Misplaced Pages

• If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Whisperback|your username|Topic section}} on my talk.
• If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Whisperback|WGFinley|Topic section}} on your talk.
• Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

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 Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages. --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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy where different rules apply.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Was King Baudouin's refusal on grounds of Catholic teaching to legalize abortion in Belgium, at the cost to him of being declared "unable to govern" and only later being reinstated, a less important matter for this article than the posting of an advertisement in a newspaper and the excommunication of a nun for approving an abortion, so as to justify excluding from the article any mention of the king's action, while including the other two items?

vs.

• Should we include information about King Baudouin of Belgium's temporary abdication, which he did rather than signing a law legalizing abortion because he opposed abortion due to his Catholic faith, in Catholic Church and abortion? Please review previous discussions on article talk page before responding.

For a bright way in the New Year