User talk:WGFinley

My Email Rules

Due to emails I get related to Admin or Medcom duties you need to know if you choose to email me using this link or by using the email user function my rules are as follows: I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki. If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you do not have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so. Whether you follow my email rules is up to you but be aware I may refuse to engage in the use of email with you if you refuse to follow them.

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

— Thomas Jefferson

9/11 AE case

To make this easier for me to understand, how about you cite one of the diffs from the case and explain what in that diff is evidence of the tendentious behavior you were talking about?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues are clearly outlined on the AE report. --WGFinley (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am asking why you see it as evidence of said behavior, not what you see as evidence of the behavior. Saying "these edits represent tendentious behavior" is nowhere near as helpful as "these edits represent tendentious behavior because of x". If it is really so obvious to you then it should not be difficult to explain.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have two entire collaped threads on this page already trying to explain things to you where it's always "I'm just asking for..." and you refuse to accept my answer. I've answered this multiple times, the information is in the AE report from a half dozen or so other users and unanimous concurrence among the admins who commented. Accept it and move on or appeal it. --WGFinley (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Answering with "read the AE case", a case that is 5,500 words long and includes numerous comments and responses, is not even remotely helpful. I addressed pretty much every comment at that AE case to explain what those editors were leaving out. Saying "read the AE case" doesn't tell my why you gave their objections more weight than mine. That is something I can only reasonably find out from you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Accept it and move on or appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to make this really easy for you. Were these comments by Tom and AQFK the primary basis of your argument, or were there other comments that you considered? A simple answer to that question will allow us to proceed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, accept it and move on or appeal. I would also suggest posting on all the admin walls is the type of behavior (forum shopping) that was cited as problematic in the AE report. Before you respond to that, accept it and move on or appeal, that is all. --WGFinley (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking the admins involved in the case to explain their reasons for the action is not forum shopping, they may each have unique reasons or simply be more willing to respond, and the only mention of "forum shopping" was from DHeyward who claimed that my suggestion of taking the entire content dispute to mediation was forum-shopping a sanction even though sanctions are not intended as the result of a mediation case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear, one last try at least. Either accept the decision and move on or file your appeal. Continued pleas here or to other admins is WP:FORUMSHOP and will result in you being blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to appeal if none of the admins involved are willing to say what in a 5,500 word case served as the basis of their decision? What assurances am I supposed to give or arguments am I supposed to refute if I don't know what specific behavioral issues you were looking at?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)