User talk:WGFinley/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Mediation clarification

I don't think suspending IBAN will help the mediation even if the suspension is limited to the discussion on that venue. You can see the long disputes about the vios themselves on Salvio's talkpage till he asked for a break finally. Also, the primary issue that got us to the mediation was the one at the top of WP:NPOVN... I would not like to burn out on the other issues (which are either resolved or just came up). The issue at hand has been coming up at different venues even after compromise with so much insisting going on whenever it comes up. I am hoping to get this resolved at this case. I can provide links to previous lengthy discussions at different venues at the case page if required. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to wade into the mediation issues, I'll leave that for the mediator that is assigned. The only way this will work with the IBAN in place then is that all comments you both make be addressed to the mediator and not any of the other parties. That is you state your position and that is it, any deviance from that would cause issues. Also, while mediation is privileged it's still subject to policy, that is, if one or both of you get out of line in violation of your bans you would be subject to administrative action. If you think you can do that it's up to you, I think a DMZ in the mediation would work better but it's up to you. --WGFinley (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Well I can go with it.. I've not violated IBAN as of yet and would be fine addressing my comments to the mediator. However if the mediator thinks it will be helpful to suspend IBAN for the venue of discussion, I can give further input on the matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Massive disruption by User:Grandmaster

Hello WGFinley. Please take a look at the article Nagorno-Karabakh - [1]. User:Grandmaster just arrogantly removed the edits of as many as nine users (Oliveriki, Vacio, VahagnAvagian, Winterbliss, Dehr, Hablabar, Sprutt, Sardur and VartanM) representing parts of text that was supported and underwritten by 12 users and "post-owned" by me at the suggestion of Golbez. Grandmaster's grotesque drive to WP:OWN the article is something I donot expect to see in an article that is under protection. Zimmarod (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems this has been addressed, I am throwing my input in on talk page as well. --WGFinley (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to handle the dispute at Nagorno-Karabakh

See my protection, and an effort to encourage the RfC. I'm writing to you as one of the admins who participated in the closing of the April 7 AE request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur, I put up my comments. Also concur with Tim and Blade's actions on the blocks. --WGFinley (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Greetings,

One of our students has attempted to contact you in an attempt to set up an interview. You originally volunteered to be interviewed HERE. Are you still available? Thanks. --Jaobar (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I must have missed that. I'm still available. --WGFinley (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello WGFinley. I am the student under Dr. Obar looking to interview you. If you do not mind, could I use your email to contact you on this formally? Vert3x (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, go right ahead. --WGFinley (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediation deletion

"see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time"

Regarding that part of the message sent out to participants in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, I am wondering if it would be possible to archive the page contents on Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand? If not on the main page, perhaps as a sub-page like is done with archives? Or could I do it manually? Y12J (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest doing that. Mediation is a voluntary process and a case not going forward should not be interpreted one way or the other and is always open to be taken up again. Some cases get submitted a few times before all agree it's time to mediate. You're free to link to it on the talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Guy. I've sent you an email, could you please reply at your earliest convenience. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've received it but am incredibly busy right now due to a (good) change in employment. I'm certain that AGK or Xav would be happy to discuss any immediate concerns you have. --WGFinley (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Thanks for your editing and patience in regard to my efforts to put Palazzolo's side of the story. I am too busy elsewhere, now, to be able to work at it properly. --Fircks (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Russavia

Hi. Just to let you know that Russavia has requested clarification as to why he was blocked, at User talk:Russavia#Unblock request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Very unfortunate for him as I can see he's been more than willing to repeatedly violate his WP:ARBEE topic ban by using his talk page to rally the troops on Polandball. I extended his block and revoked his talk page access for the blatant violations. He can appeal to ARBCOM via email. --WGFinley (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, WGFinley. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Violation of Topic Ban

FkpCascais has repeatedly edited articles in breach of the Balkan topic ban that you put in place. Including [2][3] and numerous other Balkan/Serbia related articles. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I also constantly edit Serbian and regional football articles... The articles have nothing to do with the subject of WWII history we clashed there, and even here you chased me and edit-wared me, incredible! PS: WGFinley, I will like to ask you a question regarding the former ARBMAC decition, if possible. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You were made aware that your topic ban entails "articles, discussions and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces" on your own talkpage and did it regardless. You know it isn't exclusive to WWII. No one has chased you down or "edit-wared" with you. It appears you haven't changed a bit and still have the same battleground attitude that you had prior to the ban being imposed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK)

Oh sorry, I confused you with Director... Apologies. Well, Serbian football is also related to Balkans and I have been editing it from day 1. This has nothing to do even remotely to the subject we discussed earlier, and you know it. Also, I expanded that article, added sources, and you seem to think that it was bad for WP that I improved that article about law and constitution. Or, is it more of an excuse to get me further eliminated after all that happend? Nevermind, but sorry for having confused you. BTW, isn´t probably this why you brough this here? FkpCascais (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if I was DIREKTOR that is absolutely inappropriate behavior to exhibit. Again you were made very well aware of what a topic ban is on your talkpage and that yours pertained to the Balkans. What I "seem to think" is that editors who are topic banned for their tenacious editing should abide by their ban. They are there for a reason. Until you change this view that other editors are out to get you and "eliminate" you, that other non-Serb individuals are here to engage in "clashes" with you, and your denial of your wrongdoings and repetition them, I can't see you as productive member of Wikipedia. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)For the record he violated it too by joining a 3RR Balkans discussion about DIREKTOR[4], although the Republika Srpska edit-war is enough to constitute a ban violation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Producer, OK, I apologised already (although this thread of yours is all but good faith)... Be cool about Serb/non-Serb issues, because I didn´t mentioned them, and it is not me having those problems. Not my fault you and Director allways get involved in edit-wars with Serbian users, and I didn´t participate in even one of them, so not talking to me about this for sure...

@Zjari, that is a report, not a discussion. Also, RS was not an "edit-war", but it was rather a nationalist IP removing without any reason sourced info. I added the citations if you bothered to look at. FkpCascais (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I was also involved in a number of discussions about languages and consensus building, you could try to use that as well... I mentioned numerous languages from the region, you can try going that way also to get me sanctioned. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the diffs provided by PRODUCER are obvious violations of the topic ban, handled accordingly. --WGFinley (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I noticed FkpCascais was blocked and went to see what is was that he was blocked for. If he is topic-banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans as outlined in the WP:ARBMAC decision, broadly construed across all namespaces" I must point out that he has been doing nothing but editing in that topic for the past month and more. Its completely pointless to try and list diffs [5], virtually all these articles are directly related to the Balkans. It doesn't seem to me like a matter of a few violations. -- Director (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's why he was blocked and the ban reset. I don't think his football edits qualify but he's been doing plenty outside of that. --WGFinley (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bump

Hi Guy. Have you had a chance to look over this email as of yet? I'd really like to see if we can move things forward, and would appreciate your insight. Regards, Steven Zhang ^Talk 03:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had little time to be on WP, if some pressing issue comes to my attention I try to give it a few minutes. MEDCOM has discussed a lot of this we don't have a decision yet but as soon as things settle down for me we will have a look at it. --WGFinley (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, please keep me posted. Steven Zhang ^Talk 05:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Russavia

Hello, WGFinley! Sorry to distract you from your real life business, but could you please address the recent comments of several other users at User_talk:Russavia#Block_Extension_Rationale. Russavia should be given access to his talk page in order to openly interact with community on the issues related to his block. GreyHood ^Talk 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, he can appeal to ARBCOM directly. --WGFinley (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the comments makes you look worse and makes it look as if you have an agenda to have Russavia blocked. Bidgee (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

At a certain point discussions conclude. I haven't ignored anything, His block and ban were based on a broad consensus of admins at WP:AE. He violated his ban. I've explained the reasons for my decision, the decision is within WP:AC/DS procedures, I didn't make them up. He has an outlet to appeal if he's unhappy with it. That's it. --WGFinley (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people are unfairly criticising your actions, so I just wanted to pipe up and say that in my opinion they were totally justified. Russavia has been clowning around for years, goading people, and can hardly be surprised or claim that this punishment is unjust. Anyone who thinks it is simply hasn't seen the puerile behaviour that Russavia has habitually engaged in, to the detriment of the WP project. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, you may be interested to know that it seems Russavia uploaded 2 pictures of Putin's family (this and this) to WP on 18 May; after his ban. Less than 2 hours later, they were inserted by Greyhood into the Putin talk page. Seems to me this was an "Eastern European" issue too, and once again, thumbing his/her nose at the ban. With Greyhood's help (gaming the system via a proxy editor anyone?). Malick78 (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That could be off-wiki canvassing or it could be Greyhood just follows his uploads on Commons. His ban and block are from EN and not anywhere else so there's nothing wrong with him uploading the photos to Commons. He worked to get Kremlin permission for photos on Wikipedia (something I admire) so it's not odd for him to continue to upload them there. HIs block and ban are for his behavior on EN and that's all. --WGFinley (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I had been demanding some photos of Putin with his family for a week on the Putin talk page, and miraculously they then appeared via Russavia for Greyhood to use. Whatever, the info is just so you and others know. Malick78 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

AE question

Hi. There is an AE case here that I filed that is rather big and growing wildly out of control.

1) At this point it is long and confusing and seems impossible to understand or deal with (length, back-and-forth). I wonder if it would be a good idea to scrap the whole thing and refile it, with interested parties bringing only their diffs and minimalist explanation? That might simplify the process. Who makes that call?

2) Would you like to take a look if that is done? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello WGFinley, I am aware that you haven´t had much time to be present around lately, but I just wanted to let you know (or remind you in case you knew) about a question, or proposal, that I made you at User_talk:FkpCascais#May_2012. When you find time please let me know what you think or suggest. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just one question WGFinley. I am involved in a series of discussions about diacritics and transliteration of Serbian and other languages and I was also preparing myself to propose a major change that would solve some problems that the discussion brough up. I was also active in some other discussions which are of the concern of the WP:Serbia, however none of them have nothing to do with the users I had problems with, neither are related with history or politics. Could I ask you please WGFinley to allow me to participate and edit 21 c. subjects which are not connected neither with history nor politics? Like updating Serbian Railways, Belgrade Metro or JAT Airways, and I was about to start some articles about some sports magazines published in Belgrade, issues completely safe and not controversial, much less political or historical. I will certainly not abuse your trust and in case of any doubts I would ceryainly put myself in hold and ask you first rather than doing anything that you may find abusive eventually. FkpCascais (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Those seem safe, avoid any potential conflict areas - especially ethnic or political ones and you should be able to still edit while under the ban. --WGFinley (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much WGFinley. FkpCascais (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais's Balkans topic ban and the list of .yu footballers

Well, this is a bit strange. I had a problem with User:FkpCascais editing at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams) and had called two RFCs trying to resolve the matter in a neutral manner. But, I now noticed that they have a topic ban and this subject matter certainly seems to be covered. Please have a look at their behavior there and advise whether it's inappropriate to treat this as a topic ban violation post res. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely pushing the limits of his ban there, I've warned him. --WGFinley (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, I apologise, but the list is purely about football and the decition the football ruling bodies, namely FIFA and UEFA decided. User Joy has asked for a third opinion, and has receved a response he disliked which consisted in the support for the list in the way it is and not giving any support for Joy´s intention for replacing it with two different lists. The list is backed by sources and by the decition of the ruling football bodies. I was open all the way for joy to make suggestions in order for me to adress his concerns, however he has decided to try to eliminate me by posting here this post for you.

I will also like to remind you that you allowed me to edit football related content, which is the case of this article in question here, and I will also like to remind you that I asked you some time ago if you would allow me to edit non-controversial artiles, which you allowed me, and I didn´t even edited any of non-football related content exactly with the intention of you seing that even you allowing me, I did not abused in any way, so I am really disapointed with you not notecing that. I have been strictly editing articles the way you sugested.

I would really like you to see the discussion Joy refers to and see by yourself the correct approach I had there. If not please point me out what else could I have done. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish WGFinley I can explain you all that happend there and you can see what the best solution can be. I created the list long before the topic ban. Joy wanted to change the list and asked for a third opinion. The third opinion provided support fr the list. Joy ignored the third opinion. I was open for any sugestions on Joy´s behalve but he was inflexible. Then Joy made a move ignoring the discussion, diff, and when that failed he tried to eliminate the list by the reason of duplication, as seen in the last discussion at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams). Basically, he tries to get his will by force now after failing to archeve any agreement. I limited myself to explain the way the succession happend within the FIFA organisation, which is the ruling body of the national football teams. I am willing, as I allways was, to adress Joy´s concerns, but I am not willing for him to make changes which are not supported neither by sources, neither by official decitions. This is strictly about football and FIFA decitions and I did not entered, neither there is need to, in any area other than football. FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point of your topic ban, it does not matter if you are right or wrong, you are banned from discussions that get into political matters concerning Eastern Europe. Legitimacy of teams from the former Yugoslavia is a political issue and has nothing to do with football, it violates your ban and you need to stay away from it. I gave you some leeway here when others thought you were in violation, don't disappoint me - stay away from political matters. --WGFinley (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley, you allowed me to edit football related articles, and this one is a football related article. Now, if one wants he can allways claim whenever I edit any football article mentioning anything regarding Balkans that it is related with the topic ban. FIFA is a football organisation, and the list is about footballers. I never even mentioned anything regarding politics, and it is not even apropriate to this discussion. Actually the user wanting to turn it into a political matter is who is challenging an official decition of a non-political organisation, which is the official stand on this matter. That user should discuss the matter in a civil matter and reach an agreement. I will not ever enter into any political discussion, just as you recomended. PS: I never claimed "I was right", I just said that I proceded in a right way as recomended by wp policies and guidelines, while I was actually faced with some less recomendable edits. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm giving you a break. Bans are broadly construed as the policy states, and I am not the final arbiter of it, some admins could interpret you crossed the line and are in violation. You should stay away from topics, no matter how benign they may seem, that can get into the political disputes in the region from which you are banned. If you the debate involves the recognition of national teams, on its face it is political and something you must stay away from. --WGFinley (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you WGFinley. FkpCascais (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice all this up until now. Well, I suppose it all demonstrates once again how FkpCascais' behavior is worthy of a topic ban - they pretend to fail to realize how tagging non-Serbian people people as Serbian is an inherently political matter, and then continue to pile on endless diatribes on how they did nothing wrong and claim that they're being "eliminated". *sigh* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is "tagging" anyone as Serbian, you are failing to understand that all those players represented a team which is nowadays named Serbia national football team (and both, the title and the lede section explain very well the situation), and you seem to be challenging an official decition based on some POV of yours. I already asked you several times to make proposals on how you consider this situation could be improved, however you seem to be more interested in derailing the conversation and asuming bad faith on my behalve. Joy, I am starting to find your attitude offensive and disruptive and I will really like to ask you to stop this campaign against me. Defending a topic ban on me only because you have a dispute (in which I absolutely proceded acording to the policies and guidelines) is not a correct attitude on your behalve in my opinion. Honestly, this seems to me a case where you want to implement some polemic where it doesn´t really exist one, only in order to keep me topic-banned just because you have disagreements with me in which you failed to archive your will. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to editing

For the past three months, I have been under an indef ban. I would like to return to editing in the area. How can I get the ban lifted? Thanks, --Shuki (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You can post a request to have it lifted at WP:AE. --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles mediation: question about mediation bot

I've added a few users whom I feel should be included in the mediation. My question is will the mediation bot make another round to notify them, or should I take action in that regard. Thanks for accepting the request, we all want this grammar issue to be resolved so we can move on to the work of improving articles. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The bot only does one pass but you need to approach mediation carefully. Those actions could be perceived by others as canvassing. I would put notice on the talk pages of the articles in question that it would apply to and invite people in, nobody could take issue with that. --WGFinley (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the editors I added are people that disagree with "the", and who have been part of the previous discussions and polls, so I thought they should take part in this mediation in hopes that we never need to return here again for this issue. I'll put a notice at the relevant talk pages, but since I named these parties, shouldn't they get a bot notice as well? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the resolution of the "the/The" issue in [6] dispute? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not resolved, it's currently in mediation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles. --WGFinley (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI Incident

Please see this section concerning FkpCascais (talk · contribs) and other individuals' conduct on and off en.wiki. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't review this sooner but havenot been on much. I reviewed the AN/I case. a checkuser has been involved and there's no evidence FkpCascais is involved. Since he was accused he's certainly entitled to reply and hasn't violated his TBAN. I see no evidence whatsoever it was him. I wish that you all could stop with the constant battlegrounding with each other, I'm doubtful you will though. --WGFinley (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

AE appeal

I have filed an appeal of the 9/11 topic ban issued back in April.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind responding to my question on the appeal?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hi WGFinley. Transporterman emailed me earlier today asking whether I'd sent you my email address. I thought I had, but I've heard nothing back from you. Did you get the email I sent you, or should I send it again? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring on WTC7

I noticed that, due to a mistake by an IP that was magnified by an autoedit, the talk page of WTC7 got ridiculously messed up. As two weeks have gone by since the mistake was made, I decided it was better to just resolve it myself rather than wait for someone else to see it. Hope you understand that my intention is to correct a serious and glaring error that has apparently gone unnoticed for two weeks and that I am fully respecting the spirit of my topic ban in fixing the error.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Had to make another fix since the table of contents was in a collapsed section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, what part of banned is not clear to you? At the very least you should have asked BEFORE you made any edits, you left me with no choice to block you, this is a clear violation of your ban. Regardless on if you think you are being helpful or productive you are banned from editing there. --WGFinley (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you did have a choice. You could have just warned him or given him a token (one hour) block. You chose to block for two weeks, which seems to be a severe overreaction given that no harm was intended or done. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That sort of thing would encourage more TBan violations. WGFinley did the appropriate thing here for when someone is testing boundaries.--v/r - TP 12:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but two weeks? It seems a little excessive. Arzel (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked twice previously for a week for violations, that is why I did two. --WGFinley (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Just a friendly reminder to log TDA's block at Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A request in regards to a meta RfC

Hi, I was wondering if you would look over this RfC. I realize it does not involve en.wikipedia but I feel the issue needs to be addressed somehow. I feel your experience in dispute resolution would be instrumental in resolving the problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give me a response of some kind? If you need more time to think, that is fine. If you do not want to get involved, I can certainly understand that. If you do not want to get involved could you point me to someone who would be helpful or tell me what I should do? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, current circumstances have left me with little Wikipedia time. I will try to look at this over the weekend, it looks like it will take me a bit to read through. --WGFinley (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope to hear from you. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to take a look at it? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Hi, I'm trying to understand why you added the extra requirement at {{Editnotices/Page/Golan Heights}}. My understanding of the Arab-Israeli sanctions is limited, but I didn't think there was a generalized requirement to discuss reverts on the talk page, although there have been particular editors who have been required to do so. Is there something special about this article, or am I missing something? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Note for everyone else: I've also sent Guy an email about this through the Wikipedia email function. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, looks like I missed out but given the folks that participated I have no problem with the result. If it's not working or just a hindrance time for it to go. --WGFinley (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello WGFinley. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been away for a while, I took and look and wouldn't feel comfortable weighing in on this one. --Wgfinley (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hai all!

Nuptials weeks away, year end projects by the bucketload is keeping me away from the Book of Knowledge.

I can still be called on to help in certain circumstances and will make an edit or two where needed. look me up if you need me. Take care! --WGFinley (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Self blocks

As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comments and a link to your requirements page, if any. I hope I did not err in sort of reviving that page. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, WGFinley. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi WGFinley.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WGFinley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WGFinley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WGFinley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your nice edits at the Vertigo film article

Those were nice edits at the Vertigo film article you did. The film has recently been promoted by the British Film Institute to #1 rank in its most recent 2012 film poll, and I was wondering if you might have any interest in helping to get the article into peer review condition. Do you think this might be something you might like to see at the GA level? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You bet, I'll take a look! --WGFinley (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to your comments and-or edits whenever you are ready to start. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WGFinley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Some people are touchy, original message seemed fine to me. I've been 2FA for a while, thanks! --WGFinley (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for being a great admin! SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --WGFinley (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

KingofGangsters

Might need a reblock - within a day of your unblock, KoG blanked their talk page and tried to speedy the page to hide the history (contrary to your unblock terms of "leave this notice on your page for at least 30 days." Ponyo undid it, but recommend you take a look. creffett (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:TVFAN24/On-Air Staff Project/WBBM

A tag has been placed on User:TVFAN24/On-Air Staff Project/WBBM, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Note, I retraced the initial CSD because it wasn't created by TVFAN24, it was just in their namespace. Resubmitted just as U5. Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:TVFAN24/On-Air Staff Project/WBBM

A tag has been placed on User:TVFAN24/On-Air Staff Project/WBBM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Schazjmd (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This looks justified to me given recent anon editing to these. I can't imagine anyone else who would be editing them but the indef blocked user. --WGFinley (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)