Misplaced Pages

• 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.

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

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)

This is pretty simple, follow along.

1. 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.
2. Nableezy appears to think that is The Wrong Version and reverts = bad.
3. He does explain on the talk page.= 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)

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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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

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)

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

P-I Related Topic Bans

1. Oct 2009
2. Jan 2010
3. Apr 2010
4. Jul 2010
5. Aug 2010
6. Dec 2010
7. May 2011

Interaction Bans

1. Shuki Jul 2010
2. Jaakobou Nov 2010
3. Cptnono Dec 2010

# JJG Feb 2011

1. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just to set the record straight, this comment by User:Gatoclass (an involved Admin in the topic area) has no basis in reality: "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." In fact User:Nableezy has initiated several AEs recently that have been rejected as inactionable and/or been altogether ignored by the Admins at AE. Off the top of my head, see for example this, this and this. Gatoclass' conclusion, "That ought to tell you something about who is contributing positively to the topic area and who is not," is actually quite ironic.—Biosketch (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is very much a side issue, but the keyword in that post of mine was longstanding dispute, such as the ones which resulted in WP:WESTBANK and the Israeli settlement wording. In these longrunning disputes it was Nableezy's POV that was ultimately vindicated, while IIRC his principal opponents ultimately ended up getting banned. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Nableezy joined the the Israeli settlement wording discussion quite reluctantly and in advanced stage. Nableezy did his part too, but there were users that worked harder then him, and shall receive more credit. If someone to be distinguished for the collaboration effort, resulted in WT:Legality of Israeli settlements, it's one of his constant opponents. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What do you think I did in the talk space that justifies keeping me from commenting in it? This notion that I am unwilling and unable to work collaboratively is nonsense. From the very beginning in that article I sought their opinions and sought to accommodate them, even when I strongly disagreed. Interestingly your essay describes good editorship as asking for and respecting notable views even when one disagrees. So, calling me a fanatic based on that essay is a tad ironic.

See there, I am in fact reading your essays even though the general tenor of them is insulting (telling me to get over it, regardless of the context, is not exactly nice). That is the difference here, I actually completely read over whatever other people are saying and you have already admitted that you do not despite being tasked with taking action against me. If you had maybe you would realize that my "walls of text" were in fact not repetitive or useless as your citing of that essay would imply. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not paying attention.

As for the rest of what you said, no where did I suggest your action was "cruel and usual" only that it was excessive under the circumstances. You and every other editor was claiming the issue was me not discussing my changes so if you really wanted to encourage that you would bar me from editing articles but allow me to discuss them. However, just briefly looking over some other instances it is not at all uncommon for editors to be allowed to discuss a subject, but banned from editing articles on that subject. You were the only one who used the word punishment I might add.

So then, how about commenting on what I actually said rather than what you apparently wish I had said?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this AE decision. Most significantly, if you are going to ban a user, then you should always read what they have to say, so citing TL;DR is not encouraging. Drawing the implication that "coming off a block" implies "a topic ban is in order" is also an inference requiring more justification.

User:The Devil's Advocate, as the username suggest, makes comments which can be helpful in drawing editors' attention to problems (e.g. of maintenance) that they may face if they are not scrupulously neutral and fact-based in their approach to controversial topics: the most recent example is this edit about quantifying "evidence". I am entirely unsurprised that making comments of this nature leads TDA into conflict situations, and TDA's own conduct may be imperfect as a consequence. However, we should take care not to shoot the messenger. Editors who seek to encourage an encyclopedic treatment of a controversial subject, may, like TDA, find themselves regarded as POV pushing conspiracy theorists, when instead they are simply trying to help improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have respectfully listened to the pleas but the simple fact of the matter is there were valid complaints in the AE report. I left it open for a good while for others to chime in and there wasn't anyone adverse to my proposed course of action so I closed out the case. At this point the horse has been sufficiently beaten. --WGFinley (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, actually that's not really true. You should look at the edit history with regards to that case and you will see someone did insert a criticism, a criticism very similar to Geo's here, with regards to your "tl;dr" comment. That editor removed the comment almost immediately, but it is probably something you should have noticed. I was reluctant to mention this given that the user may not want to draw attention to himself, but you should realize there was someone who had the same problem Geo did well before the discussion was closed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have read your arguments, I have read your email, I understand you don't like WP:TLDR but it is a method used to convey to someone they are being far from concise. I'm sorry you feel that way but you have an issue with avoiding brevity. Per the guidelines set up by Arbcom an uninvolved admin can invoke sanctions and I have done so. I might be inclined to review my decision at a later time but refusing to accept the decision and continuing to badger me about it when I've called for a natural end to the discussion is not the best way to go about doing that. Taking what I, and others, have said about it to heart and editing harmoniously in other areas for a bit might be of great benefit. I assure you, the 9/11 articles will be there in a month. --WGFinley (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the "Maintain civility" part of the tl;dr essay. Also you indicated above that it was not merely a matter of you suggesting I be concise, but that you did not actually read my comments. That you made plainly false claims about my comments in your first response to the AE case demonstrates that this was indeed the case.

I do not have a "problem with brevity" as anyone reading the article talk page can see. At the time you made the tl;dr comment there was a grand total of seven paragraphs in my statement that you could have easily read through in ten minutes at most, though I was able to read through it completely just now in three minutes. The first paragraph addressed all the post-block edits listed at the time and the one addressing the pre-block edits had bolded text at the beginning. In spite of that you claimed I did not respond to the diffs provided.

Now, I am not entirely sure what reasoning you have for imposing the ban. It seems your reasoning ranges from "although your behavior would be perfectly standard and acceptable elsewhere here it is disruptive editing" to "you insist you did no wrong in the previous block so I am adding stricter sanctions" in spite of the fact the blocking admin did not consider my insistence on that, of which he was well aware, a reason to bring it up on ArbCom.

Given that you and every other editor pushing for a sanction said the issue was me not discussing changes before making them, barring me from discussion seems counter to the change you want me to make. As I said before, I can live with a ban from editing the article despite disagreeing with it, but the ban from the talk space is another matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Should you wish to appeal your TBAN at a later time you can post a new section for me to reconsider. --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Should you wish to discuss your approach to AE and topic banning at a later time, based on your own thoughts and reasoning (rather than through essay links which doubt good faith, implying others are obfuscating an issue with walls of text, or abusing an animal to such an extent that they even fail to notice its death), then you can post on my talk page for me to reconsider the opinion I have formed here. Geometry guy 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you address three simple questions for me:

1. As you have given several differing explanations over the duration of the case, what are the reasons you had at the end of the case for imposing the topic ban?
2. What about my behavior in the talk page lead you to think I should be kept from discussion, when you and several other editors claimed the problem was me not discussing before making changes?
3. Do you acknowledge that the reasons you initially gave on AE were based on false claims as a result of not reading my statement?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Detailed information was on the AE report, I acted per the AE report, I'm sorry you don't accept my decision but it is my decision nonetheless. --WGFinley (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't challenging your decision, I was questioning your reasoning. My invitation remains open. Geometry guy 02:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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 or even penalized for trying to do the right thing. 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)

Admins aren't supposed to be handling content disputes, that's what dispute resolution is for. I haven't seen any perceived change in the handling of disputes nor has there been any change made by Arbcom. In fact, the New Admin School specifically outlines cases of entrenched users that create arguments by calling any source that doesn't agree with their view as unreliable. --WGFinley (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution doesn't work if administrators are not willing to deal with POV pushing. The very page to which you refer has a section entitled Obvious POV pushing which encourages admins to block or otherwise sanction POV pushers. How are you going to gauge whether someone is POV pushing if you are not willing to look at the content of their edits?

With regard to contentious topic areas, admins are given even more discretion to act: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. "The purpose of Misplaced Pages" and "normal editorial processes" are based upon the five pillars which include WP:NPOV. So admins are clearly enjoined to determine whether or not editors in contentious topic areas are editing in accordance with such policies. Dispute resolution is not about handing out parking tickets to people who make one revert too many, or who swear occasionally on talk pages. It's about determining who is adhering to the purpose of Misplaced Pages and who is not. Those who are not adhering to the purpose, get sanctioned. Those who are adhering to the purpose, should have our support. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins in this topic space know better than to start getting into content disputes, the second you do WP:INVOLVED is invoked. It is not the admin's job to start checking sources, it is up tot he person presenting them to make the case they are reliable sources and those who disagree to make the case they are not. Then through collaboration and consensus things are agreed to. This disputed area is rife of accusations of unreliable sources and POV pushing, it's done on both sides of the dispute and it is done constantly. I won't be drawn into content disputes. --WGFinley (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fabricating the content of sources is not a content dispute. I have asked several questions of you at AE, but as you have ignored them there I bring them to your attention here. You wrote I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. That is simply wrong. Jiujitsuguy did not write anything about a ski resort there, and if you actually looked at the diffs you would not say that. In this diff Jiujitsuguy took a source that says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. and he changed the article from saying Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria to Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria. In this diff he took a source that says The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory and dishonestly claimed that what the source says is just Mt. Hermon, famous as Israel's highest mountain full stop. He deliberately manipulated the sources into supporting his own view, a view that those sources directly contradict. For a user already banned for falsifying sources, this should be taken seriously. Can you please say that a. you have read the diffs, and b. why you claim that the only thing he did was use a travel guide for the location of a ski resort, and c. now that this has been, once again, explained, if there is a problem with a user with an established record of falsifying sources to push a POV to continue falsifying sources to push that same POV? nableezy - 14:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at this diff consistently when assessing this. What I see is you changed the info box, the usual changing back of the map and you removed referenced material that is in opposition to your world view that you don't agree with. Classic case of the constant and never ending warring on all things Golan. One side brings up its claims and states how the other has bad and misrepresented sources and the other side does likewise. As far as my responding to your comments I have ignored most of the continued and constant bickering from everyone there and instead focused on discussing the issue with other admins so we can get the report concluded. --WGFinley (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, you looked at that diff? How about you respond to the points I made here? That I did not remove "referenced material" that is "in opposition to my world view", I removed edits that distorted the sources and made basic errors of fact. Can you please respond to the points? Because you havent discussed the issue, you simply made things up. At AE you claimed that JJG used a travel guide for the location of a ski resort. He did no such thing, and your claim is patently false. You have consistently ignored the issue, and when you contrast your reaction to reverting socks of banned editors by me to the purposeful distortion of sources in an encyclopedia article you make clear your purpose on AE. Once again. Fabricating the content of sources is not a content dispute. Jiujitsuguy took a source that says that Mt Hermon's summit is located on the border of Syria and Lebanon. He then changed the article to say that instead of the summit being located on the border of Syria and Lebanon that it is actually on the border of Lebanon, Israel and Syria. The source he used says the exact opposite. How is purposely distorting a source acceptable? Have you looked at this diff or not? If so, can you explain how it acceptable to use a source that says one thing and place in the article the opposite? He purposely manipulated the sources to place in the article propaganda. Do you not understand this? If you do, why are you ignoring it? nableezy - 15:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you think I am "baiting" you. That is simply not true. I would like you to respond to the issue. You are claiming to act as an admin, and as such you need to justify your position. Again, at AE you claimed that JJG used a travel guide for the location of a ski resort. He did no such thing, and your claim is patently false. What he did, repeatedly, was falsify the content of sources to push a fringe POV as fact in an encyclopedia article. How is this acceptable? Please respond to the issue. If you are unable or unwilling to do so you should recuse yourself from commenting at AE. nableezy - 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact you call out something that was on my talk page for all of 2 minutes pretty much shows to me where you are coming from on this. No, I won't recuse myself from commenting on AE. --WGFinley (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Then answer the questions. What you wrote on AE is demonstrably false and completely ignores the issue. Once again. at AE you claimed that JJG used a travel guide for the location of a ski resort. He did no such thing, and your claim is patently false. What he did, repeatedly, was falsify the content of sources to push a fringe POV as fact in an encyclopedia article. How is this acceptable? nableezy - 22:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do my discussing on AE, I don't owe you explanations, I've explained my position on AE. I'm sorry you can't accept my position. --WGFinley (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you do in fact owe me an explanation, and you cant just shove this under the rug. You have made demonstrably false statements at AE, and have done so as an admin. WP:ADMIN says that Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Commenting as an uninvolved admin at AE is an administrator action, and you should only be doing so when you have carefully considered the evidence. You have consistently refused to justify your position, and your comments demonstrate that you have either not read the evidence or are ignoring it. You have said on AE that the only thing Jiujitsuguy did at Mount Hermon was to use a travel guide as a source for the location of a ski resort. That is simply not true. Please explain why you made that comment at AE and further why you have consistently ignored the issue of the deliberate misrepresentation of sources in article space by the user. nableezy - 04:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have explained my position on AE, I will no longer discuss this with you here. You refuse to acknowledge any previous explanation I give you. Cease and desist. --WGFinley (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The last comment you made at AE was to say that I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. I have pointed out, multiple times, that in none of the edits did Jiujitsuguy point out that there is a ski resort there. You have not explained that position, presumably because there is no explanation due to the fact that it simply untrue. I wouldnt be here if you had explained your position. What you wrote at AE is factually false. In what edit did Jiujitsuguy point out that there is a ski resort on the mountain? What he did in those edits, and what you again ignore, is fabricate their content in to supporting the exact opposite of what they actually said. As soon as you actually do explain yourself I will cease and desist. But so long as you pretend that you are qualified to comment at AE on diffs that you have either not read or, based on this obstinacy in explaining yourself, are purposely ignoring I will continue to call you on it. Ignoring requests that you comply with WP:ADMIN and actually justify your position is not one of the options here. nableezy - 06:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've explained to you multiple times this is not the venue I will discuss this with you, I have posted my positions on WP:AE. This is your final warning, if you choose to pursue this further on my talk page I will remove it and request further action be taken. Just because I'm an admin doesn't mean you can ask me whatever you want, however many times you want, however many ways you want. --WGFinley (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you refuse to abide by WP:ADMIN and justify your admin actions, I only have one more question. Are you open to recall, or would an RFC and arbitration case be required to have your admin rights revoked? nableezy - 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you feel an arbitration case is warranted I will respond if filed. --WGFinley (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello WGF. YTA64 is complaining at WP:AN3 that Biosketch reverted him at Golan Heights without explaining his revert on the talk page. His authority that a discussion is required seems to come from this change to the Editnotice for Golan Heights which is your work. . (At present I can only find it in the edit notice). if you placed this notice pursuant to the discretionary sanctions it is desirable that it should be logged somewhere in WP:ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It was. That's Aug 2010 and pre-dates the topic-wide 1RR that Arbcom the community put in place in Nov 2010. So back then you had to manually put in the notice which I did. When Arbcom the community did the topic space wide 1RR someone put the new template in and removed my "must explain reverts" caveat that was unique to this article (far too many edits for me to figure out when they put the new template in). Golan Heights has needed particular protection as it is the epicenter of the territorial battleground. --WGFinley (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the warning to the talk page, made an updated entry on the ARBPIA log and handled that AN3 request. --WGFinley (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be worth considering whether the requirement to discuss should be added to more articles. It seems that the I/P area is getting a recent upsurge in complaints. Periodically going back to the community for input (as in November 2010) could be worth doing. Not sure what we would ask for, maybe just for ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to see it on all of them. These guys snipe at each other way too much in edit comments and it's not what they're intended to be used for nor do they make for any meaningful discussion. --WGFinley (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

One could imagine going to WT:IPCOLL and asking for a discussion about Golan Heights, and other Golan-related topics. It's my impression that some low-quality editing has been taking place. People could be asked for suggestions on how to make the editing better. Including, what admins could do differently. Another issue is the apparent pushback against WP:WESTBANK. It seems that some old compromises are no longer holding. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You won't' believe this but I was just on IPCOLL and was thinking of posting something there or leaving a message for Phil directly on it. --WGFinley (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's good because PhilKnight recused on the ARBPIA3 request. That suggests it should be safe to consult him on what to do about ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think it's appropriate to unilaterally change the conditions of editing one page in such a manner. Editors unfamiliar with the current debate are hardly likely to notice that the conditions of editing on this particular page are different from all the others.

With regard to the notion of making an across-the-board change, that should not be done without an appropriate discussion in my view. I for one believe it is unnecessary, all it will effectively mean is that users have to add an edit summary to both the edit summary field and the talk page; this is just going to clutter up talk pages. It also flies in the face of BRD, the spirit of which is to allow a reasonable amount of editing without having to discuss the minutiae of every change. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is subject to sanctions. The sanction appears at the top of the page when you go to edit the article I invoked the sanction over a year ago, the sanction still applies. I think it's interesting that you bring up BRD while ignoring the D - discuss. I'm sorry you feel that discussion of articles clutters up the talk page, I call that collaboration. --WGFinley (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

BRD is there for a reason, and the reason is that the community has found that more progress is made by trying a new edit than by endlessly discussing every possible change. And just because something is happening on the talk page does not mean that "collaboration" is occurring - on the contrary, it can mean filibustering, which is what I am concerned a requirement to discuss every revert on a talk page may lead to. Gatoclass (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you'd prefer to see this at WP:AN3, but would you please look at this? (permalink) I've asked Ed Johnston to do the same.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, article talk is perfect place for that, I've responded there. Thanks for asking me to look at it. --WGFinley (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Good; thanks. I won't open a new section for it, but I also thought I'd disclose that in looking around a little after the Jiujitsuguy AE request I noticed a comment on your main user page that I thought might help Gatoclass and possibly others understand your perspective a little better, and I quoted you on his talk page for that purpose. No comment there required or expected, of course; just thought you should have the opportunity to respond if you wanted to at all. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my attention, you are partially right, I've explained further there. --WGFinley (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see my note at WP:AE about apparent 1RR violation by the user:YehudaTelAviv64?--Shrike (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither one of those diffs were done by YTA. Are you talking about prior to that? --WGFinley (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You right apparently I posted wrong links.Here is the right ones:

--Shrike (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've warned both of them, Gillabrand for being less than accurate in his edit remarks and YTA for violating 1RR. He reverted an undiscussed revert but he's splitting hairs and have let him know he's very close to an article ban. --WGFinley (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that warnings should be logged into WP:ARBPIA--Shrike (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another remark the admins usually block editors for 1RR in the topic area.For example recently editor was blocked for 2 weeks for this violation.I hope you don't mind about my remarks.--Shrike (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is the case that "admins usually block editors for 1RR in the topic area". It depends on the context. If it's a new editor they usually get warned. If they aren't a new editor they are often asked to self-revert either by an admin or someone else. If they refuse, things start to happen. I think the example you cite of a 2 week block relates to Hearfourmewesique who was blocked for 2 weeks for a 1RR violation following the AE report Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Hearfourmewesique. That is the context of the 2 week block. It was a escalation of the 1 week block for edit warring that preceeded it. The blocks didn't produce a change in the editor's belligerent attitude on talk pages and blatant advocacy by the way but I haven't seen them edit warring so perhaps blocks for edit warring work. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This editor is clearly and not a new editor moreover there are clear warning on the page about 1RR.The two weeks was extreme case usually is 48 hours for the first offence is such problematic area.--Shrike (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

YehudaTelAviv64's statistics are here. They have made 71 edits in article space since they created their account just over a month ago. They explicitly stated, after being asked several times, that they "have never edited under a previous account". So, if you take what they have said to be the case, I think they fit the description of a new editor in the topic area more or less. To be clear, I'm trying to describe how things are generally speaking with respect to 1RR violations in response to your statement about what admins usually do rather than how I think these things should be. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My feeling that there is some discrepancy in your actions toward suspected not new editors.But we will stop here.--Shrike (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't log warnings on ARBPIA, only the initial notification of sanctions, blocks and bans. Indeed, I'm giving YTA a warning because of the claim of being new, I know some consider the account a sock but no evidence has been offered and it hasn't been proven so I must AGF. My warning is on his/her talk page and I'm very certain all you kind folks will be ready willing and able to let any other admin who isn't me know if I'm not around that I've warned him. S/He seems to have quite the fan club already. --WGFinley (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For example from WP:ARBPIA

Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs) is warned not to misrepresent sources, per this AE request.  Sandstein  16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Sandstein made a mistake?--Shrike (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Sandstein chose to log it, I have chosen not to as I consider the page to be unwieldy as it is and my warning is well documented as I indicated above. --WGFinley (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.--Shrike (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Shrike, I am a new editor. You should focus on constructive edits instead of making false accusations directed at me. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, is Badger Drink supposed to email you? Be specific. Will you ever quit Misplaced Pages? If so, how is Badger Drink supposed to contest his block? Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a minute to process it all, I think you will see I was very specific on his talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You failed to provide unblock-en-l's address. You missed the appropriate arbcom page. I've provided him all of those contact details. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Arbcom links to the process and if he follows it as outlined he will get there. The process is not to just immediately email Arbcom. That is the proper page, it is for bans and indefinite blocks. Whatever the case I have restored his email and edit talk privileges. --WGFinley (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with any changes you've made to his block. DS (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with restoring email. I am somewhat concerned about restoring talk-page; I hope you will closely monitor it, and you will re-remove that access if there is a repeat of the absurd, unacceptable tirade here. Of course, I hope that BD will understand the necessity of civil behaviour on this project, and will resume constructive editing.

I have concerns about your admonishment of Pesky; however, nothing is on-fire right now, and I hope we can discuss that in a calm, collegiate manner, as a separate issue; I see no need for haste.

I will comment on this further, within the next few days. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In closing the case I found others felt she contributed to the situation, I'm making her aware of that. She can take that and move on from it or she can continue with behavior others find objectionable. That won't lead to very harmonious editing for her and I'm trying to help her realize that. I have Badger's page on watch, approval of the admin who did the block to modify it and will take or suggest action if needed. --WGFinley (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in and pester you further, WGFinley, and I really don't mean to be rude or annoying, but a lot of people in the thread also said she did nothing wrong. I saw no clear consensus that Pesky was guilty of hounding. Why would you admonish her only based on the arguments of a few people, arguments that were not exactly unopposed? That doesn't make sense to me. Regards, Bunnies!Leave a message :) 20:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI is the Administrator's Noticeboard, it's when people bring something to the attention of admins for action. Then uninvolved admins review the case and take action. I reviewed the various statements and what both parties said, supported Badger's block and assessed that several felt Pesky was not without fault and I agreed. She took him to AN/I, then to RFC/U, then came back a month later to reassess his progress herself after he had previously let her know her comments weren't welcome on his talk page. There is a long standing tradition of letting folks handle their talk page as they would like, it's fully within a user's rights to say "don't post on my talk page any more". I found her behavior to be bordering on hounding:

Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Misplaced Pages and thus cause disruption to the project.

She wasn't involved in the article he was editing in any way, she has no edits and I find it hard to believe an "old English granny" would have independent interest in an American college athletic rivalry confined to one state. This leads me to believe she was looking at his edits. Also, he made it clear further contact was unwanted (in a less than civil manner but he did). While his reaction was definitely uncivil and he was rightfully blocked, it doesn't mean his complaint was without merit. --WGFinley (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but as I pointed out in the ANI thread, she left him two mandatory notifications before the message that resulted in the ANI thread. He removed those notifications - 9 days after she left them, and after someone else, Worm That Turned, I believe, had added another message. Quite reasonably, she wasn't even aware of the removal considering it happened 9 days later, if the edit summary had appeared in her watchlist over a week later why would she have even thought it would be anything to do with her? So that's three messages, two simply notifications, and one after his removal which, might I add didn't actually say anything along the lines of "stay off my talk page" but instead just said, rather vaguely, "remove sanctimonious needling". After that she left him one message. And that constitutes hounding? I know you're perfectly entitled to disagree with me, and after this if you still don't see my point I'll do what's best and drop it, I certainly don't want to be anywhere near a dead horse, but I feel that facts were misrepresented in the ANI thread. Two notifications and one message aren't particularly badgering to me. And if you look at the RFC/U, you'll see that people were checking his edit summaries, because they were a large part of the problems people were raising. If he had clearly said "don't come here any more" or even a "GTFO my page" I'd be more in agreement, but as it stands, he removed her two notifications 9 days later with no explicit statement telling her to stay away. I think that should be considered. Regards, Bunnies!Leave a message :) 00:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Immediately removing anything she posted on his page and calling it "needling" isn't a signal if disapproval? He made it pretty clear he wasn't interested in what she had to say and didn't wish further contact. --WGFinley (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying - it wasn't immediate. It was nine days after she left him a message. And what about the fact he was at RFC/U where his edit summaries were being called into question, does that not explain why she would have been looking at his? Regards, Bunnies!Leave a message :) 00:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You realize some people don't edit every day, right? --WGFinley (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You realise he actually had edited almost every day since she left the notifications? He only removed them after Worm That Turned added a message. That's not an interpretation, that's a fact. And what about the RFC/U explanation for her looking at edit summaries? Bunnies!Leave a message :) 00:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs quite severely. Badger removed every message she had left for him with a derogatory comment prior to her posting again on his page. He made it clear he wasn't interested in what she had to say and she pretty clearly followed his edits given the edit she commented on. People miss messages on their talk page all the time (I know I do when I get more than one message warning) but he had removed them well before she posted to his page again. --WGFinley (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, we don't have to agree. I respect your opinion, and realise that this isn't going to go anywhere. Thanks for taking the time to respond and happy editing. Bunnies!Leave a message :) 05:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, this is only a warning, nothing more. I'm just calling something to her attention she may not have thought of, that's it. Folks are making a way bigger deal about this than need be. --WGFinley (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, please be aware that referring to a person in the third person in this manner is highly offensive; c/f wikt:who's 'she', the cat's mother?

Next, "several felt Pesky was not without fault and I agreed" - please explain why you agreed. You have still failed to give any rationale for agreeing any fault. Please explain what, it your opinion, that user did wrong.

"She took him to AN/I, then to RFC/U, then came back a month later to reassess his progress herself" - yes; BD had been abusive since 2008. Pesky tried to help resolve that ongoing problem.

"after he had previously let her know her comments weren't welcome on his talk page" - by reverting a polite warning. In whose dictionary does that construe 'harrassment'?

There is a long standing tradition of letting folks handle their talk page as they would like" - within reason. it's fully within a user's rights to say "don't post on my talk page any more". - Are you seriously contesting that it is acceptable to say "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" - under any circumstances?

I found her behavior to be bordering on hounding - where, when, what? Diffs, please?

 Chzz  ►  00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Convenience link

1. Are you chiding me for not using an honorific? It's perfectly acceptable for me to use a pronoun when I've already mentioned her by name previously.
2. I just wrote an entire response about why I agreed.
3. Nobody can appoint themselves as the civility police.
4. I have said several times what he did was abhorrent, however, we are not talking about what Badger did, I'm talking about what Pesky did aka "two wrongs don't make a right".
5. Again, I just wrote an entire paragraph on how this notice showed elements of hounding unless she has taken a sudden interest in American collegiate sports in Oklahoma.

--WGFinley (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is quite simple; we don't need 5 bullets; please explain what - in your opinion - Pesky did, which was wrong. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

One final time - #5. --WGFinley (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, can you explain what part of that specific message is inappropriate? It seems like your argument is, that because Pesky does not often edit in that topic area, it is somehow wrong to advise upon it; well, I very frequently CSD articles about things I have never heard of, and I often 'warn' users regarding articles about which I have no knowledge whatsoever. This was one, single, post. I can see nothing, whatsoever, wrong here. Are you seriously claiming that, if I were to 'warn' a user for creating an article about Korean monkey sausages, that I would be 'harassing' the user?  Chzz  ►  06:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've explained this multiple times, you're cherry picking my answers which shows you're reading at least part of them but don't seem to be comprehending all of it. This is a warning, that is all. The article wasn't on CSD, it was an article that Badger had edited and quite clearly she was going through his edit summaries a month after her RFC/U she filed against him. I didn't say it was hounding but it borders on it and could be construed as hounding. If she doesn't have such interactions again I'm certain it won't come up again. If it does come up again then those involved will look at the ANI case and my warning and make their decisions from there. I think I've explained this as best I can. --WGFinley (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A warning is inappropriate. The user did nothing wrong whatsoever, and does not deserve to have a record on ANI that she has been 'admonished'. You say it borders on hounding, so at least you acknowledge it is problematic. The permanent record it similar to a police conviction for almost speeding.  Chzz  ►  17:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky made 4 posts to the user talk page in total, the first two being statutory notifications *before* there was an RfC.

The first was notification about the ANI posting (as required). Pesky was told, on ANI, to take it to RfC instead.

The second was notification of the RfC itself

The third was her polite comments on his continued use of ill-considered edit summaries; note that, in the RfC, recommendations included monitoring his use of edit-summaries, which is precisely what Pesky did. And she made one single comment about them on his talk.

Her fourth post was in reply to a question directed at her from another user, below her third post.

I do not think it is fair to call that "hounding", by any possible stretch of the imagination. I think that BD's ANI posting intended it to look that way, and sadly, many people fell for that, without checking the reality.  Chzz  ►  06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wgfinley, I am still awaiting a response to this; I am hoping that you will review the issue, and withdraw your admonishment. If you consider the matter 'closed', then please indicate whether you feel any other specific venue might be appropriate to appeal the closure. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time writing a very long and detailed response to this. When I got done I realized all the different events I was dragging back out into the open and all the various people who are involved. I decided that scab was best left alone and I won't do it. I have explained my decision, you may not understand it but I have explained it. You are not the person concerned. If Pesky wants further explanation I will provide one and post what I wrote. Otherwise, it's time to move on. --WGFinley (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky has ceased editing, due to the distress caused by this matter. Since Pesky is not satisfied with the outcome, I disagree that it is time to move on; I am not one of the parties directly concerned, and nor are you; however, I have just as much right to appeal your decision to admonish that user (a harsh term, more commonly seen in arbitration cases) as you have to write it in the first place.

I would like you to retract your admonishment. If you will not, I would like to discuss it. If we cannot agree, I would like to take it to an appropriate venue. I do not want this matter brushed under a carpet, as happens so often with civility issues. (Related, but needing address elsewhere, is )

If you think that the 'scab is healed' just because Pesky has stopped editing, then you are mistaken; lack of civility and being in denial of the endemic problems of intransigent long-term incivility is an infection which, if ignored, threatens the entire project. Chzz  ►  00:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am personally so upset by the matter, that I do not wish to directly participate at this time. However, I do hope that you will work with Chzz and others to resolve what can best be viewed as a gross miscarriage of justice. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 00:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you folks learned nothing from this that sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone? One person withdrew his RfA, another asked for a indefinite self-block. There was a disaster of an RfA, an AN/I, a month-long RfC/U and then it went back to AN/I again and you still want to continue? For a warning? It's not worth it. It's time for this to stop and folks move on. If you want to open yet another AN/I on this that's up to you, I don't understand to what end you wish to pursue it but that's up to you. --WGFinley (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify "disaster of an RfA". Thanks.  Chzz  ►  09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I also ask how you suggest editors who see a pattern of uncivil edits deal with it? Discuss it at the venue they first see it, ANI, RfC/U? Or perhaps posting a polite message at the users talk page? Worm · (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider someone having to withdraw his RfA due to the animosity that developed in the process as a good thing. In fact those who participated in taking Badger on doomed that RfA. If you had ignored it I'm certain most users would have seen Badger's criticism as unjustified cabalism with no proof and dismissed it. You gave it credence by fighting with him. As far as working with users who may be uncivil I have worked with many over the years and mentored several to help them work through their issues. Filing multiple cases against them in various venues and monitoring their edits isn't something that helps, working with someone who they respect does. --WGFinley (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an awful thing to claim - that people who objected to uncivil comments and "ancient sins" on the RfA were somehow responsible for it failing. It sounds like you think we should just ignore incivility - even if it's been going on for years. Surely not?

I'm not sure quite who you mean by "you" in "You gave it credence by fighting with him". It cannot be me, nor Worm, because neither of us responded on that RfA; check it out, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang#Badger Drink's comment. I suppose by "you" you're referring to the fact that Pesky responded - which she did; and so did lots of others. Pesky also responded to other people's comments, but did not "drag them to AN/I". I do understand what you're saying - that when people respond to RfA opposes, it can be detrimental to the candidate; however, RfA is at least supposed to be a discussion, not a vote; so people should surely be permitted to respond.

Re-reading the original AN/I thread that Pesky started, here, several things strike me. One is that many people there thought that we should certainly take action about long-term incivility; and that RfA shouldn't be some special exception to that. Another is, that from the very start, Pesky made it clear that she was talking about a long-term problem, going on for years - and specifically not just the recent events on the RfA; in fact, she tried to steer the discussion back to the longer-term problem and away from the RfA - e.g. "Forget that it's anything to do with an RfA - it's not about RfA, it's about incivility and lack of respect. And it's been going on, and got away with, for a very long time".

Also, we need to consider exactly what has happened here; your comment about "Filing multiple cases against them in various venues" really doesn't match the reality;

Pesky filed one, single, 'case' on ANI - the only one she's ever created in over 12000 edits. And then, in that thread, Pesky was advised that it'd be better suited to an RfC/U - for example, BWilkins said that a "studied pattern" belongs at WP:RFC/U. So, that's exactly what she did.

The case was therefore moved to an RfC/U (this one), as a direct result of that advice. Pesky stated, it "seems to be a long-term and ongoing issue, and took it to AN/I though I now appreciate that this was probably the wrong venue". Fully accepting that ANI wasn't the correct approach, and trying to sort out this problem, as advised to do - remember, lots of people on the AN/I thread thought something needed to happen here.

In that RfC/U, the vast majority of people recognized that there was a real, serious, ongoing issue - many indicating "Why are we allowing this <behaviour>?" Why do we tolerate it?

During the RfC/U, Pesky seemed to listen carefully and respond appropriately, and try to work out a way forward. Her "propsed outcome" is entirely reasonable, and very gentle. She was not requesting sanctions. BD flat-out refused to participate. But, many people indicated that his edits, and in particular his edit-summaries, should be watched, and that was the ultimate agreement there. And so, that's exactly what Pesky did; happy that he'd improved, when she saw a slip back into the same old pattern, she gently pointed it out to the user. And that is it. Then, he launched the AN/I thread you closed.

So, let's say it in simple terms;

• BD and others wrote some comments on Z's RfA, which several people considered to be out of order.
• Pesky and others replied to them.
• Checking into BD's behaviour, in an attempt to AGF and ascertain whether perhaps BD was "having a bad day", Pesky saw the long-term pattern of incivility, and wanted to address that. So, took it to ANI. <and notified BD on his talk - edit #1>
• On the ANI, Pesky was advised an RfC/U was more appropriate - so she moved the discussion there, <and notified BD - edit #2>
• BD made no attempt to remove those notifications for over a week.
• In the RfC/U, most thought BD's edits were of concern, and wanted action; certainly wanted monitoring, and hoped for improvement.
• Worm That Turned contacted BD on his talk page expressing his concern that BD was not taking on board the consensus at the RfC/U.
• BD removed WTT's comment with the "remove sanctimonious needling" edit summary. At the same time, and purely coincidentally, he removed the two official notifications, on which he had acted, and which were in the same section.
• His "remove sanctimonious needling" was not addressed to Pesky, but to WTT.
• BD therefore did not ask Pesky to stay away from his talk page. His misrepresentation of the truth there (which Pesky and others have pointed out to you was a gross misrepresentation of the facts) was entirely - and probably calculatedly - mendacious.
• Pesky did monitor BD's edits, and commented on two, in a perfectly polite way <edit #3 and - in response to a direct q - edit #4>

It is absolutely clear to me that there is no kind of action, in any of that, which justifies admonishing Pesky. Her actions are not even "bordering on incivility", let alone "incivility bordering on hounding". They were entirely in line with policy, advice, and consensus.

I totally agree with you that it is "time for this to stop and folks move on" - there's nothing I'd like more. I wish I could've avoided having this lengthy conversation here. I did try addressing the matter by email, and others have attempted to point out to you that you were mistaken, but all that has happened is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. But, I simply cannot ignore this; you've handed out an admonishment to a user who is wholly blameless - and that has upset the user greatly. So again, I ask you to please reconsider your 'admonishment'. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ►  10:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been concluded, I'm sorry you refuse to accept my explanations but this needs to end and it will not if I post a detailed treatise in reply. Therefore, in the words of Bartleby, the scrivener, "I would prefer not to." --WGFinley (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way; I will seek an appropriate venue to continue the discussion.  Chzz  ►  02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your desire to conclude this discussion here. I will respect that; I just have one final question: Would you object if I remove the "admonishment" from the ANI archive closure, and strike the 'admonishment' from Pesky's user talk page? Whilst we may not be in agreement above, and I can live with disagreement, I'm still hoping we can tick this 'resolved' and move forwards. If you do not object to such an edit, I can perform it referring to your consent, and we can all move onwards and upwards. Thanks, again, for all your time.  Chzz  ►  04:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if I saw some contrition, I've seen none. --WGFinley (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of the above? Pesky's very first response was, "OK, I'm here now. Firstly, I apologise to BD for upsetting him - no upset was intended." .  Chzz  ►  05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC) *And, that apology came directly after him writing, "fuck the hell off you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual"!  Chzz  ►  06:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So Wgfinley in fact you don't want to move on, you demand "contrition"? For what, exactly? This is beyond ridiculous, it's outrageous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't demanded a thing. I was being asked to change my decision, I said that if I saw some contrition I would consider it and noted I haven't seen any since I made my decision. --WGFinley (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear: what 'contrition' would you like to see? Please be clear. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ie, for the love of all that is holy, let's try to sort this out - here, now; instead of months of mutually-annoying stuff when we could be editing other things. You need to at least let me remove the 'admonishment'. What do you need, in order to allow that?  Chzz  ►  06:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't seem interested to be honest. --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not shown a way out. Please do. Do you still believe that Pesky posted on BD's talk after BD had asked her not to?  Chzz  ►  06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want pesky to offer contrition, you must explain what she should be contrite for. You have still failed to explain that, in any terms that I can understand. Diffs, please; show us what she did wrong. PLEASE understand, that I am doing all I can to resolve this without the need for further discussion elsewhere; I truly hope you understand that; that my intent here is in the best interests of the project, I am trying very hard to work towards "other avenues will be attempted first" before taking this any further. Thank you for your kind consideration.  Chzz  ►  06:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's 12:30 AM here and that's my 3rd edit conflict so I am going to bed. I will sleep on this, if you are truly seeking to reach some type of accord I think that would be a lot easier for me to consider if aspersions weren't being cast. --WGFinley (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Accord

I will remove all action from the AN/I as it concerns you with the following caveats:

1. You need to concede the fact you could have handled this better and, while good intentioned, your actions contributed to a vast display of animosity.
2. You need to apologize for the aspersions cast on me on your talk page (I won't ask for their removal but that would be nice). I recognize you are upset and that is likely the source of these comments but I don't judge people by how many edits they have and I would expect likewise. We all have variable amounts of time to contribute to the project and I admin in topic areas scattered with the entrails of admins who tried to bring some peace. It subjects one to burnout and the need for a break and I've taken several over the years. I don't pretend to be a perfect person but I don't react well to attacks on my integrity with facts that have nothing at all to do with my decisions.
3. I will concede that my admonishment was too strong for the situation and have thought better of it after you recognized what my concerns were.

Please respond if you agree, I will make the changes to AN/I when agreed. --WGFinley (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, absolutely. I'm so glad we've been able to meet each other half way.

1. Hindsight is always 20/20; I certainly didn;t predict the explosion which followed, and maybe I should have realised that the whole situation was far more explosive than I did. Maybe I should have asked someone else involved in the RfC/U to drop a quiet reminder on BD's talk instead of doing so myself.
2. I am sorry for growling so unpleasantly about you on my talk; it was as a result of a combination of several things (including intense pain, which always makes me irritable, and morphine, which - although I don't necessarily appreciate it at the time - is bound to affect my judgment). We all occasionally do things which are unworthy of us. We're human. I completely understand how you feel about attacks on your integrity - I'm the same way myself.
3. Thank you.

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the admonition from the ANI case, thank you for agreeing to my caveats. --WGFinley (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. They were perfectly reasonable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --WGFinley (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wgfinley. I'd firstly like to say thank you for your efforts in the whole Badger Drink situation. You've done an excellent job where there were a number of involved parties discussing an issue which is very subjective. However, one thing I'm not happy with is your admonishment of ThePeskyCommoner for hounding. I agree that her comment at Badger Drink's userpage was ill-advised and triggered this whole scenario but I have seen no evidence of hounding.

The timeline as I see it was that she raised an issue she saw at ANI, where she was told an RfC was more appropriate. She then started an RfC. Both times, she left notices for Badger Drink - as is required. Badger Drink did remove the notices as with an edit summary of "remove sanctimonious needling", but it is worth noting that he was likely responding to my comment requesting he does pay attention to the RfC, not Pesky's notifications (at the time, my comment was 7 hours old and Pesky's were 9 days old). Pesky did not follow Badger Drink anywhere, she did not comment at areas he worked to annoy him or anything of the sort. She investigated his contributions for the RfC and was likely watching them, but there is nothing preventing her from doing that.

I see not reason why we should not assume good faith here that she was genuinely trying to help out. If she should be admonished, it should be for the comment she made which was unlikely to produce the result that it was asking for but much more likely to produce the result that it did. She should not be admonished for trying to improve the civility on the encyclopedia and following the procedure in doing that. Worm · (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a load of malarkey. If Pesky was interested in being the civility police, why exactly did she ignore the proximate cause of Badger Drink's civility - the copyvio, and the grossly offensive edit summaries by Dcheagle - this, which was an obviously blockable summary, and this deceptive little bit. Of course, he's used another deceptive edit summary, but I'll deal with the thief myself. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "Civility police" I see no evidence that she is trying to be the civility police. I also object to that term, but that's a different argument, for a different day, which I'll write an essay about when I get time. As for "why did she ignore the proximate cause", I don't see that she did, she just didn't act on it. What's more, she may well have not been looking at the history of the article, but rather the history of Badger Drink's editing contributions, which would mean she didn't even see them. All hypothetical of course, but making as many assumptions as you are. I'm specifically discussing whether Pesky hounded Badger Drink and since it is a serious offence to be accused of, I'd like some due consideration put in here.

As for Dcheagle's behaviour, I wholly agree it was unacceptable. I don't see it as obviously blockable, though if he has a pattern of classifying non-vandalistic edits as vandalism, he should be blocked. I have reinforced your final warning at his page, if he re-adds it, I will block him myself. Worm · (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Worm If you file an RFC and you choose to "investigate" further instead of listening to what others have to say are you really looking to remediate that user's behavior or are you looking for a public flogging to prove you're right? I am AGF and maintaining that she meant well and just went about it in a way that led to a bad situation, hence this being a warning. Just a polite reprieve that she should be careful in the future so there aren't disruptions like that. --WGFinley (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have filed an RfC under similar circumstances in the past. If an editor sees an uncivil editor and follows all the procedures to deal with the situation, that should not be counted as hounding. I agree that a gentle warning that the comment she made was never going to help is fair, but a warning that she was hounding is not. What's more, I don't know if you've noticed, but a very large portion of the RfC did agree that there was a problem, so suggesting that that she wasn't listening to what others said is questionable. Worm · (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying she went to Badger Drink's talk page to complain about his incivil edit summaries without reviewing the surrounding events, then she is failing WP:COMPETENCE and should be prevented from further violations, perhaps via a warning to be more careful. Oh, wait, she just got one, and you're complaining about it! If you're saying that she realized that Badger Drink was just grossly and uncivilly attacked but decided to just chide him without noting that he was grossly and uncivilly attacked, then she's hounding him. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that she went to Badger Drink's with good intentions, but the tone of her message was unlikely to prove fruitful. The surrounding events do not excuse uncivil edit summaries, though I agree the surrounding events are problematic. I also don't agree with your definition of hounding. Worm · (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My words keep getting cherry picked here so I'll put it again, I didn't say Pesky was hounding. What I said when I closed the case was:

*ThatPeskyCommoner is admonished for incivility that could be construed as hounding.

"Admonished" is a firm warning. Incivility is when you continue to make unwelcome contact with someone (continuing to add to someone's wall when they remove everything you say with a disparaging remark pretty much indicates the contact is unwelcome) and finally could be construed as hounding. It's saying "this isn't hounding" because otherwise I would just say "hounding". It says some could consider it hounding and apparently some could consider it "investigation". What's not contested is the rather large disruption that occurred and resulted in the helpful note being anything but. --WGFinley (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, on re-reading I went off a bit half-cocked here. Thanks for clarification. Worm · (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Worm, I know there are strong feelings in support of Pesky, I'm not looking to rain on anybody's parade, just trying to prevent future mishaps. It's not meant to be a big deal. --WGFinley (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I just know that Pesky tried to do the right thing and has come under a lot of fire for it. Like I say, thanks for listening. Worm · (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• MichaelNetzer, I agree with most of your points, but you paint a picture of WGFinley as very involved with Nableezy. That involvement means that he should recuse himself from many actions, including commenting in the uninvolved administrators sections in AEs. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

YTA64, I don't think we disagree much. However, Uninvolved administrator in AE filings does not refer to the interaction between an administrator and an editor in the AE report space itself. It refers to an administrator who is uninvolved in the edit conflict and interactions that led to the complaint. How can an admin be univolved if it applies to interactions he needs to have with editors to address the report in his capacity as administrator? All of WGF's interactions with Nableezy were within the AE report space themselves, which spilled over to this talk page as well, though remained strictly within the report topic. He has not interacted as an editor, to the best of my knowledge, in any of the edits or conflicts that led to the reports, aside from within his capacity as an admin. I don't believe there's a problem of an involved administrator here. But there is a serious problem with one editor turning WP into their own personal battleground and making it difficult for everyone else to work harmoniously. It'll take a bold and serious measure to solve this problem. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As Michael explains you are leaving out an entire section of WP:INVOLVED (emphasis mine):

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

• Emphasis mine:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I to ignore the sentence before you bold that says "involved purely in an administrative role"? I don't see how I've had an involvement with you outside of an administrative role. --WGFinley (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was referring to your interactions with Nableezy, but in any case, interacting in an administrative role does not magically exempt you from bias. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have had zero interaction with Nableezy outside of an administrative capacity. --WGFinley (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing that, but that in no way justifies ignoring Misplaced Pages policies. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The bias referred to in that policy is not related to an administrator decision. It only speaks about displayed bias towards content while editing an article. The policy does not refer to all these false claims about bias by Nableezy and his friends who don't like it that an administrator is finally standing up to their uncivil strong-arming and intimidation in the I/P topic space. You are clearly not understanding the policy, yet you're fast on the trigger to make false accusations. Take it easy, lest you also be seen as a battle-editor. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Michael, I see nothing in WP:INVOLVED to make me think that the bias it refers to is restricted to content-related edits. Also, it's worth reading the first paragraph of WP:INVOLVED:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. If you continue to cherry pick the parts you like and leave the parts you don't, I guess you're picky eater and not much more I can do for you. --WGFinley (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that is exactly what you're doing. You're ignoring Misplaced Pages policy when it suits you. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)