongdoing in the face of ample evidence" that made the essay relevant. However, the implication of any reference to WP:COMPETENCY is that what may be required is an indefinite block. Although I agree that Someone35's excuses and statements aren't especially credible, I do not feel it's reasonable to imply an indef block is required just because he doesn't agree with your point of view. Indef blocks are for serious disruption, or for editors who clearly incapable of editing constructively. They are not for editors who merely happen not to agree with how topic bans should be applied or how their actions are viewed by administrators.
I do have some more general concerns about AE and decisions that seem overly harsh, and indeed I worry that there might be a touch of "I was harsh on Nableezy and got lots of criticism, so now I should be harsh on someone from 'the other side' to balance it out". However, that's quite separate to the concerns I outline above, and overall the community seems rather supportive of the current approach taken at AE. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
During discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article different editors have been subjecting me to personal attacks. One editor just called on other editors to "shun" me. Now another is rejecting my calls for going to DRN because they wants to have me topic-banned. All of this has arisen because of several disputes, but most notably it has arisen because of my recent insistence on the talk page against creating an "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" category and adding it to the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. One more editor just took the step of moving the section on antisemitism in the conspiracy theories article and placing it prominently above every section but terminology, meaning antisemitism is mentioned before the history of the theories or what the main theories involve. Given that this includes numerous editors I am not sure how to deal with it. I am not particlarly interested in taking this to AE, let alone filing four or more separate AE requests, but they will probably all step in on an AE request against me to insist on sanctions.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello WgFinley. Could I ask you, please, to lift my topic ban related to this report? I was already inactive from all related discussions for more than 2 weeks before you topic banned me, so it can hardly be considered preventive of anything, but rather purely punitive. Beside, in all discussions between us afterwords when I tried to understand the reasons of the ban, you never assumed any good-faith to me, as per policy recomendations, but you rather allways tried to find more and more excuses for the ban. Recapitulating, you topic banned me mainly for Wikipedia:TE which is quite absurd as I didn´t edited the article in question, and then you further backed your action with Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP which is kind of disputable as I never doubled any thread but they were diffent complains. Even if we suppose that forumshop accusation is right, I still can´t see how can be worth 6 months ban...
You may not be aware of, but I have been quite productive and policy following editor in the area, and because of one dispute, in which I actually limited myself to discuss, I am being deprived of editing for half a year. If you want to know, I am really not very enthusiastic in further digging the same issue that got me into the dispute (as I already had removed myself 2 weeks before your late ban), so I see no reasons for you to assume in antecipation any problematic behaviour on my behalve. Also, I am very much aware that any minor action of mine that may need any admin attention will be immediatelly brought to your or any other admin attention as those users will certainly make it sure that it does, so I see no reason for you to assume that I could be anyhow problematic in the future and passing unoteced. What I mean is that you could really give me the benefit of a doubt at least one time, as the hole issuse is pretty much behind our backs now, and any tone of discontent from my side that may have not worked in my favour when asking for a ban lift in the past is now gone, so I really want to continue contributing constructively on WP. FkpCascais ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Wgfinley! There seems to be a small dispute that has come to the Mediation Committee ( the request for mediation here). I would like to inquire if there is any possibility I could assist in this mediation, if accepted. I am considering applying to join the Mediation Committee and I read somewhere that a way to demonstrate experience in dispute resolution was to assist in an actual MedCom case.
If I can be of help in anyway, please ping me back! Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Noted this is being lobbied in various venues, this one is closed. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey, could you take a look at these talk page threads? That is only the first one of many threads he has been involved in, but The Devil's Advocate, and editor you sanctioned back in November with a topic ban on all 9/11 articles, has been tenditiously and consistantly POV pushing ever since he came back from the ban. I think some action is warranted, so you take a look and see? You were the closing administrator in his last case, so I figured I'd bring this to you. Toa Nidhiki 05 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Wgfinley...you seem to be a reasonable sort...but I don't understand at all why you supported an indefinite topic ban on Tom harrison and only 30 days on the fellow mentioned above. MONGO 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC) You gave The Devils Advocate (TDA) a 30 day topic ban yet supported a indefinite ban on Tom Harrison...therefore, all TDA had to do was wait out his topic ban, but you put Tom Harrison in a position whereby he would be forced to seek a lift of the ban, either via a direct appeal to the three admins involved or by an appeal to arbcom enforcement board directly. Now, Timotheus Canens has stated that since one of the involved admins has handed in his tools and apparently retired, the only way Harrison can get the ban lifted is via a direct appeal to the board...I've worked with Harrison for some time on these articles and I assure you he would never ask for clemency on this matter...you guys have eliminated one of the most constructive contributors to these difficult pages with your overzealous approach.-- MONGO 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I issued TDA's TBAN as closing a case based on a consensus of admins on WP:AE. If you believe his behavior has resumed and merits further consideration I would suggest making a report at WP:AE and cite your evidence. I will be happy to review it then along with other admins. -- WGFinley ( talk) 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Further discussion is not merited when you have clearly tendentious edits like that, they're blatant. That's why it was indefinite and that's why it was closed in short order. -- WGFinley ( talk) 21:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You keep bringing in what TDA has done or is doing in reference to this TBAN and it has nothing to do with anything. What TDA says various places has nothing to do with the diffs in question. Also, using a "For Dummies" book as the source for a statement of that magnitude (i.e. hate of Jews is the origin of all conspiracy theories) is plainly unacceptable. There are also three diffs I referenced and not just one. So again, last time here, I'm thoroughly confident that Tom has the ability to ask to have the terms of the ban changed, he can do so. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
It seems a little troll wandered on to my user page.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, was being all thespian the past week solid. -- WGFinley ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
After explaining to him several times over the last few weeks that I don't find his messages helpful, and that as a party to edits and someone's who's himself been banned recently, he's not in a position to issue warnings around edits he's involved in, The Devil's Advocate ( talk · contribs)... persists on badgering. This is shortly after I asked him to stop the harassment. The edits of mine that he references were not tendentious nor POV, that I can see. The first, in Ofra was taken verbatim from a source already in the article, for balance. He modified it very slightly and I was fine with it. The second, in Palestinian exodus, was to tone down the edit already made by JJG, for form and neutrality. It was reverted and I didn't pursue it. I made no other edits since. My few comments on that talk page were courteous, short and concise. He's done this quite a few times already. Here, and here are examples where others also show dismay at his behavior. I think he's stepping way overboard into harassment and hounding. He seems to be looking for conflict. I don't want to report him to AE, though I think he's deserving of it right now. I know you're busy but any advice would help. Thanks in advance. -- MichaelNetzer ( talk) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I was recently in contact with AKG regarding my request for mediation on the Occidental Petroleum page. He says you are handling mediation now.
I invite you to review the talk pages on this matter. I am relatively new to Wikipedia but I have tried in good faith to follow the policies. I added material that I believe to be completely appropriate. I have been hit pretty hard by the other editors. One has admitted a potential COI in that the editor works for Occidental indirectly through another party. Yet another has written a number of articles about Vintage Petroleum, a subsidiary of Occidental yet claims absolutely no connection to the company. Others have not even contributed to the article and have automatically reverted edits and offered disparaging remarks about me without any specifics. I researched old, archived talk pages and saw a pattern of control over this material by a select group of editors that basically results in the partial or even complete deletion of material that is factually accurate and widely reported in major publications and hugely relevant and yet the editorial pattern is to retain unverifiable company generated slogans, outdated exploration and production facts-- barrels of oil and operations, etc) and industry awards that have no real meaning. It reads largely like a corporate annual report.
If I am wrong I will simply rethink this and try to become a better editor.
Best regards,
Cowboy128 ( talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had a chance to look at this now Cowboy and I had to reject the request as none of the others responded. Looking at the dispute and your edit history it seems you are pretty close to this issue and you have a single purpose account. While there is no rule against SPAs it is difficult to overcome objections by other editors that you are there with an axe to grind. As such you need to make sure the edits you make are backed up with solid reliable sources and are with proper weight within the article. Please take a look at these policies and essays and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about them. -- WGFinley ( talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Cowboy128 ( talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You asked me to let you know if this user continued the misbehavior, so I'm disappointed to have to report that he's inserting the same anti-Pelosi press releases as sources on Pelosi here (as well as repeatedly inserting RSN-rejected sources here and here etc. in order to push fringe views about abortion, using other advocacy sources as citations for facts here and passim, etc.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a new comment since your latest comment in the JJG A/E thread, and I was wondering if you had considered it or not. I am not planning on getting in a back-and-fourth with you here, though I think the comment may have just gone unnoticed. - asad ( talk) 21:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, very busy week and I was out of town a few days. I took a look at the information both of you have provided. There is no disputing that JJG edits from his POV, if we banned everyone in I-P for that things would be marvelous as we could readily ban partisans on both sides, such as yourselves as well, and be done with it. I don't think we would make a very good encyclopedia that way though. Everyone has their bias, even me, and edits with some bias from their own POV, it's our job to collaborate with others to reduce bias wherever possible. There's a line on when bias becomes TE though and it's tough for me to describe. It is something more felt and is very subjective. I think everyone has a line in their head when someone goes from vigorously defending their POV to engaging in TE, it's not clear and obvious, I wish it were. It is usually characterized by repeated behaviors or those that thwart the collaborative process.
In the information Ohio submitted that's all content dispute stuff. I don't see much wrong other than the typical bickering in edit summaries instead of discussion on the talk page where it belongs. I looked at JJG's behavior on the '48 Exodus and to be honest I don't really see a problem other than really bad phrasing. There is constant bickering over the leads of most of these articles so that is of no surprise. Introducing the concept of "ethnic cleansing" is throwing a bomb into any article and is something I can attest to from some Armenia/Azerbaijan admin work lately. It got put it in from the Palestinian/Arab POV that the Israelis were conducting ethnic cleansing, you can't really expect those from the Israeli POV to NOT contest that and seek to balance out the equation. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it is sourced, just like there's nothing wrong with the accusation there was as long as it is sourced. Looking at the talk page there the conversation seems productive with both sides trying to come up with a way that will properly present both views. That's what should be happening.
I know there were other diffs submitted in the complaint but we can't go along with the tit-for-tat nature the partisans want to insert into all of these reports. We look at what's submitted, cull what is useful and what we don't think is. There's some consensus on his belligerent edits and the flag nonsense that we was engaging in TE, we're trying to focus in on that consensus and get it wrapped up. I hadn't planned on doing anything with it until Tim and probably Ed care to comment again. It seems JJG is voluntarily staying away from ARBPIA areas at the moment so there's no urgent need to close that one. -- WGFinley ( talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
In considering User:LAz17's block I think it is relevant to note that the user has recently posted a thread on the Serbian Wikipedia with the title War on our people" (Rat na nas narod). It is, of course, chock-full of personal attacks leveled against others and myself ("greater-croatianists", "terrorists", "scum" etc.). The apparent purpose of the thread is to canvass Serbian Wikipedians into "counter-attacking" here on enWiki, as well as to have others lobby for his unblock. -- Director ( talk) 13:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I ran the comments on SR through Google translate and it seems to me several folks are telling Laz he is going about it wrong. I don't see any off-wiki canvassing going on there. As far as our new friend claiming the socks weren't used maliciously I would state clearly, you are in error. Using a sock to evade a block is probably the most egregious of sock violations, again, go read WP:EVADE and stop pretending Laz didn't have more than several chances to change his behavior and avoid blocks. Judging by what he wrote on SR he still doesn't get it. -- WGFinley ( talk) 05:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to ask a question about a recent AE case you have closed, i.e. the case of Tuscumbia.
Tuscumbia was topic banned about a year ago following an AE case with the following reason:
The same editor, however, makes a similar statement soon after topic ban is over:
As far as I am aware, WP rules haven't changed during 2011 and it is still not acceptable to criticize sources on the basis of the alleged ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are.
So after this long intro my question is why Tuscumbia's case was closed even without warning? I agree that evidence was somewhat stale (i.e. related to mid October), but the misconduct was such an impudent one (in the light of preceding topic ban) that once brought to the attention of the administrators, perhaps should not be ignored.
I think that the ability to enforce a civilized and argument-based dialogue is the most important virtue of WP and any attempt to misuse WP as a vehicle for ethnic conflict should be cut in roots. -- Ashot ( talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ashot, appealing a decision I made that referenced a lot of the material as stale with more stale information isn't likely to gain much traction. We can't be going back in time and review actions made and take action there. We have to stick to current and recent behavior otherwise our actions are merely punitive. Sanctions aren't designed to be punitive they're designed to prevent disruption. -- WGFinley ( talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see me "criticizing" Armenian authors. All I did was compare (within the discussion of conflicting data) application of a source (written by an Armenian-American) by MarshallBagramyan and his selective dismissal of neutral (that is, Persian, Jewish, Swedish and American) authors who provided data conflicting with that of written by Marshall's source...
Are you asking me to paste the whole guideline here? It goes into great depth about how scholarly sources are not preferred, secondary sources are. Reliable sources states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That is, the scholarly work of an author is frequently considered a primary source and not a secondary one, it leads you down the road of synthesis and original research which are not allowed. Also primary sources are frequently used to push fringe theories and give them more prominence in an article than they would otherwise merit. Presenting sources and discussing their applicability to the article is part of the process of editing on Wikipedia. One must be prepared to back up sources mentioned and defend it as a reliable source that can be used in the article. I'm not seeing your source being dismissed by your opponent for nationalistic reasons as much as I'm seeing you say that's what it's being dismissed. -- WGFinley ( talk) 22:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How am I suppose to reach a consensus with someone who brashes aside every source as Armenian or Armenian influenced [9]. -- George Spurlin ( talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see Tuscumbia has successfully stonewalled the discussion and is refusing to reach consensus. We are exactly where we started a month ago. What would you suggest I do next? -- George Spurlin ( talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have refrained from reverting the article, but I can't say that I have unlimited patience. What do you propose I do with Tuscumbia's stonewalling? -- George Spurlin ( talk) 11:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You made the following statement on AE:
This one is completely frivolous and justifies a 90-day TBAN for SonofSetanta (talk · contribs), the diff provided even shows where information in the article was sourced. I am of half a mind to do 90-days simply for invoking the cabal but the bad faith behavior demonstrated here is enough for me. Unless there's a serious admin objection, since the filer has continued to violate 1RR since these were filed I intend to issue the TBAN.
The diff you are referring to was provided by me and shows how information I edited in with sources was removed. 4 reversions in one edit. I have not edited the Ulster Defence Regiment article since and feel that you are aiming your gun at the wrong person. The editor who did what you are accusing me of is Mo Aimh who is the subject of the complaint. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP tried to insert the Nazi flag to the 1948 Palestine War article. The timing seems suspicious.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
AE appeal of sorts Mo ainm ~Talk 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Your account is a year and a half old, how are you a "new user"? -- WGFinley ( talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Esoglou the same as Lima? 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Tuscumbia ( talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I recently requested mediation in regard to Dr.K having deleted the link to my webpage in the external-links section of the slide-rule article. You rejected the request for mediation on the grounds that nobody except myself wanted to participate in mediation. Does this mean that I can go ahead and include the link? Is this like a court case where I win automatically if the other person doesn't show up?
You said that I should be aware of the Wikipedia policy against self-promotion. That doesn't really make any sense to me. As I stated in my argument: every link in every external-links section promotes somebody's webpage. What is different about my webpage, as compared to anybody else's? The self-promotion warning page that you directed me to mostly frowns on frivolous self-promotion, such as links to personal pages. That is not the case here. My program took over a month to write --- it is not so trivial that anybody could do the same with a day's effort --- there are no other programs available that generate both CNC gcode and PostScript for slide-rule images. Having this software available is a huge step forward for anybody trying to build a slide-rule. I really don't understand why there is any question at all about providing the link --- it obviously belongs in the slide-rule external-links section --- you've got other links in there to webpages that do seem to be the work of one day by somebody who barely knew the rudiments of the subject but yet wanted to present himself as a great expert.
All in all, I'm really unimpressed by Wikipedia. I think that your editors are mostly people who don't know anything about any subject, but who get a thrill out of pretending to be great experts and bullying people like me. Wikipedia is hardly alone though. On the comp.lang forums, there are abundant trolls who have told me that my novice package "sucks." It is not just myself who gets attacked either. I have seen HLA get denounced similarly by self-proclaimed assembly-language experts, and HLA is a really big development system that must have taken many years to write. The whole situation with the internet reminds me of the "last man" that we were warned about in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" --- who makes small of everything and believes in nothing, except the wisdom of the crowd. Hugh Aguilar ( talk) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.
While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.
If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Two strange incidents and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Granateple ( talk) 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The above message title is text you posted on my talk page. I'd like to advise you to educate yourself about Italian Renaissance and medieval history before deciding to throw accusations as the one in this message title.-- 71.178.106.120 ( talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey WGF. Thank you for your work last month in replying to Someone35 regarding his concerns about his topic ban and related topics. I have a couple of concerns that I wanted to mention here.
First, WP:COMPETENCY. This essay specifically states that "it is usually not appropriate" to tell an editor that the essay applies to them. I'm not sure if there was an unusual situation that demanded it in this instance, but in general it's best to follow the guidance in the essay that you're citing!
Secondly, you referred to that essay because you felt that there was "continued insistence of no wrongdoing in the face of ample evidence" that made the essay relevant. However, the implication of any reference to WP:COMPETENCY is that what may be required is an indefinite block. Although I agree that Someone35's excuses and statements aren't especially credible, I do not feel it's reasonable to imply an indef block is required just because he doesn't agree with your point of view. Indef blocks are for serious disruption, or for editors who clearly incapable of editing constructively. They are not for editors who merely happen not to agree with how topic bans should be applied or how their actions are viewed by administrators.
I do have some more general concerns about AE and decisions that seem overly harsh, and indeed I worry that there might be a touch of "I was harsh on Nableezy and got lots of criticism, so now I should be harsh on someone from 'the other side' to balance it out". However, that's quite separate to the concerns I outline above, and overall the community seems rather supportive of the current approach taken at AE. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
During discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article different editors have been subjecting me to personal attacks. One editor just called on other editors to "shun" me. Now another is rejecting my calls for going to DRN because they wants to have me topic-banned. All of this has arisen because of several disputes, but most notably it has arisen because of my recent insistence on the talk page against creating an "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" category and adding it to the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. One more editor just took the step of moving the section on antisemitism in the conspiracy theories article and placing it prominently above every section but terminology, meaning antisemitism is mentioned before the history of the theories or what the main theories involve. Given that this includes numerous editors I am not sure how to deal with it. I am not particlarly interested in taking this to AE, let alone filing four or more separate AE requests, but they will probably all step in on an AE request against me to insist on sanctions.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello WgFinley. Could I ask you, please, to lift my topic ban related to this report? I was already inactive from all related discussions for more than 2 weeks before you topic banned me, so it can hardly be considered preventive of anything, but rather purely punitive. Beside, in all discussions between us afterwords when I tried to understand the reasons of the ban, you never assumed any good-faith to me, as per policy recomendations, but you rather allways tried to find more and more excuses for the ban. Recapitulating, you topic banned me mainly for Wikipedia:TE which is quite absurd as I didn´t edited the article in question, and then you further backed your action with Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP which is kind of disputable as I never doubled any thread but they were diffent complains. Even if we suppose that forumshop accusation is right, I still can´t see how can be worth 6 months ban...
You may not be aware of, but I have been quite productive and policy following editor in the area, and because of one dispute, in which I actually limited myself to discuss, I am being deprived of editing for half a year. If you want to know, I am really not very enthusiastic in further digging the same issue that got me into the dispute (as I already had removed myself 2 weeks before your late ban), so I see no reasons for you to assume in antecipation any problematic behaviour on my behalve. Also, I am very much aware that any minor action of mine that may need any admin attention will be immediatelly brought to your or any other admin attention as those users will certainly make it sure that it does, so I see no reason for you to assume that I could be anyhow problematic in the future and passing unoteced. What I mean is that you could really give me the benefit of a doubt at least one time, as the hole issuse is pretty much behind our backs now, and any tone of discontent from my side that may have not worked in my favour when asking for a ban lift in the past is now gone, so I really want to continue contributing constructively on WP. FkpCascais ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Wgfinley! There seems to be a small dispute that has come to the Mediation Committee ( the request for mediation here). I would like to inquire if there is any possibility I could assist in this mediation, if accepted. I am considering applying to join the Mediation Committee and I read somewhere that a way to demonstrate experience in dispute resolution was to assist in an actual MedCom case.
If I can be of help in anyway, please ping me back! Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Noted this is being lobbied in various venues, this one is closed. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey, could you take a look at these talk page threads? That is only the first one of many threads he has been involved in, but The Devil's Advocate, and editor you sanctioned back in November with a topic ban on all 9/11 articles, has been tenditiously and consistantly POV pushing ever since he came back from the ban. I think some action is warranted, so you take a look and see? You were the closing administrator in his last case, so I figured I'd bring this to you. Toa Nidhiki 05 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Wgfinley...you seem to be a reasonable sort...but I don't understand at all why you supported an indefinite topic ban on Tom harrison and only 30 days on the fellow mentioned above. MONGO 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC) You gave The Devils Advocate (TDA) a 30 day topic ban yet supported a indefinite ban on Tom Harrison...therefore, all TDA had to do was wait out his topic ban, but you put Tom Harrison in a position whereby he would be forced to seek a lift of the ban, either via a direct appeal to the three admins involved or by an appeal to arbcom enforcement board directly. Now, Timotheus Canens has stated that since one of the involved admins has handed in his tools and apparently retired, the only way Harrison can get the ban lifted is via a direct appeal to the board...I've worked with Harrison for some time on these articles and I assure you he would never ask for clemency on this matter...you guys have eliminated one of the most constructive contributors to these difficult pages with your overzealous approach.-- MONGO 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I issued TDA's TBAN as closing a case based on a consensus of admins on WP:AE. If you believe his behavior has resumed and merits further consideration I would suggest making a report at WP:AE and cite your evidence. I will be happy to review it then along with other admins. -- WGFinley ( talk) 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Further discussion is not merited when you have clearly tendentious edits like that, they're blatant. That's why it was indefinite and that's why it was closed in short order. -- WGFinley ( talk) 21:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You keep bringing in what TDA has done or is doing in reference to this TBAN and it has nothing to do with anything. What TDA says various places has nothing to do with the diffs in question. Also, using a "For Dummies" book as the source for a statement of that magnitude (i.e. hate of Jews is the origin of all conspiracy theories) is plainly unacceptable. There are also three diffs I referenced and not just one. So again, last time here, I'm thoroughly confident that Tom has the ability to ask to have the terms of the ban changed, he can do so. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
It seems a little troll wandered on to my user page.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, was being all thespian the past week solid. -- WGFinley ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)