User talk:WGFinley/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

AE

You have again made completely false claims against me at AE, and I have, again, requested that you actually justify your bizarre claims. nableezy - 14:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What was false? --WGFinley (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That the restriction was ignored in favor of edit-warring. nableezy - 16:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reverting repeatedly is edit warring. You reverted and then self-reverted with an edit comment asking someone else to revert it. You had other options at your disposal, like notifying an admin to have the article protected which is what took care of the problem, not the endless reverts. --WGFinley (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did I revert repeatedly? A self-revert is not edit-warring against oneself, you made a similar comment about Malik violating the 1RR by self-reverting and then tried to play it off like you were joking. You are claiming I edit-warred because I made a single revert? Really? nableezy - 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He seems to be referring to the reverts you did on several separate articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are exactly 2 articles in which a single revert is listed, and both self-reverted. To call either instance edit-warring is simply asinine. nableezy - 17:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to have a discussion here without insults I think the discussion has reached its conclusion. --WGFinley (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not. You are required to explain your actions. We went through this before, and if you just answer the questions there will be no "insults". Explain how I have edit-warred when I made a single revert on two articles and quickly self-reverted each. nableezy - 21:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my talk page, I am not required to endure your continued torrent of insults. I had ignored it but there comes a point where there is no sense in discussing it further. The conversation is concluded. --WGFinley (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single insult in the question. You have again made plainly false statements at AE, and have again refused to answer questions about those statements. Explain how I have edit-warred when I made a single revert on two articles and quickly self-reverted each. nableezy - 21:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Asinine" has a Latin root and it has a meaning, so not only am I incompetent and a liar I'm also an ass. We're done here. --WGFinley (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That was several comments ago. The question that I have repeated, and that you have refused to answer, is how is making a single revert, and then self-reverting, "edit-warring". To satisfy you, I have struck the word you find so offensive. Perhaps now you will abide by the requirements of adminship and answer the question. nableezy - 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I already explained this to you, let me explain it to you for a final time. You reverted on two articles, you then self reverted with a comment "come revert this", that is a call to arms for someone else to continue an edit war. The edit war ensued. You had a myriad of other options available to you that would not have violated your sanction that you did not use. You could have gone to AN3, you could have gone to AN/I, you could have contacted any number of administrators who admin in the P-I space to let them know a POV pushing anon is edit warring an article. You didn't, you chose to revert which furthered the edit war. Eventually an admin was contacted and the article protected and Malik correctly blocked the IP. This incident in and of itself would not be cause for sanction were it not from your repeated history of choosing to get into edit wars. I am not responsible for your history of TBANs, IBANs and blocks, you are. You continue to choose the path that causes conflict over the path that avoids it. I wish you would consider that but you refuse to. --WGFinley (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that isnt true. On one article I said that somebody else should revert the edit. And on that one article an IP had been vandalizing the article over a long period of time. Reverting vandalism, while not an exception to my restriction, is explicitly excepted from the definition of edit warring. One the other article I did not ask anybody to revert my self-revert, and in fact my initial edit was not even a revert, making the claim of edit-warring baffling. On the remaining article, I restored the word Palestine, not Palestinian, so that does not even factor into my supposedly violating the restriction. Explain how you can make the comment at JJG's AE case that I don't see the particular offense here to merit AE. He put something in, the point was made to him he wasn't being accurate and after 30 minutes of reflection on it he self-reverted. That's the exact thing I would expect, and then later attempt to close that request on the basis of the self-revert. Explain how my self-reverting, without "30 minutes of reflection", without lying about sources, without waiting for somebody to report me to self-revert, should not be given the same benefit you gave to somebody who was lying about sources to push outright propaganda in to articles? nableezy - 21:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So previously I was using a "technicality" to warn another user instead of sanctioning them and you called me incompetent and not interested in what other admins might think but stating your ban was on "Palestine" and not "Palestinian" is not a technicality? WP:KETTLE. You also continue to ignore my assessment that other means were available to you and you did not use them. Why won't you admit that? Also, you need to stop being disingenuous about my previous early close, I missed another comment was made, it was brought to my attention I missed it and I immediately reopened it when it was. --WGFinley (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A restriction on adding the word Palestinian is not a restriction on adding the word Palestine, and if I recall correctly you were the one to use the technicality to excuse actual edit-warring. Why wont I admit that there were other options available? Because RFPP would require multiple IPs disrupting to be a valid route, there was no actual violation of the 1RR by the IP, and I dislike going to individual admins, as, unlike others I despise even the appearance of, either off-wiki or on-wiki, lobbying an admin for action. Can you answer the remaining questions please? Ill repeat them for your ease: Explain how you can make the comment at JJG's AE case that I don't see the particular offense here to merit AE. He put something in, the point was made to him he wasn't being accurate and after 30 minutes of reflection on it he self-reverted. That's the exact thing I would expect, and then later attempt to close that request on the basis of the self-revert. Explain how my self-reverting, without "30 minutes of reflection", without lying about sources, without waiting for somebody to report me to self-revert, should not be given the same benefit you gave to somebody who was lying about sources to push outright propaganda in to articles? And I am not being disingenuous (and if you are asking me not to insult you, then you should consider your words), you did claim that the self-revert should invalidate the request, despite there being several other edits that were never self-reverted. And you continued to claim that no action was merited. So please answer how you can make the statement you made in JJG's case about the self-revert being sufficient to close the request without action, but here my self-reverting, literally within a minute of saving the page, is not. nableezy - 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to have a discussion without bringing other editors or other cases in it? Why can't we just stick to the matter at hand without you continually bringing out what someone else did. WP:NOTTHEM. I never compared you to JJG, you did. I never said I was letting Michael off on a technicality, you did and now you want to be excused for using "Palestinian" instead of "Palestine". Leave the straw man alone. --WGFinley (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the matter at hand I never said you should go to RFPP, I said AN/I or AN3. He clearly did violate 3RR afterward and it doesn't matter because P-I is on 1RR by community mandate. You don't like going to other admins? You prefer to violate your sanction triggering an AE report and what appears to be a consensus that you be TBAN'd? --WGFinley (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

First, go read straw man, then reconsider your attempt at classifying my comments as such. Second, WP:NOTTHEM is quite the cop out. I am not asking why JJG got off, I already know the answer to that, I am asking how you, personally, can make the two opposing arguments that the self-revert in one case is sufficient but not in another. The issue is not them, it is you. Finally, no, the IP did not ever violate the 3RR, and to that point had never violated the 1RR. No, I do not prefer to violate [my] sanction, had I remembered the sanction I would have just raised the issue on the talk page. The reason I raise past cases is because they point to a very wide inconsistency in the way you treat certain groups of editors. You bend over backwards to excuse the most outrageous behavior, lying about sources, and yet repeatedly seek to ban me at any and every opportunity. I would like to know why that is. Why was JJG self-revert after being brought to AE sufficient but my self-revert within a minute of making the edit is not? I am asking how you can hold both thoughts. JJG was fresh off a 1 year ban for distorting sources to push a fringe POV. He quickly did exactly the same thing. Yet his past bans were not cause for a ban, and his self-reverting 1 (of 3) instances of distortions was enough of you to claim that there was no cause for sanctions. Why the inconsistency with you personally? I realize that AE can have widely varying sanctions due to different admin's having different views on what is the proper sanction, but a single admin should not have such wildly disparate views, a disparity that appears to occur to favor a specific "side". And to be clear, I am not asking about JJG's actions, I am asking about yours. How is it that you excuse lying about sources due to a self-revert 30 minutes later after being report but call for an indef ban for an edit that was similarly self-reverted, though immediately and without being prompted by anyone. nableezy - 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite comfortable with my behavior, I try to do my best to help the community and work with people where I can. In fact someone I previously sanctioned was kind enough to wish me Merry Christmas in amongst your various comments about me. I fully admit when I am too harsh and I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong and I change my mind when presented with a reasoned argument such was the case with her. I had another case just like Michael's that I closed where the person who filed politely asked me what could be done if the behavior continued, she didn't rant and rail at me, she didn't call me incompetent or a liar or an ass. She simply asked what the process was if it continued and I explained it. I will leave you to your inevitable last word, I have thoroughly explained my positions, you want to filibuster this and I'm not going to. You can be a very valuable contributor to the project Nableezy, you are obviously an intelligent person and you are capable of valuable contributions. It's too bad you continue to go down the road of attacks, belittlement and battleground behavior. Take care. --WGFinley (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Im not concerned with your comfort level. I am not filibustering, and, again, if you would like me to refrain from "insulting" you I ask that you consider the words you use with greater care. I am doing my best to keep "civil" in this discussion; my feelings about you are not a secret, but I am setting them aside here. I called you incompetent because your comments about what happened at JJG's case completely distorted the events, and you refused to acknowledge even reading the diffs cited or explaining your comments (and lets not forget, I wasnt the only one to question your competence). I dont think I have called you a liar, a diff of that would be appreciated. I also did not call you an ass, I said the view that self-reverting an edit is edit warring is asinine. And I struck that later, just to avoid having these pointless conversations and actually get you to address the point. You still havent. Please do so. Please explain why you excused JJG's his unconscionable behavior on the basis of a self-revert, but my self-revert does not excuse what is, lets be honest, a trivial error. nableezy - 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, I think you have well and truly made your point by now. WG has made his response, he is obviously not interested in responding any further. So unless you intend to resort to some dispute resolution process over this matter, I think it's time for you to drop the stick. Gatoclass (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm, about that other case WG. I think maybe you made the same mistake there that you did with Netzer's case. Seems to me there was a pretty blatant one-on-one edit-war going on between those two users and one of them, the filing editor, was well aware of the discretionary sanctions. Do with that what you will.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

First, it wasn't a mistake, I agreed to reopen the case when an uninvolved admin thought there was something more to it, simple as that. Second, discussions go on AE, not here. Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How exactly would I raise a mistaken close of an AE discussion on AE? Perhaps you should ask Tim if the same objections he made on the Netzer case are a basis for reopening the Esoglou case as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As a further aside, saying it wasn't a mistake is a bit silly. Tim said he thought your close was premature. Just because he avoided the "m word" doesn't mean he wasn't saying you were mistaken. No shame in admitting it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Two admins disagreeing doesn't automatically mean you should presume to know which one, if any, is mistaken - nor does it give you any right or authority to continue badgering one of them. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

TDA Maybe you should go ask Tim if you are so concerned, we have different points of view all the time, we all collaborate and work through differences and respect each other's opinions. Just because you don't agree with someone's opinion doesn't necessarily mean you don't see merit in it. There's a difference you don't seem to get. --WGFinley (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Close of Esoglou case

Will I be able to open a new case the next time Esoglou violates the sanctions, and may I submit the same evidence again? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Esoglou has been warned so if the behavior continues you should bring it to me (as I issued the warning) or AE. Yes, evidence of prior behavior before the warning can be included. My hope is the user will remediate after the warning. --WGFinley (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful, based on the failure to do so after dozens of informal warnings, but I certainly do share your hopes. Anyway, thanks for letting me know I can bring it to you, that sounds less time-consuming than putting together another standardized AE report since you've already seen the evidence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to advise me about how I should respond to Roscelese's constant deletings on her article Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication and her rewordings to fit her own agenda? See Talk:Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. She has succeeded in frightening off User:Bbb23, and it seems that no one else is prepared to face her. Perhaps I should give up too. I will, however, revert once her repeated replacement of my statement by one of her own even after being told by Cymru lass that such an action is contrary to contrary to Wikipedia policy. Then I'll go to bed. Esoglou (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A clarification. I wouldn't say that Roscelese frightened me off, although I did find her discussion style unnecessarily aggressive. Rather, I decided I needed more support from other editors, which is why I posted both on the Talk page of the article and at WP:BLPN. When no further help arrived, I effectively abandoned the article to its fate. I note that Wgfinley has responded on Esoglou's Talk page and recommended an RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emptive question for Wgfinley: is the repeated filing of disruptive RFCs also grounds for sanction? I've already had to file a duplicate neutrally worded RFC over at Talk:Catholic Church and abortion for a subject with whose current consensus I am completely satisfied because the alternative was leaving Esoglou's repeatedly added non-neutral wording as the only account of the dispute on the RFC page, and I'm hoping your suggestion of another RFC isn't taken as carte blanche to write something stupid like "Roscelese wants to censor the true Catholic view, should we let her?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how requesting the community comment on a particular article is "disruptive". It can be, but the point of the process is to get input from members of the community who may not have otherwise come across the article. Nobody is denying you a right to your beliefs but if you are pushing the point of view of your beliefs that's not allowed. I honestly don't see how an RfC can be "neutrally worded", you post an article you're looking for comment on, you present a position but it's up the community to take a look at the article and sound off on what they think, what's wrong with that? --WGFinley (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC requires a neutrally worded statement of the dispute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

the phrasings in question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Was King Baudouin's refusal on grounds of Catholic teaching to legalize abortion in Belgium, at the cost to him of being declared "unable to govern" and only later being reinstated, a less important matter for this article than the posting of an advertisement in a newspaper and the excommunication of a nun for approving an abortion, so as to justify excluding from the article any mention of the king's action, while including the other two items? vs. Should we include information about King Baudouin of Belgium's temporary abdication, which he did rather than signing a law legalizing abortion because he opposed abortion due to his Catholic faith, in Catholic Church and abortion? Please review previous discussions on article talk page before responding.

The way that works is pretty simple, many will chime in about the phrasing of the RfC. The first one is a preposterous run-on and I can't imagine too many people taking it seriously enough to comment. --WGFinley (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wheel-war?

I suggested that another case you closed based on similar reasoning saw similar circumstances as the one Tim re-opened. Then I suggested maybe you should ask Tim if he felt the same way about that case as the Netzer case. You then suggested I ask Tim myself and so I have. I don't see how you think doing that is trying to start a wheel war. Why would you suggest I ask Tim if you did?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not tell you to go to Tim and ask him to reverse my admin action, you said you were concerned that he thought I was wrong, I said he wasn't, go ask him. Why do you insist on interfering with the process? You have nothing to do with any of these cases, you didn't get involved at AE at all until you were sanctioned and blocked. Going to another admin (apparently former admin by his page) and asking him to overturn my admin action is advocating wheel warring. Tim said he thought it should be open and I respect his opinion, so I reopened Netzer, simple as that. --WGFinley (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There were actually two comments I made and in one I suggested that you ask Tim whether he felt the same rationale applied to the Esoglou case. From what you are saying it seems like I mistook your comment as a response to that suggestion when it was a response to the second comment. Apologies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is some confusion regarding Tim's actual admin status perhaps we should let these accusations rest for now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Netzer's edit history

I left a comment in my statement about Netzer's edits outside the I/P topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Mediation Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Mediation Committee as well as the Arbitration Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Mediation or Arbitration Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Mediation Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation assistance

Hey Wgfinley! I want to inquire if there was any possibility that I could aide in a future MedCom mediation? I'm not asking to join the Committee, but work at the cabal has been slow, and I think working alongside a more experienced mediator would be beneficial for my growth in Dispute Resolution.

I have worked on several tough disputes (even some on the path to Arbitration). So I hope I can contribute in some way, in whatever form that may be.

I hope your New Year is starting off well! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was making quick hits yesterday at bedtime and wanted to look at this in more detail. I will get back to you shortly though I know things are pretty quiet on the mediation front right now. I'll take a look at it and get back to you. --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thank you Lord Roem (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Response

Nah, not really. I pop in occasionally to fix things in my little areas of interest, but I'm done as any sort of major contributor. Wikipedia still has the most toxic culture of anywhere I could possibly engage with, and I'd rather reserve as much of my inner zen as possible these days. :) Rebecca (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Awwww, too bad. Sorry to hear that though I know a bit of which you speak. Take care! --WGFinley (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement case

Hello Wgfinley. I replied to your request in the case against User:Tuscumbia in AE. Please take a look [1]. Perhaps it was not a good idea to file an AE by an editor like me who is new to English WP (but with experience with Russian WP as I showed) but what I am getting is that here editors like Tuscumbia are able to game the system in the same way they once tried in Russian WP. As you probably know their entire network of coordinated editing was unmasked [[2]]. Their well rehearsed method of destroying new entrants to WP by falsely accusing them in being sockpuppets is well summarized by an independent editor Lothar von Richthofen who commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs: "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people", then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive"→ [3]. I know I should not have been provoked to file this AE report but reckless battleground attitude of User:Tuscumbia is hard to deal with otherwise since they disrupt editing by refusing to cooperate and follow WP guidelines. Winterbliss (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an account on RU, a link to your account there would be helpful. SPI is more than capable of dealing with issues there, they get used to it all the time. We have a regular influx of editors in this topic area who get banned and come back as socks, probably more than any other area I would guess. Whenever a new user shows up on AE with hardly any edits we are naturally suspicious. If you have an account on RU I would be interested in it and feel you should have your account linked. --WGFinley (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Murovdag/Mrav

I did revert, but also added 6 sources to support my edit, and I'm sure that I can find more. It's only being disputed by a chauvinist who refuses to discuss and reach consensus. He's only argument so far is that NKR doesn't exist!? He has been banned from the NKR topic 3 times already for nationalistic POV pushing. Honestly look at the sources and the information that I'm adding and you'll see that I'm trying to add information, while Tuscumbia is trying to suppress it. --George Spurlin (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming to an admin talk page to launch into personal attacks against another editor, yeah, not a good plan. You are pretty much reinforcing my initial take. --WGFinley (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was simply replying to your comment on my talk page. Fyi I'm still waiting for Tuscumbia and his meatpuppet to say anything productive in the talkpage. -George Spurlin (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the tone is lost in translation, "chauvinist" is a very pejorative word and very sparingly used in English, it's also name calling. Stick to describing the behavior. I put further suggestions on the article's talk page which is where this really belongs anyway. --WGFinley (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

please update closing statement

Consistent with your redaction of the admonishment of PeskyTheCommoner [4], please redact or strike through the corresponding statement from the ANI archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Borderline-obsessive_hounding.3B_continued_baiting_by_User:ThatPeskyCommoner Nobody Ent 17:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did, someone decided to revert it which I undid. --WGFinley (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't think to check the edit history. Thank you. Nobody Ent 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'm amazed at what some people revert sometimes. --WGFinley (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

AE thread closure

Thank you for informing me of your decision. But there is something specific about your decision at AE that I don't understand. You said in your comment here that "Per WP:AC/DS the warning is not just to make someone aware problematic editing in the topic area is subject to sanction, it's to specifically tell that editor his current actions could lead him to sanction and counsel on how to avoid sanction. It's an opportunity for someone to remediate their behavior before sanction, outside of blatant and gross disregard for WP policies I feel every editor should get that opportunity." I wasn't given that opportunity. The editors commenting in the AE thread all have accused me of POV pushing, but as I mentioned there, most of the people who are consistently involved in R&I articles tended to believe that my editing was fine, including people who disagreed with me on content. I had the misfortune of being reported at AE at a time when all of these people (Maunus, Victor Chmara, VsevolodKrolikov) weren't active, so the opinions expressed in the AE thread were not an accurate sampling of how the "regulars" on these articles have felt about my editing. Based on how my editing was perceived by the people who had the most experience with it, I was never aware that something was wrong with my behavior.

I don't think I was given an adequate warning and opportunity to remedy my behavior, and by your own standard it also seems like I wasn't. I would really appreciate you applying a consistent standard about this. If you or another uninvolved admin could have told me what I needed to do differently to not violate NPOV, I would have done so.Boothello (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As you saw at that case the consensus is against me with that interpretation. The consensus is that someone who has been commenting at AE is aware of the sanctions. Since you similarly have contributed at AE[5] the same would apply to you. I did a pretty thorough review of all the comments submitted and found the majority of the evidence supported a ban. You are an admitted SPA, that presents a problem for you in a disputed topic area subject to sanctions. Again, my suggestion is to walk away from this area (you have no choice) and find other areas you can contribute and possibly earn your way back to contributing in this area again. --WGFinley (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)