User talk:WGFinley/Archive 6

I think maybe you are a bit confused. Most of the diffs Jordgette mentioned, as I noted on the ArbCom page, were from the week-long block. Even then, I explained my reasoning for all of those changes before the block (mainly that I was moving the information to another article and leaving a summary in the building 7 article). If you want a concise explanation for why I do not think the block was correct see here: User talk:The Devil's Advocate#Response. Those edits after the block have all been explained on the article talk page (in very short paragraphs just so you know), or in the ArbCom.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs of me explaining the post-block edits to help you out: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reposting what you wrote on the AE page isn't abundantly helpful. --WGFinley (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You said it was "too long didn't read" So I figured I'd point to each relevant paragraph to make it easier for you to read, as well as pointing to where I address all of the diffs mentioned(I also included two paragraphs from the article talk page and my position on the pre-block edits).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a much more concise diff of me addressing the post-block changes: [8].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Chopping it into bits doesn't make it shorter. Stay on topic and away from grandiose rationalization of what you did. Why didn't you work with others to fork that part or discuss your changes? --WGFinley (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, my move of information and consequent shortening of the collapse section in the building 7 article was before the block. However, even then, as I have said, I did discuss it. Immediately after the first effort at shortening I started a section on the talk page. As for the edits after the block expired, would two paragraphs be short enough? The last diff I gave and the third diff I provided in this section of your talk page covers those post-block changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For most of the articles on Wikipedia your actions would be pretty standard, be bold make some big changes and see what others think. You can't apply that logic to a testy subject like 9/11. If you had been editing that page for a while you would know the constant battleground that exists with the conspiracy theories, etc. What others tried to encourage you to do is to discuss first and then edit. Make some concise points and get to what you think could be improved on the talk page, always propose forks (there's a template to do it) and let it stay up there for several days (biggest mistake many make, they act like everyone edits WP daily, they don't) and then see what happens. If you showed some contrition and misunderstanding instead of protracted denials it would go a lot better for you. --WGFinley (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am aware this subject would make related articles a battleground. My thought was that by moving the information to the collapse article the Featured Article covering the building itself could have less exposure to that battle. That is the reason I gave and I still consider that one of the main reasons for shortening the section. I had thought other editors would like to take the battle over conspiracy theories to another article about the actual subject in dispute, rather than have it fought over in an article about the building itself. What it seems to me is that those editors resisting that effort are not interested in keeping the article from being a battleground so long as they have command of the field.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously still trying to go for a topic ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with some of your comments in this case. Nableezy made one revert, of two for the show. He then came up with a compromise edit which eliminated, or should have eliminated, the source of friction, by simply substituting "Israeli occupied territories" in place of the disputed list of territories. That was a good solution in my view, and the dispute should have ended there, except that an IP (since blocked), clearly bent on harassment of Nableezy, then began reverting him.

Quite frankly I am getting extremely tired of seeing admins in effect enabling disruptive users by rewarding them with blocks and bans of the opponents they set out to harass. There is no moral equivalence here. Users are entitled to edit pages responsibly without fear of sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty simple, follow along.

1. Two for the show did the 4th revert which brought it back to the status quo it had been for 5+ months and asked for the warring to stop and to discuss building a consensus. [9]
2. Nableezy appears to think that is The Wrong Version and reverts [10] = bad.
3. He does explain on the talk page.[11]= good. But he had already reverted which makes his claim of seeking consensus appear less than genuine. He ignored the call for discussion and consensus in favor of restoring his own preferred version.

This is the essence of P-I edit wars and as anyone who edits in P-I knows your actions are subject to sanction if you can't edit harmoniously. Nableezy has repeatedly been subject to sanction for tendentious editing in the P-I space, this is nothing new or invented on my part. --WGFinley (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a brief edit war over this issue back in June; Nableezy wasn't involved. Sean Hoyland triggered it again a few days ago when he added an article about murdered Israeli settlers to the category and adjusted the definition accordingly. Two for the show reverted, calling for consensus. Nableezy reverted him, leaving a message on the talk page as to his reasons. Brewcrewer then reverted Nableezy, and Nableezy swiftly came up with a compromise edit. He did not "restore his own preferred version", he came up with a fresh solution which he obviously hoped would resolve the dispute quickly, and which indeed seems to have stuck.

This is no more than standard BRD, and there is no reason to suppose the debate would not have ended there with no drama at all had not the IP turned up to continue his campaign of harassment against Nableezy. It's precisely what I meant when I said that users have a right to edit responsibly without having to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of sanction.

As far as the charge of "tendentious editing" on Nableezy's part, I don't recall any such cases against Nableezy, all those I have seen have been about either technical breaches of the rules or incivility. AFAIK there have been no successful cases against Nableezy for adding substandard or biased content, ie tendentiousness. On the contrary, every time Nableezy has taken a longstanding dispute to the wider community, his position has been endorsed and that of his opponents rejected. That ought to tell you something about who is contributing positively to the topic area and who is not. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Further_remedies -> search page "Nableezy" -> grok to the fullness of Nableezy's TE affliction. I'm not saying he's the sole person at fault here, there's some blame to go around but Nableezy is always in the fray and can't seem to stay away from JJG no matter how many interaction and topic bans they get. --WGFinley (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Nableezy's past history of sanctions only confirms my view that he has not previously been banned for tendentious (ie biased) editing. His sanctions are virtually all over technical breaches like 1RR and occasionally, incivility. It's also worth noting that most of his opponents have eventually been banned for tendentious, or biased, editing. Nableezy generally edits in accordance with core policy, while it's been demonstrated repeatedly that those who have dragged him to AE either could not or would not do the same. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Read closer, I can also see your arguments haven't changed in a year. [12] --WGFinley (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My arguments haven't changed because the facts haven't changed. However, I see I'm wasting my time here, so I won't trouble you any further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

P-I Related Topic Bans

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

Interaction Bans

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

# JJG Feb 2011

1. Cptnono Jun 2011

and four related blocks and that's not from TE? We truly don't have any more to discuss because that could well be the definition of WP:TE. He's had numerous chances to remediate his behavior in the topic space and doesn't appear to have any intention to do so. --WGFinley (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You simply do not know what you are talking about. I have never had an interactoin ban with either Shuki or Jiujitsuguy, and the Jun 2011 interaction ban was placed at my request. The Jan 2010 topic ban was lifted on appeal. The May 2011 ban was replaced with a revert restriction. And each of the bans were on issues with reverts, not tendentious editing. Being an admin is more than counting on your fingers how many times you can find a username in a sanctions log. Finally, I would like to ask you a question. Were you contacted off-wiki by Jiujitsuguy? nableezy - 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't see reverts as a symptom of tendentious editing is a large part of your problem working on the project. And no, I wasn't contacted by JJG, the Cubs have a new manager and his page was being vandalized so I checked back in. Feel free to analyze my edits though I'm sure you already have, it's far easier for you to project deviant behavior on me than take responsibility for your own behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also my apologies for saying you had an interaction ban with JJG, I read that entry wrong. However, saying your situation with Shuki wasn't an interaction ban may technically be correct but it's splitting hairs. --WGFinley (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the difference between technically correct and correct is what is splitting hairs. As for The fact that you don't see reverts as a symptom of tendentious editing is a large part of your problem working on the project., it depends on what is being reverted, and the fact that you are only able to make a determination based on counting is why you shouldnt be involved at AE. nableezy - 12:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I do not understand this action at all. For one the editor who actually filed the report had at the end suggested possibly moving it off AE as the editor felt it was no longer as serious. Not to mention that, since the main objection any of these editors raised (including the main issue you raised) was me not discussing changes before making them, your decision to bar me from all related talk pages as well seems excessive and contrary to what you claimed was the issue. So, what exactly did you think justified barring from me the talks pages as well as editing despite the editor who filed the request having a change of heart and suggesting my actions may not warrant the more extreme sanctions that result from AE?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues were detailed in depth in the AE report, I made my suggestion on the AE report and it was there for a week without any objections noted from any other uninvolved admin and therefore made my decision accordingly. I think your refusal to look at the totality of your conduct and how your actions disrupted editing in a controversial topic area were a large reason for indicating to me the block clearly wasn't sufficient as you don't think you did anything wrong. I went forward with the topic ban per the AE report to prevent further disruption. Try to get over it, learn to lose gracefully and take a break if needed. You're not helping things with walls of text, drop the stick instead. --WGFinley (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you want a short explanation for why I am so insistent that I did nothing wrong? How about the fact that at every turn, no matter how many times I got reverted, no matter how many times those reverts unnecessarily removed material that was of no controversy, no matter how many times I found myself struggling to get any real discussion going, no matter how many bad faith accusations I faced, no matter how many uncivil remarks I received, I still tried my best to work out the issues with those editors calmly and respectfully?

The problem I have with being accused of being disruptive is that it implies my actions were inhibiting progress, when the opposite is true. In several cases I corrected issues that had been standing for years, on one occasion as a direct result of my involvement another editor also noticed such an issue (though the editor seemed to blame me for it the error was around for four years). Generally many improvements I made still stand with no objection, most of them part of the very edits cited in those noticeboards as examples of my "disruptive" behavior. The problem I have with being accused of edit-warring is it implies that I simply tried to reassert myself over and over without considering what others were saying when, again, I did the opposite. I immediately sought the opinions of other editors and repeatedly made changes to accommodate their concerns, letting go of issues even when I found the reasoning flimsy or poor. No editor or admin has yet to actually dispute that this was the case.

Despite being on the right side of the facts and policy, I was fully ready to accept what I thought was coming in this instance. Barring me from editing said articles, no matter how much I may dislike it or see it as unequal, is something I at least could accept. Barring me from discussing changes altogether? That is another matter entirely. So, I have a very simple request: if you are unwilling to reverse your action entirely, it would be nice if you would at least allow me to contribute on the talk pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your actions in the article space and the talk space were the reasons for the AE report, hence your topic ban from them. If you go and read WP:TBAN you will see this is the standard of almost all topic bans, I'm not meting out cruel and unusual punishment specifically for you. In fact that's your main issue, I'm not meting out punishment, I'm preserving the peace there since you have demonstrated your are unable and unwilling to work collaboratively with others as demonstrated in your response. I have one more essay for you, I hope you actually read them (starting to doubt it): don't be a fanatic. Take care. --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about you address three simple questions for me:

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

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

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

That's drawing us into content where we shouldn't be going

WG, I'm afraid that this comment of yours demonstrates that you simply aren't up to speed with the current state of play at AE. Over the last 18 months, administrators have increasingly recognized that simply handing out speeding tickets for technical violations, while ignoring obvious abuses like misrepresentation of sources or adding outright falsehoods, doesn't work. You are trying to drag AE back into an earlier era where civil POV pushers could run rampant while those attempting to prevent their abuse were given no support from dispute resolution or even penalized for trying to do the right thing. I would strongly urge you to read the comments collected by NuclearWarfare at his candidate guide, under the "On administration" section, they summarize the problem very well in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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