User talk:WGFinley/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

In a last ditch effort...

Convo Hijacked By Sock The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To prevent me filing an A/E case against you, could you please wikilink me to where you responded this specifically and directly? I am still willing to accept it was an oversight on my part. I see you are currently offline, I will try to wait until I am finished typing up the report for you to respond, if you even want to at all. -asad (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just clicked through on that link, and saw the part where you wrote:

...his search term in Google Books was, "where is mt hermon israel or syria". JJG was just fishing through Google Books to find any source he could where it stated "Israel" rather than "Syria".

To me, it looks like he was trying to identify whether it was in Israel or Syria. If he had searched for something like "mr hermon israel" I would agree with you, but it really looks like he was just looking for sources that discuss the topic.

If you file an AE case, please also look into WGFinley's misconduct in this AE and the discussion at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported to A/E. Sorry I couldn't give you more time to respond, but I reread the JJG case and I am confident that you have never addressed the issue of misrepresentation of sources. -asad (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the 6 hours, is there anything at WP:ADMIN that says I'm not allowed to have a job? --WGFinley (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything that says I have to request double clarification? The issue has been moved here. -asad (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I stated my opinion and reasons on an AE case. Another admin (not me) deemed there was no consensus. Another admin (not me) closed the case. It's concluded, I didn't take any action that requires explanation. --WGFinley (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Thanks for giving me the 6 hours, is there anything at WP:ADMIN that says I'm not allowed to have a job?" does not sound civil to me. Further, the fact that you think you don't need to explain your actions shows why this is so necessary. You don't think you're accountable for your actions. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  No, I definitely am accountable for my actions, I just won't be accountable for unreasonable requests made when I have a life, a job, a family. I can't respond immediately to every request made on my talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  asad asked you, multiple times, to address the issue of Jiujitsuguy misrepresenting sources. Do not try to misrepresent this as only being brought to your attention here when asad notified you of his intention to file an AE. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  Asad wants me to get involved in a content dispute, I refuse to do so, I've answered it multiple times. --WGFinley (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• You miss the point entirely. The issue is your bad judgement calls related to an editor misrepresenting sources. The content itself is not in question here. You seem to be handwaving to draw attention from your unsatisfactory administrator behavior. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"related to an editor misrepresenting source" = a content dispute! --WGFinley (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not. Misrepresenting a source is a violation of the core goal of the project. Where did you get the idea that misrepresenting source = content dispute? un☯mi 09:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Someone with that kind of small-minded, pigheaded attitude should not be a Wikipedia administrator. You're in the wrong here and you're trying to misdirect attention to cover it up. That's totally unacceptable. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Unomi Since it would be up to editors to review the source and determine how it is represented. If the source says "a widget has a wang doodle and a thingamabob" one could say "a widget has a thingamabob" and supporters of wang doodles would be very upset and might call it misrepresenting the source. That's a content dispute. If one says the source says "a widget doesn't have a watchamacallit" that would throw another wrench into the works wouldn't it? All three of these statements are true but can be presented different ways, hence they are about content and WP:ARBCOM has continually declined to get involved in content disputes hence my methodology on AE. Now, if one says "You don't know what the hell you are talking about, you clearly can't understand normal thinking because that source is rubbish and this source says there's also thingamabobs you pig headed small minded fool." Now that would be conduct and subject to admin action.

Yes, but to stretch your example further, in this case we had an editor who took a source stating "a widget has a wang doodle but no thingamabob", and cited it as saying "a widget has a... thingamabob". That is not a mere content dispute, but a clear user conduct issue. RolandR (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@YTA Your goal here appears to call me names, I don't see how discussing this any further with you will have any merit. --WGFinley (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

BD

Hi Wgfinley!

I wrote something similar on my user page.

Administrators are generally supposed to avoid granting self-blocks of editors. A small number of administrators do grant self-blocks, under stringent conditions, none of which allow the blocking of an angry user like Badger Drink.

It would be good for all if you would now remove the indefinite block on Badger Drink.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, he asked for a self-block and received it. He is not blocked from his talk so he's free to ask to be unblocked if he so desires. I also told him he could personally contact me if he wished. Unblocking him at this point would reopen a can I would assume leave closed since we finally got it calmed down. --WGFinley (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we could ban everybody, which would calm things down even more. ;)

The point is that your block does not seem consistent with the prohibition against self-blocks and that an indefinite block is excessive. BD should not have to ask to be unblocked.

Further, we have lost the services of a valuable editor.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If one were to remove his block then you would end up opening up that AN/I case again for review of his behavior since once he asked for the self-block all action was dropped. There isn't a policy against self-blocks, it's generally reserved for certain circumstances and I believe this qualifies and, again, I have given him ways out should he choose to exercise it. These are my conditions as I set them on a case by case basis. You can't use a self-block to evade conduct issues. --WGFinley (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Homer,

You are nodding. ;)

BD didn't evade conduct issues. He was discussing them, relatively well, at ANI when a bad block cut off the ANI and the RfC (which a number of serious administrators suggested was a bad idea to begin).

Please consider this as damage-control on the first imprudent (although technically justified) block.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BD is free to request the unblock at any time BD would like. --WGFinley (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I am appealing the topic ban that you issued on November 30th.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

cookies

		Cookies!
		ElComandanteChe has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I realize how ridiculous these cookies are, but the readers of this page could enjoy something imbecilic yet positive. So, guys, grab the free cookies, and try to see things in perspective. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Haha, thanks very much, appreciated. --WGFinley (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cookies!

ThatPeskyCommoner has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Nice cookies! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for you :P

	The Affectionate Wolf-Schlurrrp
	Cookie-sharing? Somewhat-chewed cookie being generously donated by friendly wolf :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Palazzolo Hi there - wondering what news you have on Palazzolo?--Fircks (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked (see above!), I hope to review this weekend. --WGFinley (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WGFinley.

You said use your talk page for anything, so:

1. There are no other regular editors on the article's talk page.

2. As regards reference cases, this BLP is unique (as far as I know) because there are no Press articles trumpeting his innocence, or the lack of evidential guilt. There are only Judges rulings and affidavits from lawyers testifying to the lack of evidence against him and - indeed - to the fabrications created against him in SA and Palermo in Sicily, which points to a conspiracy.

3. This dispute centres round the presentation of hearsay and unverified allegations as fact. And if not as fact, then it is mentioned in passing, which is enough to smear a man who, in a court of law, has not been found guilty. This "information" is garnered from newspapers. To which I respond with verifiable, substantiated court documentation. It is, in the end, about a balanced view.

--Fircks (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning recent events..

Understood - I will still advocate for extreme caution regarding admins evaluating sources. --WGFinley (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, Wgfinley: The Arbitration Committee received a request to review your recent actions in reviewing an Arbitration Enforcement request: We reviewed, and wanted to correct a mis-perception.

You have stated in that review and in the related AN discussion that editors misrepresenting sources is a content issue, and as such, should only be handled in the normal manner on the article's talk page, rather then having administrators involved. This is not in tune with numerous Arbitration Committee findings and principles. Editors misrepresenting sources is a conduct problem, not a content problem, and as such can be handled under discretionary sanctions at AE or in other cases, at AN/ANI.

Please make sure to familiarize yourself with this and other such principles that form the bulk of our decisions. If you have any questions, please let us know so we can resolve any further questions you have. SirFozzie (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a very slippery slope to me, but if this is where Arbcom wants admin review then I will do so. I hope Arbcom is there to back up admins when the WP:INVOLVED cry comes out because they were analyzing sources. --WGFinley (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think there is a slope involved; this is a principle that has been well established for a very long time, and quite uncontroversial. Look at Sadi Carnot that set it forth in 2007 (and that may not be its earliest appearance either; it's just the oldest case I am aware of). — Coren ^(talk) 14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wgfinley may be an administrator who should be more cautious in the future.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it is P-I, it is a constant struggle to remain above the fray as the editors in this area constantly bring up WP:INVOLVED to defend against admin actions they don't like, this is putting one more tool in the toolbox of tendentious editors. Already "vandalism" has come to mean almost nothing in this topic space as it is already bandied about on a constant basis to attack edits one side or the other doesn't like. Making decisions in P-I is a delicate balancing act, if we continue getting pushed beyond plagiarism, OR and blatant misrepresentation of sources we run the risk of being pushed too far. This is the stuff that leads to severe admin burnout in this area, they get fed up constantly being under harsh scrutiny for every opinion uttered and decide it's not worth it. --WGFinley (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should review WP:V, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. The more serious precedent would be admins not being allowed to review misrepresentation of sources, something that plainly attacks a core pillar of the project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• "This is the stuff that leads to severe admin burnout" -- that's extremely sophistical reasoning. I think you're aware of the relevant Wikipedia policies, but just have no respect for them. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• And I think that WGFinley, not to mentioned myself and likely many others, has heard your opinion of him far too often. Please stop badgering him. NW (Talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Come on NW, I for one am completely shocked that two users I have taken action on from AE and another appealing a block for someone else would choose to use an Arbcom notice of a discussion (email? I don't know, wasn't invited) to pile on. Shocked I tell you. --WGFinley (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Now you are piling on. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Whose talk page is this? --WGFinley (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please carry on, WGF. Your contributions are appreciated. Part of the job is that we have to get advice from Arbcom from time to time, but that goes with the territory. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I do not really care what actions you have taken against me or anyone else. If I thought you were right, I would say so. Personal vendettas are for squares. If I say you are wrong, it is because I have come to an objective and independent conclusion regarding the facts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on your administrative actions

What you did there was mildly humorous, but not exactly gentlemen-like. You may find the notion easy to dismiss, but I am actually quite capable of making an objective evaluation of someone's actions even when they do something that frustrates me. The only connection for me between your actions against me and your actions elsewhere is that I would not be aware of the latter were it not for the former.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my talk page, if you are going to come here to discuss something you need to let it go when it's been discussed. Adding a comment to a conversation that has been concluded is not going to have desirable results. Frankly, this statement is an admission of hounding. Not a single uninvolved administrator has taken issue with my block or TBAN of you; you might do well to reassess your capability to be objective. Let it go and move on please. --WGFinley (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

His post wasn't remonstrating your AE actions against him, it was addressing you hiding behind claims of hounding and revenge when criticized for an issue which plenty of uninvolved users found you had mishandled due to your misapprehension of policies. un☯mi 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is obviously settled, and it's time to let the matter drop. This isn't a suggestion that you suppress legitimate complaints (which have already been addressed, not least by an arbitrator, in his official capacity, above), but an invitation to learn when it's time to be quiet. AGK [•] 15:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with you guys is that you don't know when to speak up, or lack the integrity to. un☯mi 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't denied him his say and I'm not hiding behind anything. There comes a point where the discussion is over and that discussion was over. He commented 4 days before and didn't add anything new but came to chime in again. I'm certain that when Sir Fozzie and Coren posted here it was to explain the Arbcom position on this stuff to me, not create a place for folks to pile on. --WGFinley (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WG, I wasn't moving your comment, but moving my own comment below yours because I had accidentally placed it above your response to Unomi. It seems the diff showed it as me moving yours because I added a space between comments. No need to remove my comments altogether if that was your only issue with it. So would you mind restoring this version where my comments are appropriately placed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

γ & δ

Could you answer the question before the close? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Block of 173.238.69.86

Hi WGFinley, I noticed you blocked 173.238.69.86 indefinitely. Upon whoising the IP it seems to be a dynamic IP from Cogeco – per WP:IPBLENGTH dynamic IPs should almost never be blocked indefinitely. I wouldn't unblock per IPBLENGTH because this is an arbitration enforcement decision though, so I thought I would bring it up on your talk page. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Epf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.238.69.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Epf has been editing since 2005. He has previously made useful contributions on uncontroversial topics. I agree with you that it is not proper for him to be editing as an IP simultaneously with his registered account. Suggest you consider changing the IP block to finite duration, maybe in the range of 1-3 years. If there were any SPI reports I haven't looked at them, so this suggestion is based on very limited research. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --WGFinley (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding warning

Hi Wgfinley. I had just received this warning from you. I want to clarify few things regarding my edits. I added local (Azerbaijani) spellings for those monasteries, because generally in Wikipedia articles we use English and local name spellings for any geographical location. I had made discussions in talkpages of those articles, moreover I invited my counterparts to do some discussions before reverting my edits (please see my invitation in here and answer of editor in here). Maybe I had overreacted a bit more, but this is largely because my counterparts often ignored discussions and provoked me to revert their edits. If you have time, please pay attention to the article Gandzasar monastery, where geographical location of the monastery is fully misleading, there is no mention about fact that this is located in Azerbaijan. Thank you for taking time and reading this message. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

Unfortunately further discussion has been rendered moot, per AE filing. --WGFinley (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since you think I should not be going to AE so often, please tell me what I should do in the following situation. A user makes gross, obscene distortions on the comments of others, threatens to revert consensus edits, and then actually reverts an edit that has consensus. There is currently a headcount of 6 users in favor of the edit, and one user against who is demanding that his view is the only thing that counts, and everybody else is wrong. What would you have me do in such a situation other than report the user for tendentious and disruptive editing? nableezy - 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been an exhaustive ongoing dispute for a couple of weeks instigated by one editor making unsubstantiated claims that scholarly sources don't support the meaning of the name in the lede. It has been intense at times and I've been assaulted with far worse personal derision than the comments in the link above. I've posted many reliable academic sources that do acknowledge this meaning, several are already in the Etymology section. The lede is presently a balanced presentation of the Arabic and Hebrew meanings, a long-standing community consensus. To change it, a quality argument is needed. Not distortion and denial of facts, and certainly not the rallying of a few editors trying to disrupt a balanced introduction to the city. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy I think you would get a lot further if you toned it down Nableezy, apparently calls by all sorts to ask you to have no effect. You never seem satisfied to just have facts that support you, you aren't satisfied until your opponents entrails litter the ground. To me Michael is making a simple point about something, he appears to be of a minority opinion and he appears to need to make a better case for his sources and work more collaboratively, that's kind of tough when some folks have little interest other than to eviscerate him. Repeating "your argument is of a higher quality is both unsurprising and unimportant" a few times and then threatening to go to AE. Did you think belittling him was going to resolve the dispute or piss him off? It would appear the latter. --WGFinley (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Michael: You do seem to have dug your heels in a bit on an issue that could be considered a minority view. I haven't looked at the sources you were citing yet as I don't have much time this evening but I do find this section from WP:OR to be very useful:

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Whenever I see discussion get into arguing scholars I start to wonder if the discussion has gone into WP:OR and that could be the case here. --WGFinley (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I understand and appreciate the advice. Here are the sources presently in Etymology, and others, to help navigate.

• (25) ^ a b Binz, Stephen J. (2005). Jerusalem, the Holy City. Connecticut, USA.: Twenty-Third Publications. p. 2. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
  • This one above was there before the dispute began and it referenced the ancient 'Foundation of Shalim' etymology. Directly after it: "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."

The following are 3 scholarly sources that I added recently to the article to support the meaning in Etymology.

• (34) ^ Hastings, James (2004). A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume II: (Part II: I -- Kinsman), Volume 2. Honolulu, Hawaii: Reprinted from 1898 edition by University Press of the Pacific. p. 584. ISBN 1410217256. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
• (35) ^ a b Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2007). Historic cities of the Islamic world. The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. pp. 225-226. ISBN 9004153888. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
• (37) ^ Bosworth, Francis Edward (1968). Millennium: a Latin reader, A. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 183. ISBN B0000CO4LE. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
• This is the most extensive scholarly source on the origin and evolution of the name Jerusalem. Professor Yaakov Klein, Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv., Department of Hebrew Language and Tanach. "The Origin of the name Jerusalem and its meanings". It's in Hebrew but it seems to clarify things and covers more than I've seen anywhere. Zero000, who seems fluent in Hebrew acknowledges that it affirms 'city of peace' as the popular meaning of the name with linguistic foundations, but says it "doesn't have anything not appearing in English sources". I strongly disagree. I haven't seen this degree of resolution and exposition on the name in present sources in the article.

This one is also a supportive scholarly source but it has been dismissed on grounds that seem unreasonable, that I've responded to here.

• (36) ^ a b Denise DeGarmo (9 September 2011). "Abode of Peace?". Wandering Thoughts. Center for Conflict Studies. Retrieved 17 December 2011.

These are additional supportive sources that show the wide recognition of the popular meaning. As supportive for the intent of showing popular recognition, they are all published by reputable reliable publishers, though not all of them are publishers of only scholarly books:

, , , , , , , ' , , ,

A few additional concerns:

1. As the first few sources show 'city of peace' and 'abode of peace' are synonymous, though the latter seems to be far more prevalent in scholarly and popular references.
2. The appearance in the lede is not meant to be a linguistic thesis on the name. It reflects well supported scholarly and popular recognition, though there are enough academic sources that support its literal meaning also. This is naturally disputed, in that it is an ancient artifact whose origins are lost to antiquity, and the Hebrew association with early periods is a contentious issue among contending cultures. But I haven't seen any evidence that it's a minority opinion. If anything, it seems to be undisputed in its significance, though some sources prefer to play down its importance and prop up other meanings also. It is at least the most common association visible in references, enough to justify its inclusion in the lede for the purposes of popular recognition. But it seems to me to be a well established fact about the name's meaning. What editors have done now by removing the Hebrew meaning and leaving the Arabic, is create an unwarranted discrepancy on unsubstantiated grounds of a linguistic preference, which is not what the lede is meant to serve.
3. The significance for both the Hebrew and Arabic meaning appearing in the lede is that they reflect the two prevalent modern cultures presiding over the city. Removing one or even both, compromises the article's quality and recognition of the city for a meaning of the name that's become synonymous with it for nearly two millennia.
4. I believe I tried to remain civil and collaborative but admit it's been difficult in the face of what seemed unequivocal dismissal of everything I've said and the type of personal insinuations that I don't see tolerated elsewhere in the editing space.
5. I am somewhat at a loss for how to proceed. I believe there's a need for non-involved administrator guidance, or editors not previously in the same "camp" as the editor who instigated the change, such as some of the few who stepped in to "mediate". I don't wish to be facetious but it seems odd that everything I say is distorted, attacked and deemed wrong, in light of the case I've tried to make in good faith. I'm concerned the same editors will pounce on a WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard request and we'd be back at square one. Any advice would be appreciated. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

So as to avoid having this be within the flood of Michael's comments, I have added this subsection.

WGF, I think an honest appraisal of the interactions between Michael and myself, and others, will quickly show that he has consistently initiated any hostility between us. I am satisfied to have the facts support me, so long as those facts are not allowed to be thrown out of articles on specious grounds. It isnt simply that Michael is of a minority opinion, it is that he has threatened to revert what has consensus and carried out that threat. It is that he has repeatedly made unseemly attacks on others, and, despite several others advising him that he has misrepresented the comments of those people, he persists in doing so. Thats a problem, no? Please read the discussion, Michael repeatedly claimed that despite every other editor disagreeing with his position that his position represented consensus because his argument was better than everybody else's. While he is certainly entitled to view himself as intellectually superior to everyone else who commented, that is in fact unimportant and cannot be an acceptable basis for edit-warring against consensus.

As you chose to address more than this issue, I think it fair that I give you a response. In my opinion, the judgments you have formed, both about specific editors and about specific AE cases, have been based on superficial grounds and indicate a lack of willingness to examine the issues, instead often focusing on either trivial tangents or on the personalities involved. The opinion that you have formed of me seems to be based on how many "conflicts" you see me involved in, how many users say I am the Bad Man. You see my name in most AE archives, and you have formed your view based on the adage of when there is smoke there is fire. And so you have made what are, in my view, judgments that are ill-founded and on occasion indefensible. I dont mean to attack you, and I purposely avoided commenting here after our uhh, lets call it a difference of opinion. I sincerely hope you take this message in the manner that it was intended, that being to ask that if you wish to exercise what are extraordinary powers granted due to extraordinary problems in the topic area that you ensure that your judgments be carefully considered and that you be willing to back up your reasoning when questioned. My tone would never have gotten as harsh with you as it did had it not been for your ignoring several questions I asked of you. nableezy - 01:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I did not edit-war. I reverted an edit that had not achieved WP:Consensus, which is not a majority view but an attempt to resolve all disputed concerns. In the previous dispute of the map on the same page, which Nableezy was a primary participant in, I went to excruciating lengths to resolve objections that I was on record as disagreeing with, in order to adhere to WP:Consensus, and produced the map that left no objection unresolved. In this following issue, which I didn't instigate, I haven't even been awarded the benefit of the doubt and everything I've said has been rejected without even the slightest due consideration. My revert was according to policy that the lede should remain as is until consensus is achieved. The process had not yet ended. Nableezy's removal of the name was in violation of needing to wait to achieve consensus. The only one who edit-warred was Zero000 who reverted my justified revert, the third edit in a row for the same content. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm losing count, but this is the 4th page in which you argue your unique edit is right. 14-15 people have read, participated, kibitzed, or commented, directly or indirectly now. Not one has said, 'you're right, Michael' - Zero, Nishidani, etc.,are confused. This is not a war of attrition, but 3 weeks as lone ranger for what is an WP:OR position 'abode of peace the most common meaning of Yeru for 2000 years) against consensus, and the refusal to read that policy which does not refer to unanimity, is filibustering, and therefore a behavioural issue if you persist, I will report you.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks and two days since my first comment on it, not yet 3 weeks. Zero, Nishidani and now Nableezy are primary for one side. Oncenawhile never said for or against but tried to mediate a compromise which was to remove the meaning as Nishidani wanted. Not a compromise as far as it seems, and very little input about their own opinion. A few others, most of whom also never clarified a solid position one way or the other. A couple, companions of Nishidani, like Johnuniqe who declared unequivocal support for him at the start, do not make 14-15 supporters. The Devil's Advocate has today voiced recognition of the plausibility for the meaning being synonymous with "foundation of peace" and "city of peace" which are also widely referenced. An issue such as this should be afforded the time it needs, especially since a few editors seem to be working hard to silence the clarification procedure. Patience is needed. If you're right, Nishidani, you have nothing to be concerned for because you'll be proven so in the end. In the meantime, threats of reporting me will not be constructive or helpful to you nor anyone. I do not believe that the method of discussion, its tone, and peculiar -|you're absolutely wrong no matter what so let's wrap this up already|- approach is how such a significant piece of information should be decided on Wikipedia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For the nth. time do not cast suspicions over other editors. You wrote that Johnuniq is one of 'A couple, companions of Nishidani,' 'who declared unequivocal support for him at the start.' Johnuniq ia not a 'pal' who declared 'unequivocal support' for me 'from the start'. He stepped in, very late in these discussions, on my talkpage to genty persuade you to reconsider you suggestion that I am so prejudiced I should not be editing wikipedia, reminding you that you had completely misconstrued my words. (your misreading, by the way, was actionable, since you thoroughly challenged my bona fides to edit, on zero evidence) He knows me from the Shakespeare Authorship Question page and process, where he acted with rigorous severity to ensure NPOV, and occasionally warned me to temper my language. Zero himself has reverted me in the past. These two editors are scrupulous with regard to policy observance and the precise, correct construal of English sentences. They don't play tagteam games. You have a day to move the discussion on before some other board of recourse, to obtain backing for your (a) inability to read WP:CONSENSUS (b) refusal to accept compromises by third parties which those in dispute with you accept (c) nudging people who warn you to go ahead and report you (an invitation I have said should be declined, as a provocation and waste of everyone's time) (d) persistence in not understanding what other people argue concerning WP:RS, WP:OR, and on talk pages where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to define what you are doing, or I will be forced to make my first complaint since I started editing wikipedia, against you, with the proviso that everyone refrains from adding their opinions, and discussion is limited to what you and I say before administrators. 16 people have commented over 19 days, and not one has agreed that you are wholly correct in your assumptions. If one can't understand what a failure to gain an endorsement of your opinion means, then the problem is behavioural. I don't think we should be abusing WGFinley's hospitality, so find another formal page where disputes are reviewed, quickly.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if it's productive, I just have little time to review this at the moment, I should have a chance to get a look at it tomorrow after sufficient sleeping in time. :) --WGFinley (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks and a good sleep. There is a possibility of an edit war developing on the page as some editors have removed the phrase in question before consensus is achieved. We await your advice on how to proceed. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael has now reverted an edit that has consensus twice. What exactly, besides going to AE, would you have me do? nableezy - 02:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was you who brought this issue before WGF for advice, Nableezy. He's said he's reviewing the case. Until the dispute is resolved, the long standing community consensus on the lede is unchanged. If your position is proven true, you'll have your change. Until such a consensus is achieved, we should all be patient and not make changes prematurely. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I didnt bring the issue here for advice from WGF, and I have no intention of asking his opinion on the content issue, something that an "uninvolved admin" cant decide. I am asking him what he expects me to do besides go to AE when an editor disruptively edit-wars against consensus. WGF cannot decide the content issue, and I dont know why you have filled these sections with so much noise. Im asking WGF for what he expects me to do about a user conduct issue. I am not asking his advice on a content issue. All I am asking of WGF, as somebody who has said I take issues to AE either too often or too quickly, what he would have me do besides take the issue to AE. I may or may not heed his advice, but I thought I would ask before I do take the issue to AE. nableezy - 03:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about you asking about content issues. You asked for advice relating to my conduct. WGF responded to you, and also to me about conduct and said he'd review sources. I responded to him with sources, and asked for advice about both the sources and the conduct in all the discussions. So there's also an issue of conduct that he's reviewing by your initial request, because it involves me, and the content is also part of it. Turning to an uninvolved admin is one of the DR procedures on WP. We don't have to accept the advice but it can give us direction is a case like this. I know you're not asking me but my advice would be to try to collaborate on finding a solution with the objecting party, which is myself in this case (in the same way I did on the map with you, for example) and that continued threats to go to AE will not intimidate me nor change my position, and will likely compromise you more than me when the dust settles on this. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Where in WP:DR does it say that Turning to an uninvolved admin is one of the DR procedures on WP? And no, I am not asking you your advice on how to deal with your disruptive actions. I am asking WGF why I should not simply take you to AE for edit warring against consensus. nableezy - 04:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where it says that. But you might know because you're the one who turned to an uninvolved admin for advice on a dispute between us, to ask him about reporting me to AE. Maybe you also know where it says there that turning to AE is the FIRST step to solving a dispute. I thought the first step is to try to discuss the dispute in good faith and remain cool. Which I've been trying really hard to do for two weeks in the face of some severe and heavy aggression. You on the other hand, jump into it from nowhere and lord it over me as if I'm some subject servant of yours who's expected to obey your every command, and threaten me with AE if I don't. Which you're still doing, btw. So, I don't know where it says this is how you solve disputes here Nab. You tell me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That first step was the article discussion, where it was you alone arguing against three other editors. The next step was DR/N where it was, again, you alone arguing against an even greater number of editors. We have passed those steps, and there is a consensus on the issue. The fact that three different editors has seen fit to make the edit and it is you alone that is reverting, on an article watched by 768 editors, should be a rather stark indication of that consensus. I asked WGF, as an uninvolved admin, about a conduct issue and what my response should be. Thats it. I dont plan on responding to you further as it distracts from the issue that I actually came here for, and even created a separate subsection on so as to avoid having you fill it with irrelevant comments about the content dispute. I am here about conduct, and that is something that I would like to have WGF's opinion on. nableezy - 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael. You gave a clear green light for editors to act on the consensus that had emerged over several days of intensive discussion (over 750 editors bookmark Jerusalem: no one watching this stepped in to side with you), when you wrote 10 days ago.

I will not support this move to remove the meanings of both the Hebrew and Arabic names because they are both significant representations of the city and they are both well rooted in scholarly sources as widely recognized notable meanings. But the futility of trying to discuss this courteously and respectfully in the face of the rudeness both these editors display has convinced me to withdraw from this issue. Do what you will. Your prejudice, distortion of the issues, and personal attacks are on record for everyone to see.

This contains

• (a)a personal attack on my bona fides, on the talk page, where you asserted I was so disdainful and prejudiced I should not be allowed to edit wikipedia and later reaffirmed and defended with extraordinary confidence on my page.
• (b) a declaration you find this process 'futile' because you believe you are courteous and Zero and myself are 'rude'
• (c) a formal statement that you have decided to withdraw from the dispute
• (4) an explicit invitation to those who opposed your unique position to go ahead and do (the edit) they insist is proper
• (5) a notice that the majority however low has behaved poorly and with prejudice and this will remain in the records (i.e. you feel vindicated, even if the numbers have told against you)

I or anyone else could have acted on this. No one did. You then changed your mind and had recourse to a further board, and the majority there again suggested you step down from what was an opinion of one, and accept one of the several compromises. Nothing doing. It ended with a warning (formally to all) to stop disruptive behaviour. At that point for a second time, it was clear your lone position had no backing. Nableezy did the edit required.

You reverted him. And recourse was had to WGFinley for what was clearly obstructive filbustering and reportable. You waited another day and rereverted the consensus restored by Zero saying that the process hasn't finished. Well, Finley was asked to examine behaviour, not content. You didn't, as suggested, even go to WP:RSN, which would have been the proper vehicle for further redress. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WGF said he wanted to review the sources and is in the process of doing so, I assume along with the discussions. It's perfectly alright to wait and not go to DRN-RS until he's done. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My impatience regards your behaviour, not WGFinley's review of our 'work'. Arbs do not discuss content, or cast votes in favour of one side or another, as you appear to believe, when you wrote:'I've posted sources and explanations at an uninvolved admin's talk page.', but examine behaviour. (Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of what Arbs do. Perhaps it's behavior like this where one insinuates I appear to believe something that I don't in order to make a false denigrating statement, or countless other assumptions about abilities and character in the discussions to disregard sound arguments, or endless distortions and runarounds to disqualify reliable sources, perhaps all this is also being examined. I posted the sources there because it was he who said he wanted to review them, not because I believe what you wrongly say I do. This is clear for everyone to see in WGF's comment above. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in on this but both of you are rather verbose and it would take me a lot of time and consumption of holiday cheer to get through all of it. So I will have to take a pass at the moment to further look at what you've written later. --WGFinley (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I take this to mean you haven't time. You're under no obligation to weigh in on this, since Nableezy simply asked for a clarification on what he should do. Michael wishes a review of the whole shebang and needed a word or two of advice as to what to do. I am not particularly interested in it. Have a nice Christmas and New Year. Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)e Christmas.

Just a note to clarify that I did not request the review myself but only posted sources and an explanation when WGF proposed it, and only then asked for advice - and I have never seen an editor "not particularly interested" in an issue pour so many words on it. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone! --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! --WGFinley (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Netzer

Case reopened, concluded. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I cited a past case in which a user not formally warned but who, through demonstrating an awareness of the case by participating, extensively, at AE, was banned. That close is unbelievable. nableezy - 02:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The decision specifically requires a warning, he was not previously warned and is entitled to his warning. --WGFinley (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Entitled to his warning? See for example this complaint in which the exact same circumstance of an editor who was obviously aware of the case was sanctioned for misbehavior. Netzer has been a constant precense on AE over the past month, the idea that he requires a notification of the case is mind-boggling. He is not entitled to a notification of a case that he has obvious knowledge of. Your judgement here is, again, incomprehensible. You dont even wait to see what other administrators might have to say. Given the very recent past, you should reconsider your haste. nableezy - 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case that user was warned twice. What is incomprehensible that the decision specifically states a user can only be sanction after being warned? Do you not concede that's what it says? --WGFinley (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He had not been notified of the case. This is transparent use of a loophole to continue with the obvious pattern of excusing some of the most disruptive behavior (such as lying about sources) on one side. Thank you for further demonstrating the point. From past experience I realize there is no sense in trying to reason with you, so Ill stop now. Bye. nableezy - 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find me sticking to the Arbcom decision using a "loophole". I'm not going to read into why Arbcom requires warnings here but they do. He wasn't warned and since it's required he can't be sanctioned. I think you need to AGF since I'm not citing some reason out of thin air, it's a basic precept of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, aside from being specifically required in the ARBPIA decision it's also required in on WP:AC/DS:

Warnings
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; 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.

Here it is pretty clear Arbcom's intent appears to be to give a user a chance to remediate their behavior after being warned, I can't see any other way to read it especially since it says "shall be given a warning" and not "may be given a warning". --WGFinley (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It is honestly impossible for me to assume your good faith, and given your repeatedly stated views about me I find it stunning that you even ask that I do. Given our past interactions, both where you refused to allow sanctions that each of the other admins commenting said were called for and when you called for an extended ban for me which also saw that each admin commenting saying that there was no cause for such sanctions, I have trouble assuming that the pattern in which you excuse the behavior, much more serious than anything I am even accused of, of others and push for harsh sanctions against me is anything other than what it appears to be. I am not prone to letting my imagination run wild, but your refusal to even re-open the case to see if other admins disagree with you cements this view in my mind. nableezy - 02:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So I take that as a yes you see it is also required in WP:AC/DS? --WGFinley (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO is pretty clear on this point, as is the case cited above. Netzer is obviously aware of the case, and if you want to claim that any type of warning suffices, then how about this? Why are you resistant to just allowing other admins to comment? Given the very recent past, in which your judgment was shown to based on incorrect beliefs, I dont see why you demand on continuing on this path. nableezy - 03:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see where WP:NOTBURO was an Arbcom decision. You are requesting enforcement of an Arbcom decision. That decision requires a warning before any sanctions are made. You acknowledged he wasn't warned. You can cast aspersions here and continue to call my judgment into question with no evidence to support any lack of judgment on my part in this case. If you feel you do then I encourage you to file a motion with Arbcom about my action. The only lack of judgment you are proving here is your own. --WGFinley (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You dont see that because WP:NOT is not an ArbCom decision, it is a Wikipedia policy. I see that you continue with your persistence in refusing to answer simple questions. Ill ask once more before I bid you farewell. Why are you resistant to just allowing other admins to comment? nableezy - 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear cut case - no warning, no sanctions. As you clearly know, not every case on AE is left open for multiple comments. I missed your question, maybe if I my attention wasn't grabbed by your pejorative comments directed toward me I would have noticed it. --WGFinley (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you dont notice clearly written questions? To think I ever questioned your competence. Again, thanks for demonstrating the point. nableezy - 03:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? Don't want to be accused of not answering any. --WGFinley (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice this diff Nableezy provided above? Seems like a pretty straightforward warning to me. He also clearly responded to that comment so presumably he read it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I would note WG, that he was informed that his edits would be edit-warring and as such, at the very least, you should have considered an action commensurate with that offense outside of the AE process as you are very much allowed to do per this:

The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.

The idea being that just because something may not specifically be allowed by ArbCom, it does not mean you have to close the case without action. Someone who is clearly warned numerous times about edit-warring, but blatantly engages in it all the same can certainly be subjected to administrative action for that offense, even if you think you have to adhere to some technicality with regards to notification about discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor has been warned, if he continues on his path he will be sanctioned. Simple, effective, documented and within guidance given by Arbcom in their decision. I used my "administrative discretion" as plainly worded in the policy you cited to warn, document and conclude the case. Not every case on AE need be the WP embodiment of the Scopes Monkey Trial. --WGFinley (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that, had Netzer been brought up at the edit-warring noticeboard, administrative action to block him for some period of time would have been perfectly legitimate. You are allowed to use your discretion to impose an action along those lines, even if you think you could not pursue discretionary sanctions through AE. Also, as noted above, Nableezy did give Netzer a warning.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:AC/DS and the operative word would be my discretion, using my discretion it was clear he had not been formally warned, I formally warned him and closed the case. Any other uninvolved admin could come and reopen that case or contact me directly to reopen it if they disagreed. They haven't, because it's a clearly reasonable decision. --WGFinley (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He gave a link to the ARBPIA decision as well as AE, which made his warning clear and unambiguous, and that is all the wording requires. All the same, you should have considered that edit-warring is a violation of policy even in articles that are not under a discretionary sanctions regime and so his actions should at least have been treated the same way as those cases. It would then not be an action imposed under ArbCom restrictions, but under general Wikipedia policy where different rules apply.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)