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.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by .

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

Topic ban

How does this comply with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.98.153 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The event described in the article predates the Arab-Israeli conflict by at least 50 years. Thus, it's not a topic-ban violation. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO comments

Would you mind asking User:MONGO to stop going after me in multiple places? Due to some recent issues I have had with another group, some editors were pushing to ban me from raising concerns about the group. Although MONGO was not involved in that dispute at any time, he all the same steps in to support the proposed ban while focusing almost entirely on my participation in the 9/11 topic area. Even though I asked him to come to my talk page so we could settle the dispute amicably (he has barred me from commenting on his talk page) MONGO jumps into the discussion yet again accusing me of being on Wikipedia "primarily to create drama and cause anarchy" and pushing a ban or block, claiming that I never drop an issue without such action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have been occupied in real life, do you still feel you are being hounded? --WGFinley (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has given it a rest for now, but I have a feeling he will do it again if he is not warned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley...The Devils Advocate was topic banned for 30 days from 9/11 pages, is under a threat of a topic ban if he fails to produce an Rfc related to his arguments over the Article Rescue Squad and is currently arguing at Intelligent Design...its one thing to be the devils advocate on issues and another to be going from one venue to another and picking a fight with everyone. I have noticeboards watchlisted so if I see he's disruptive at these places, I am sure as hell going to chime in if the evidence demonstrates he is causing further issues.MONGO 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my behavior is so problematic then you should file a report, not go around everywhere telling people that I am a very bad person that should be banned.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you are a "bad person"...but your name keeps popping up on boards I watchlist...and the reports are filed by others I have never worked with before..so its pretty obvious you're creating issues in multiple venues.MONGO 19:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to look at this but TDA, you know I previously cautioned you about the places you have been wading in to. If you go in to these highly flammable content areas with your very tenacious and sometimes tendentious editing behavior you can wear out your welcome quickly. --WGFinley (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to avoid getting involved in an issue because things might get sticky with people defending the status-quo. Whenever you challenge the status-quo people are going to go after you and accuse you of disruption. Should every editor adopt the attitude you suggest nothing will ever be done to improve Wikipedia where it needs improvement the most. We might as well abandon all hope and throw this place to the wolves if the "gatekeepers" of these contentious topic areas are going to be allowed to dictate how these subjects and the editors involved in them get handled.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say two construction crews are constructing a building and they can't agree on if the door should be on the east or west side of the building. For two weeks they shout at each other screaming about how the door should be on one side or the other, after a while they finally come to an agreement the door should be on the east side of the building. Then, a few days later you come along and say it should be on the west side the building, both of those construction crews are going to kill you because they just spent days reaching an agreement you want to throw out in two seconds. This is why you have come to the attention of these folks. You could be entirely right the door should be on the west side, nobody will listen to you though because of how you did it. --WGFinley (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not the appropriate analogy. It implies there are two sides with equal strength debating only two options that reach a mutual agreement. The reality is that when it comes to these fringe theories the "debunkers" dominate the topic area and are more than willing to revert like crazy to insure their preferred version gets implemented. They tend to get away with it too because each one can just hand the baton on to another comrade. Most of the editors trying to balance the article have been blacklisted as advocates of the fringe theories and driven away. If someone is an advocate then the reaction is to completely ignore all of that editor's objections and make no effort to compromise. The ID article seems to have this affliction even worse than the 9/11 CT article. Topic areas like ARBPIA are not so bad because at the very least you have equal numbers on both sides so no one can get one over on the other.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply (i.e. "two sides", "equal strength", "debunkers revert like crazy", "they get away with it") is consistent with a battleground attitude and is why you frequently find yourself at odds with people. --WGFinley (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'll make good faith overture now...I'll refrain from commenting at any noticeboard the next time someone else posts a complaint about The Devil's Advocate.MONGO 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No promises on the time after that though...who knows though, I might even post then in your defense...stranger things have happened.MONGO 17:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, are you seriously suggesting that you would just avoid going after me one time? If so, I am thinking I shouldn't be thanking you at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the matter has been concluded, I would suggest WP:AE as a better venue to appeal your ban, going to AN/I and admin talk pages is going to look like forum shopping and is unlikely to get your ban reduced. --WGFinley (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice and I made an appeal at AE as you suggested. I apologise to you WGFinley for all the recent inconvenience, but I was extremelly sad and disapointed with all that happend. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]