User talk:WGFinley

Feel free to use this page to reach me. If you are in need of more personal, private, or immediate assistance, feel free to email me. Thanks!.

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

— Thomas Jefferson

TechnoFaye

Hi... just checking that you're aware this user isn't yet blocked right? Also, your summary suggests you've not actually read through the thread properly, so why close it? Unless you're going to close it properly, I personally don't feel you should be closing it at all. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't state the close correctly, I meant to say the offender pics were removed and she has outlets available regarding the other actions. I don't see anything productive coming out of the discussion that's there. --WGFinley (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, she isn't blocked (the block seeming to be the "other actions" you mention. I don't think you should just be ignoring the discussion because you can't be bothered to read through it properly.. which is what you give the impression that you're doing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't fix it all, fixed now. I read through a lot of it but it's over 50k of text. I'm an uninvolved admin and I'm allowed to wrap up AN/I conversations that have run their course or are no longer productive. --WGFinley (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As a somewhat uninvolved administrator myself (per WP:INVOLVED) I was kind of thinking it was clear that there was support for at least some kind of action being taken against the user, if not a block than at a strong warning. The threads only been open three days, and editors are still looking through her contributions to see if there is a problem (which there does appear to be). As an admin you may feel you are allowed to close the thread, but maybe you would at least give the users you have commented there the courtesy of actually reading it properly? Or if not, then leave it to a user who is actually aware of the whole issue.. If you haven't even read through the AN/I thread properly, I'm sceptical as to if you've looked at diffs etc...? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been engaged in that AN/I from the start and you wiped her user page, are you sure you're not involved? AN/I is for admins to address issues and resolve them, not to publicly fillet people. If there's further action to be taken against her then take it or move along. There's no reason for the conversation to meander on for days because someone posted some naked pictures. --WGFinley (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with this editor in a purely administrative role, even if it has been at some length. I believe that per WP:INVOLVED I am not considered an involved administrator. I think that per the thread there is further action that should be taken, are you saying you're happy for me or another administrator to override your decision? Not meaning to be blunt, but have you read any of this thread? The problem is quite clearly not the pictures of herself (although it may be why the thread was started, no one except the person who started it have seemed to have a large problem with them on enwp). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying if she's committed offenses block her. If she hasn't, then don't. AN/I is not RfC so either take action on it and move it along or don't take action and move it along. --WGFinley (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved (really) admin and was reviewing, as the last section and my posts last night and this morning indicated...

I'm going to indef block, with standard "if can demonstrate ability to edit constructively any admin may unblock" condition.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin13 beat me to it. Ah well... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted my wrapup so feel free to add, I just wanted the spectacle to end. --WGFinley (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting WGfinley :). Now closed with a block. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, sorry bout that. I took a long time to pick a name lol. What's up? I don't come on WP much anymore, got sick of dealing with the majority of the community, who are the type of people that i absolutely cannot stand. :) I try not to remember the wikidrama from back then. :D --Lexi Marie ^talk 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was similarly burned out for a while and then got dragged back in via email. I've had some time to recharge will see how it goes. Hope to see you some! --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Heheh. I have been doing some editing but i am very busy. I just started a DJ business and just bought a 1500 watt sound system this week...hehehehehehehehehe... :D :D :D :D --Lexi Marie ^talk 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1500 watts? Not bad. I tried DJ'ing and KJ'ing for a couple of years (in fact it was back when I was heavily editing) but then I decided I needed health insurance. :P Good luck with it!! --WGFinley (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack comment

He made a couple recent comments and I thought it was OK to say something. Appreciate the warning but a block would not be necessary or appropriate. This is shown since I did not dispute it when he said it wasn't an attack. I had dropped it already. Watch that trigger finger. I will take the advice and keep it to user talk page if at all of course. The last thing the conversation needs is more bickering. I have opened up separate discussions to alleviate some of excess issues that are now surrounding the request.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I said ban and not block and if there are editors there who demonstrate they have no intention of getting along and just want to bicker and throw out charges then yes, it is necessary and appropriate and will be done. --WGFinley (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ban then. I hear ya. I hope I didn't come across like I just wanted to bicker but will read it over and see if I need to make any behavioral changes.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal it's not like you were the only party. If you get to fee that way it's better to walk away and take a breather before doing more editing. --WGFinley (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I know its not a huge deal. I was all pissy so that is that. I had to go hit work for a few hours and a game so I am much better now! Your comment got under my skin a little bit but when it all comes down to it I do appreciate that you are being more firm in the topic area. I have commented previously that you could improve your clarity but that was awhile ago and you are doing what needs to be done.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it got under your skin it wasn't directed at any one person it was a blanket statement and yes, a bit strict but I think some of that is needed so there's no mistake about it. --WGFinley (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hounding

Since you said Nableezy was hounding ynhocky based on one incident, what do you have to say about this? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And if you go back and reread what I added I accepted his explanation for how that happened. --WGFinley (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nableezy explained his one incident. Now if we move on from that one incident that you reacted to, and look at the six incidents above by LibiBamizrach all happening within a couple of hours. What do you think about these six incidents? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Will try to when I get an opportunity to look at them all. --WGFinley (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you now managed to put aside 1 minute from your schedule to look at the diffs above? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuivis dolori remedium est patientia --WGFinley (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in here, but SD this pretty obviously constitutes WP:HOUNDING. Six reverts of your edits across multiple articles within 48 hours. Could it be anything else? Why wait for WGFinley. Isn't AE the correct forum for this? NickCT (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is another possibility. The editor in question could have had the articles in question on their watch list. The fact that the editor in question did not show up here to defend themselves proves that they were not wikihounding SD. For example I came here because I have this talk page on my watch list, and not because I am watching SD or NickCT contributions.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow great "proof" of no wikistalking, that he hasn't shown up here. But that LibiBamizrach reverted my six edits just a couple hours after the LibiBamizrach account got registered is plausible for you that he had all those six articles on his watchlist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mbz1 - 6 different pages over 48 hours? Has anyone ever done that to you Mbz? You seem willing to give the gross benefit of the doubt Mbz. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WGFinley, I want a real reply from you about this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a life, a son and a job -- those things all come before WP. I will look at your multitude of diffs when I get an opportunity to do some work on WP but please refrain from making demands on my talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My Review

• Israeli salad - best example I am going to have a word with him. Yet again proof there is no end to P-I disputes, salad??
• List of terrorist incidents, 2010 - reason why you should be careful submitting a bunch of diffs, you were out of line POV pushing a flag that had been agreed by others to be left blank to avoid the very dispute you decided to start again.
• Second Battle of Mount Hermon - second best example.
• Third Battle of Mount Hermon - another case where you were out of line putting a POV tag on an article with no discussion on the talk page, you put it there after he pointed it out.
• Geography of Israel - third best example.
• First Battle of Mount Hermon - don't you think a trend was started by the other two battles? Only makes sense.

As I said, I will have a word with him however any even thinly veiled attempt to use this as leverage against him will be most unwelcome. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There was discussions at the Third Battle of Mount Hermon talkpage before, and I had specifically pointed out the pov problems [13][14], at the point of time I added the tag, the issue was still not dealt with. So how was I "out of line" and how was there "no discussion" ?

Please explain how adding a Palestinian flag for a place in the Palestinian territories is "pov pushing" ? And please show me where there "had been agreed by others to be left blank to avoid the very dispute you decided to start again." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop splitting hairs, you didn't add any reason for adding the POV template in before you did it. It doesn't matter you discussed it three months prior, it matters at the time you're adding the template. Those templates are there to encourage discussion of a particular issue.

You're just being disingenuous on the last matter, you removed text that said not to add a flag to add a flag, there's ample discussion on the talk page of leaving that reference with no flag. You ignored it and added the flag which then started edit warring until the flag was removed again and things returned to what was agreed upon. --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought up pov problems at the talkpage, just because I forgot to ad the tag at that point of time doesn't mean I cant ad it later if the pov problems aren't fixed. I cant encourage people to discuss pov problems later on if I forgot to ad the tag? I removed text that said do not ad flag at 19:15, 9 September 2010. Where at that point of time time at the talkpage is there discussion or agreement to not have the Palestinian flag for this place in the Palestinian territories? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:STICK --WGFinley (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wgfinley, LibiBamizrachs wikihoundaing has now continued:[15], are you gonna do something here or do I have to request enforcement? Also you called me "disingenuous", I want to know why. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous would be the perfect word. You are pretending you didn't see clearly marked text, which you removed, that said not to put a flag there. You are further pretending that putting a Palestinian flag there is not pushing a POV, it most assuredly is. Need proof? There was clear and immediate edit warring that ensued directly because of your actions. And, I say to you again, WP:STICK. --WGFinley (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are changing the reason for why you called me "disingenuous". Earlier you said I was "disingenuous" on claims of: "there's ample discussion on the talk page of leaving that reference with no flag. You ignored it and added the flag", then I asked you above where at that point of time I added the flag was there discussion on the talkpage for not having the flag, and you didn't reply. And now instead you claimed I was disingenuous for pretending to not see text marked not to ad flags in the article, When did I pretend or say that I didn't see that? And you will do nothing about the continued wikihounding? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe, after you've finished consulting WP:STICK, you will see what I'm doing a few lines under this. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

After you told him about the wikihoudning, the hounding continued. So now what? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, that's not hounding. Are you really that surprised that someone with an Israeli point of view would be editing the same group of articles as you with the Arab point of view. Again, disingenuous. --WGFinley (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So considering those six incident above, and his comments below where he talks about following other editor's edit history, you believe it was coincidence that LibiBamizrach walked into the talkpage here ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi WGFinley thank you very much for teaching me about this policy and making sure I understand and be able to stay out of trouble in future. Now I do not plan to get involve in this argument here with user Supreme Deliciousness because I think he is going overboard, but I just do have to ask you question about WP:HOUNDING to clarify and make sure I understand fully to not break rules in future. Is it ok to look at another editor's edit history? And then if I see they are doing something totally wrong and POV to revert them? Or is this considered "hounding" and is against wikipedia rule? If it is against rule, I will stop doing it. But from what I saw on that policy page, it shows that it is only a problem if I do that as well as personal attack him or something else harassment. But I did not do that - so is it ok if I continue to watch some people's edits? Because to be honest it is obvious he watches my edits already like crazy, much more than I watch him. He submitted SPI against me trying to link me to someone account by saying I edited the same article as that user 4 years ago. It seem very crazy to me and even like harassment that he looked so carefully at every single one of my edits. But anyway, I appreciate your clarification in advance. Thank you. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at someones contributions to see if they are POV could be considered WP:HOUNDING. I would suggest going about normal editing and watch articles or categories of concern to you and it those. --WGFinley (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will do that. Thank you. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to your statement in my appeal

You might want to notice my response to your statement [16] and also my response to Future Perfect at Sunrise [17]which you mention in it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply here [18]. You might want to take note of the following discussions with regard to the procedure to follow in my appeal: Cirt against threaded comments Action of Amatulic in response to Cirt Subsequent debate Removing valid threaded comments anyway It is amazing that this minor procedural issue has taken such a proportion in my appeal. You might also want to note Double Standard Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The process on overturning a sanction by an uninvolved admin is clear -- there needs to be a consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn the ban. I haven't seen a single uninvolved admin support overturning the sanction let alone a consensus to do so. --WGFinley (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

More profound non-English sources

Hi, Wgfinley. I've seen your message here [19].
I agree with you that, if possible, we should give sources in English, as more as possible.
But what if the non-English sources are more profound, more available/checkable (online!) and more up-to-date?
I agree - English is primary here. But that's not the reason to move aside non-English sources, just because they're not in English. That's almost like censorship.
Also, I kindly ask you to sanction this kind of attacking behaviour [20]("sod off") and comparing the opponents' cultural magazines with Stormfront (!!!). That way he etiquetted all writers, scientists and publicists that worked with that magazine. That's violation of WP:BLP. He already used such comparisons against his opponents [21] "Croatian Nazi-pedia", "hardline nationalist".
Non-English sources are very informative for certain part of non-English community, especially knowing that many involved users are non-English and that they find those sources as informative. E.g., many users find these kind of informations as helpful [22] (this is blog, but the article is from national daily newspaper, not available online, possibly on some archives). It's about the decision of ISO 639-2 Registration Authority and Joint Advisory Committee about abandoning of "scr" and introduction of "hrv" and "srp"); the decision was brought after joint Croatian and Serbian action (national libraries). The article contains that info.
This is also helpful [23], since deals with the matter. Also, this is helpful [24] Hrvatski jezik - poseban slavenski jezik (1996)] (attitude of Croatian national Academy of Sciences and Arts), Promemorija o hrvatskom jeziku (1995) (attitude of major Croatian national cultural institution) and this [25] (table of contents).
I don't intend to engage in the edit war. I just want to create the atmosphere of constructive dialogue and to use the arguments, to make it easier for the opponents's side, as well as for the (un)involved monitors/readers.
Thank You for your attention. Bye, Kubura (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear where you are coming from but it's very difficult to verify the veracity of a non-English source as a reliable source. I'm not saying it can't be used I'm saying you should use English sources wherever possible and only use non-English sources if you can't. You've cited some articles where this bears out, one person cites a source in another language and another person says that source is not reliable and an English speaker has no way of evaluating it one way or the other. --WGFinley (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Per your closing of the AE appeal on User:Edith Sirius Lee

I noticed you've closed the AE appeal on ESL. Since my Request for clarification butts onto the ESL case and since I have information that may also pertain to this case, I thought you should have pertinent and critical information which you may not have been aware of:

• The AE appeal falls under the umbrella of this arbitration case discretionaary sanctions. [26]
• Per the TM arbitration case decision and as clarified by the arbitrators: Editors must be warned by an uninvolved editor [27]. ESL was not warned appropriately.

I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies talk 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Further ESL was sanctioned for making one revert and there is no evidence of edit warring despite the claim of such by Jmh649. I'm adding the sequence of edits here so you can see the sequence easily.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [28] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [29]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [30] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[31] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[32] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [33] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C

• While a self applied 1RR sanction is commendable, a 1RR sanction applied to an editor as a sanction or restriction where wrong doing has not been shown is quite a different matter. Sanctions and restrictions are reserved for violations. The sanction is one issue, clearing one's name is another important issue.

This case was not about the appropriateness of the restriction. The case centers around whether there was wrong doing in the first place. Please reconsider your position on this case. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

I was summarizing consensus, the consensus is the bans have been effective in curtailing disturbances. The requirement for general sanctions bans is there needs to be a consensus to overturn them. There wasn't consensus to overturn nay, only the involved (including yourself) wish them overturned. Therefore a consensus to overturn hasn't been met and the bans remain in place. --WGFinley (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't see that this was a general sanction, and I'm sorry you didn't look more closely at the case. I'm afraid this editor has been treated to a lynching since oddly the "consensus" included all involved editors. Why is it acceptable to sanction any editor for one revert. Have you ever been sanctioned for making one revert?(olive (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC))

No, but then I don't have a single purpose account and edit tendentiously either. Someone needs to fill me in about what is so awful about 1RR, it's a very mild sanction and continuing to stir this up is not doing anything towards getting it lifted. Honor the terms of the sanction (or appeal to Arbcom if there's been the injustice you're insinuating) and get on with life editing. After a few months of harmonious existence ask for the sanction to be lifted, simple. --WGFinley (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wgfinley. As I said, the issue for anyone isn't the restriction its whether there was guilt in the first place. We have no right to issue restrictions willy nilly nor to decide what other editors should or should not be happy with when they aren't guilty of anything. The restriction we're talking about isn't mine, so i'll assume the single purpose account you're talking about isn't mine nor the tendentious editing. As well the issue was 1RR. Adding your own caveat as to what constitutes a right to restrict this editor is unfortunate. I have a right to question your decision and I do especially on behalf of another editor who seems to be unclear about processes. Thanks I think you've made your position clear. I won't bother you again on this.(olive (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

If there was an issue with the sanction (resulting from a request on AE[34]) being inappropriate that should have gone immediately to AE to be remedied. In my review it did go to AE, it was asked to be refiled properly and it wasn't. It was now brought to AE again to be removed, again, there was no consensus to remove it. Also I took particular note of the exchange on on JamesBWatson's talk page. If you (and yes you are a subject of the sanction[35]) or the person you are advocating for have an issue with the decisions made on AE you can now take them directly to Arbcom. I am not going to go rogue admin and deem a consensus exists where there isn't one and overturn the ban. Further, if the claim is she was not warned or notified by an admin, she was.[36], it's difficult for many to see because she removed it.[37] --WGFinley (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You accused an editor of tendentious editing and of being a SPA. There are specific points made by the arbitration committee that reference this case which you are probably unfamiliar with including where to post concerns. Jmh649 (Doc James) was not an admin at the time, and he was not uninvolved, on the contrary. As clarified, a warning should be given "by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute." wbich Doc James was. My post to you had to do with your support of a 1RR sanction, when there was no wrong doing and when due process had not been followed. I know nothing about this editor and actually have not really followed most of his /her posts. However, I don't like to see injustice. As well this is a complex situation and unless you are very familiar with it relying on a few editors for information can only give you one side of the story. I can't say more. Perhaps the editor in question will take their concerns elsewhere. Thanks for your responses.(olive (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

I didn't accuse her of it, it's what's in the sanction and comments by other uninvolved users that led to the sanctions. While the arbitrator may have said his intent was that uninvolved admin give the warnings it's not in the decision that was voted on by Arbcom, it states:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Nowhere in there does it say uninvolved admin or even an admin at all. It just says they shall be given a warning. In my experience doing admin work an Palestinian-Israel conflict, Eastern Europe and Mecedonia, all of which under general sanctions as well it is customary for warnings to be given by editors and not just admins. If you feel this is an inappropriate warning then, again I would urge you to take your appeal to Arbcom so they can adjudicate this matter of how and what shall constitute a proper warning. --WGFinley (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you've made your position clear, and I'l add, again, this case is not under general sanctions. (olive (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

Interesting, they wrote an entire section on discretionary (aka general) sanctions but it's not subject to them? Curious. I would definitely take that up with Arbcom then if there have been sanctions when no sanctions exist. --WGFinley (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature change

I'm sorry, I don't know how this [38] happened. I think when I was doing "copy-paste" I accidentally made an error. My apologies again.--Jacurek (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis's block

Hello Wgfinley. I think that Count Iblis's block may be be based on wrong information. As far as I am aware the Brews ohare advocacy restrictions have expired. I cannot currently supply a diff but you may have to ask an arb to verify this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this amendment. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)