User talk:Zad68/Archive 2015 Apr

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I figured out how to remove the quotes...
Not that I'm going to add back any of the original contents after the discussions brought to light why it was problematic, I just wanted to let you know I figured out how to eliminate the quotes.



Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note.   13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gino D'Acampo
Not that I care about that article, but why did you shorten my protection? The article has a history of abuse. Materialscientist (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ah I see I did, I think we were both hitting Go at about the same time, I will adjust my PP to match what you had.  21:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * based on the previous log history and level of vandalism I went with indef semi PP. I'm done changing protection levels and durations so feel free to adjust.   22:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)
 * thanks for the notice. Was this notification provided in response to any particular edit of mine at that article that you're concerned about?  Or was this just a blanket general notice and you do not have any particular concerns about my editing there at this time?  I haven't been very active there recently and I haven't edited there in over a week, so I'm not sure why this notice was left today. Thanks...   11:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was left because you pinged as an editor with at least one edit since sanctions came in to force. I have no concern with any particular edit but was notifying all users who had edited at all. SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so it was a general blanket notice, and wasn't left in response to any edit you thought was problematic.  Got it, thanks.   12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you raised it I've now gone back and looked at your 4 edits in this subject area since April 1st and positively have no problem with any of them, there was slight confusion over the POV tag well handled. SPACKlick (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions
These aren't discretionary sanctions. If you look at WP:GS under community sanctions you'll see that WP:AN is the appropriate place, although I think ANI gets used at times in error. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? At the e-cig entry at WP:GS it says "Community-authorised discretionary sanctions" and the instructions at WP:AE say AE can be used to "request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions".  If AE isn't supposed to be used, some verbiage somewhere needs to be adjusted. Also to me AE just seems like a logical place to request it, so I think the existing wording should be seen as correct.   19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, more confusing wording. General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes does say that "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the administrators' noticeboard." Not to us. WP:AE says "For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard." Although the link to Dispute resolution in fact doesn't mention community sanctions. However, the link to discrestionary sanctions above that goes to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'll see about sorting this all out. I hope I've been clear. I think the key is "community authorized discretionary sanctions", the problem being the use of the phrase "discretionary sanctions" in a context where on its own it might be ambiguous. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug please do let me know what the resolution is here. I need to know:  1) Specifically, whether standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force at e-cig, 2) Generally, whether editors at article under DS can bring up what they perceive as behavior problems at AE.  If the answer to 2) isn't Yes I'd like to know where I can propose a change to DS so that editors can.  Thanks...   00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Another Arb has removed 'discretionary' from the list of community sanctions, which were either typos or some sort of confusion. I've added /Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution] to the page on dispute resolution. Does that answer all your questions? Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. There are such a thing as community discretionary sanctions. They simply cannot be enforced at AE or by ArbCom. There are many types of community general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are just one type. Others include page probations and revert restrictions. The root of "discretionary sanctions" as opposed to other kinds of CGS is that they enforced at the "discretion" of the imposing administrator. I've left a note on Mr Davies page, to clarify. Enforcement for community DS takes many forms. In some cases, specific enforcement pages are set up, like WP:GS/GG/E. In other cases, AN/I and ANEW are used. In this case, no enforcement board was established, so we can presume that one should use the normal channels, merely making mention that CDS apply. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone then please correct the wording at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to reflect the current reality??? Bah! The distinction that some DS are Arb-related and so can be reported at AE and other DS are not was the key I was missing. I thought DS were in and of themselves essentially Arb-related, no matter how they got activated.  Thank you  and, this is as much of this as I'm willing to try to do this morning.  I'll help suggest a more clear presentation of the instructions, but not right now.    13:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol. Of course you think that, as that is what Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions suggests. "This page in a nutshell: Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles." Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry about the one-week ban on Caucasian Albania
Dear Zad68,

I would like to inquire with regard to certain aspects of the one-week sanction I have been placed on: Thank you.Parishan (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Why exactly is my revert qualified as baiting? If I wanted to bait Ninetoyadome, knowing his predisposition to revert edits, would I not have rather done it when the discussion started, instead of giving him a 'grace period' of two weeks to explain his edits? The user has already a history of edit-warring and none of the other users involved have ever been suspected of baiting him into it.
 * 2) Do three reverts in a three-week period really qualify as "edit-warring"?
 * 3) Why does the sanction mention "failing to cite reliable sources", if I was not the one making changes to the article? The template was added by Ninetoyadome; the burden of providing sources was technically on him.
 * Sure what came across as baiting and edit-warring were your two reverts at the 1RR article, spaced just 28 minutes outside the technical 1RR mark, with no attempt to focus the discussion on reliable sourcing or use the available dispute resolution pathways.  You're the more accomplished editor here and you should know better.  I believe the sanction is appropriate and its intended effect is to stop disruption at the article by redirecting editor energy back to sources and dispute resolution instead of reverting.  I'm looking forward to seeing you lead by example the next time this sort of issue arises.    12:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As a more accomplished user, I made a sincere effort to warn Ninetoyadome to make better use of talkpages on AA2-related articles instead of reverting them blindly. I certainly did not wait around for the 1RR restriction period to expire to make that edit; if you look in my history, that was my first edit on that day (not counting a small edit I made just a minute prior). If I had had an interest in baiting Ninetoyadome, there was the perfect opportunity (in fact, several of them) weeks earlier. It does not make much sense for someone who is baiting to give so much chance to the 'baited' user to redeem themselves. I also do not see how I was expected to focus more on reliable sourcing than I had already done. I was one of the few users who actually did refer to reliable sources and suggest that others had not done so. What more could I have done? Like I said, it was not me who added new information to the article. Hence it was not up to me to provide sources to substantiate it. I am not being a pest; I do honestly struggle to see how "failing to provide reliable source" pertains to the sanction applied to me. Parishan (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also precise (which I did not do in the original report and the admins seem to have missed that) that Ninetoyadome had already been on a one-revert-per-week restriction, supervised editing and civility supervision since March 2014. Just weeks prior to my report, he had violated this restriction at least three times, not counting his reverts on Caucasian Albania: and,  and ,  and . This user had deserved a sanction a while ago, regardless of whether he seemed to have been baited into it on Caucasian Albania or not. Parishan (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know about either the 1RR restriction or those edits. The editor did not make it easy to find their Talk page archive, the restriction was not logged at the appropriate sanctions log page, and as you noted you didn't make mention of it in your report.  I will take that information into account now.  Regarding your restriction I've explained my thinking already, you may appeal the restriction using the instructions left on your User Talk.   04:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have appealed the case at WP:AE, and I am required to notify you of this: . Parishan (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Re your question
I originally replied to your question where you asked it, Zad, but on second thoughts the placement seemed unkind. I'll say it here instead: were we talking about a reasonable editor? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
 * let me tell you how relieved I was to have an edit conflict when I tried to submit my original reply to your original comment. I don't have a response yet at this time, I need more data, so AGF for the time being.   23:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, must be the first time in my aeons on wikipedia that I've ever been faster than somebody, and have given them an edit conflict. I like the feeling. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
 * It's only because I am on a mobile device with a cheap keyboard!! Honest!  23:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban advice
Now that my WP:AE has been closed, and you have a little familiarity with the background, and my existing topic ban would you have any objection if I asked you for your opinion on my appealing my topic ban, for reasons to be provided? --Iantresman (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian I can only give general advice and I'm not sure exactly why you'd think I'd be particularly helpful?   21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Vegas bomb
Hello zad68. I would like to thank you for your help on The Bull of Navan. No one has whined over sources. I am currently working on an article about the Vegas bomb, a very nice alcoholic drink. I was wondering if you would review the sources to see if I will get by on them. It has notability but the sources are average. It is in my sandbox. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I took a quick look at your sandbox and I have to say you don't have early enough quality sourcing there to support it as an article yet.  Why don't you stop by the Food and Drink Wiki-project, here:  WT:FOOD.  You'll surely get better, more specialized advice than I can give you here, as you're editing in an area I'm not very active in.   15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll have a look there. Trout71 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential article
Hi Zad68. I am currently writing a piece on the Bull of Navan and when I searched it using Google Wikipedia is the second site provided. However the page doesn't actually exist. Two question, 1. What was wrong with the article? The Bull probably is significant enough for a page. 2. If the topic meets encyclopaedic standards do you mind if I make a page. Having an empty result is a pain. Thank you.Trout71 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there ... scans through contribs... nothing fishy going on with your editing, is there? Looks up from frowning at AGF-o-meter...  Say, how do you feel about German politicians? If you feel you've identified sufficient sourcing for such article, feel free to go ahead and start it, nothing is stopping you.  Happy editing...    12:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Just wanted to make sure. I can source it although there is a lot of bias against it because of the price. I am taking it I cannot use my own article as evidence? Also can I get a copy of the last article or does one exist. Whatever my be wrong with I can still read the opening on google and it seems alright. As for my edits, They are all fishy. I am Trout71. There would be a probelem if they weren't. Are you from Germany or something? I don't mind German politicians. My only issue with them is that they are politicians. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Also whats an AGF ometer? These acronyms are difficult.
 * No worries, don't worry about what was there previously. Just go ahead, I'd be happy to review when it's ready if you'd like.   18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello user:Zad68 I said I would have the Bull of Navan ready to go for Monday and here it is. It is fully sourced and notable however I am having difficulty adding a picture. Are pictures on Youtube.com copyright protected? Everything else seems massively copyrighted. Would you mind helping me get a picture. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for letting me know.  I might drop by the article and clean it up a bit.  Hope you don't mind... but of course once it's the main article space, anybody can help work on it.  I think you probably have enough there to support it so that it won't get deleted, but you can't be 100% sure.  Regarding the picture, images from Youtube are definitely not OK.  The quality will be unacceptable and also the image will surely have copyright issues.  Do you have a camera?  Can you drop by the statue and take some pictures yourself?    03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the cleanup. I only spotted the issue with the "erection" thing there. Probably a good call removing it. Otherwise the article may have had a very different meaning. I might rephrase it though as the statue itself was complete by 2003. As for cameras no. I don't have one and would likely be ill-at-ease uploading stuff anyway. I will try and source a picture somewhere else. Bloody youtube is a pain and they shouldn't own the copyright anyway. Is the Harlem Shake really not notable? Each town in Ireland seemed to have its own production of the thing and that was our main one. Trout71 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah it's better to avoid phrasing in articles like "The bull's erection...", right? Might be... confusing to readers.  Feel free to do more copyediting, of course. To demonstrate notability of the Harlem Shake video you'd need to find an independent reliable source that covers it.   16:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Would a general article on the thing in Irish towns do or would it have to be Navan in particular? The popularity of the dance is quite notable and sudden dances were often organised. Trout71 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you need to find coverage by an independent reliable source, something like a (serious) newspaper article covering the topic. "I feel the dance is quite notable" will never cut it on Wikipedia.    16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright I'll have a look. I don't think I'll find much but you never know. Any comment on my next article. Baron Michael d'Aguilar. A British/ French artist of some note who doesn't seem to be on here? Trout71 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, make sure you round up sufficient reliable sourcing to establish notability, and happy editing! 16:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Zad I have found this link [] The site reviews the top 5000 Harlem shake videos. Navan ranks at 1958th. This source is a third party and is independent. It is reliable as it does not have a COI. As for notability this addition is quite satisfactory as the content of articles need not pass the same notability standards as the article itself. Certainly the event is verifiable. I also have a link to a facebook page where a third-party business is making reference to the dance but I have not included it as I am unfamiliar with the policy on social networks. Trout71 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , posts on social networks (Twitter, Facebook) generally can't be used to establish the noteworthiness of the fact. And the "5000best" site doesn't make its selections based on The Bull itself, so as a source it cannot be used to establish that the video is in any way noteworthy relative to the Bull.   01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright then. I will concede the point. No Harlem shake so. It is a sad day for Wikipedia. Out of interest would it be worth a mention at the Harlem shake article? Trout 71 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right but doesn't the fact that the video was shot the bull make the video notworthy relative to the bull. The section I want to put it under is noteworthy events. The 5000 best source shows the dance to be noteworthy and the youtube video shows it happened at the Bull. Thus it is a noteworthy event in the Bulls timeline. I agree with you on the social media front. I would use it as an auxiliary source if at all. But I do think this dance was relevant. It certainly was noted in Navan and caused trouble over safety. Some of the No sides complaints were fuelled by it. On the other side of things it inspired derivatives with people wearing horse masks. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , nope, you're beyond reaching here. If you want a second opinion, raise it at WP:NPOVN but there's no policy-based support for that mention to go into the article.   21:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry my fishy one, same issues apply there too. Coming in somewhere near #2,000 in the worldwide ranking of Shake videos simply isn't noteworthy enough... but if you get support for having the article include item-by-mention of the 1,957 videos ahead of yours, you'll have my vote there, just ping me when that happens.    21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be pinging you soon my favourite wikipedian. Just to let you know I am the one in the horse head. Good luck Trout 71 21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PolenCelestial (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks
Your summary in the log doesn't seem to fit the essay. It certainly was not a reproduction of "The Litmus Paper", more like a stunningly accurate parody, and deserved at least some time for consideration. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In my evaluation, it was too substantially like the original essay to avoid a G4. If any admin would like to undo my action I'll have no objection.   12:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. For the record, I shall certainly not be trying to find an admin that will re-instate the essay. I stand by my comments above though. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, Roxy. Seriously, I'm not suggesting trying to find a back-door route to have it recreated, but am stating genuinely that if you think G4 shouldn't have applied, that's a totally valid concern and I'm happy to see my action reviewed, either at WP:DELREV or WP:AN.   12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Zad. What he did was nothing short of plagiarism, right down to the formatting of the images. Put yourself in my shoes and imagine how you would feel after what felt like mob attack got through with their harsh criticisms, only to turn around and plagiarize my work.  We are still working on the essay and mulling over the advice of some of the GF criticisms made during the delete discussions.  See User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery - your input would be most welcome.  I have not reintroduced my original essay into the SandBox based on some of things Jytdog mentioned here .  Your suggestion would be most welcome regarding what I can or cannot add back in an effort to avoid such issues in the future. Thank you again. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  12:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest but at this time I'm not interested in getting involved in the content of these essays.   12:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing that I can't agree with is that G4 (I am normally dismissive of using PAG like this, as interpretation is always subjective) allows for quick deletion of a reproduction of something deleted, and QG's essay was diametrically opposed to the Litmus Paper, and not a reproduction at all. It was styled the same, and parts that were the same, in particular the edit summaries, were crucial to the inherent debunking of the "Litmus Paper". I am hoping that my balanced, earnest, constructive, polite truthful and above all accurate comment here can perhaps persuade you to change your mind. Let the community decide after some consideration. I reckon you are right, but it is too soon. Many of the editors who ought to be able to at least read that, are still in their beds, and never got the chance. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roxy, possibly. I might open a discussion myself at WP:DELREV if there are still nagging concerns.   12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It was my essay, my idea, QG criticized it suggesting a trout and block of the authors supporting it. That is exactly what should happen to him now for plagiarizing it. The only reason l have not pursued further action is because Zad68 deleted it. Zad if you intend to open discussion or are even considering undeleting it, I will take this issue to ANI. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, come on, you can't take me to ANI for thinking about something! :) Seriously though, all admin actions are open to community review.  While I still believe I did the right thing here, it normally helps to seek out independent review if an action is questioned.   13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Zad my comment about taking it to ANI was not about you. I understand the pressures you are under and have no criticism of your work.  The ANI, which I had already started when I got notice of the delete, would have been against QG's plagiarism, and your involvement would not have been mentioned beyond the diff showing the current conversation by Roxy who is pressuring you to undelete.  I am quite familiar with the behavior of Roxy regarding other issues.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification .  13:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roxy, please let this go. The delete was unambiguously good.  And Atsme, the thing existed for a few hours and was deleted first thing in the morning US time. In my view it is unlikely anyone will find it actionable.  if you want to spend credibility at ANI over the parody or Roxy's comments you are free to do so but it will not help you in the longrun. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedian walks into the bar, and says ... "What is the difference between plagiarism and parody." -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah i know. but it was also as invalid as the original one, and on top of that was POINTy and provoked drama, and we need less of that not more. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Zad68, can you start a WP:DELREV? The new essay was reworded and made a very different point. It was about advocacy not COI. For the deletion review the new essay should be undeleted for others to know what it was about. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * are you sure? I will start a WP:DELREV if you insist but I'd like to encourage you to think about it first.  Also, consider having me userify it for you instead so that you can rework it so that it doesn't appear to copy the old essay.  That said, I'll do whichever you ask but would really like you to consider it first.  Thanks...   18:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You had your fun but let it go. Please. You are working on turning some POINTY fun you had, into some ugly drama, and nothing good can come out of that for you, your targets, or Project Medicine.  Please withdraw your request. Thanks.  would you please back me up here. thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, honestly: why calling him back? You need QG for something ? And calling Doc James: No ganging here? --Wuerzele (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not clear on what you want to know, would you please clarify? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to create an essay like this. I just reworded something that I thought was salvageable. I would like others to work on it. Not sure how to proceed. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet ? Alexbrn (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe some info can be added to that essay from advocacy quacks. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I summarised the deleted essay here. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for Arzel
Hi Zad68,

I appreciate you taking my concerns seriously with respect to topic bans "broadly construed". I wonder if blocking is the appropriate course of action on the basis of a single diff done two months ago. While it is not clear to me whether or not he understands what the topic ban entails (I certainly don't), I would be personally satisfied if he just made the commitment to stay off that Hands Up, Don't Shoot page in the spirit of prevention rather than punishment. I think Arzel assumed wrongly that the topic ban only applied to articles that were directly in the category of "American politics". We can all now agree that this is not the case, hopefully.

Of course, I would also like to seem him steer clear of the Anthony Watts page, as I think his presence there has been nothing but disruptive, but I'm overall confused as to what exactly Arbcomm intends with regards to that subject.

In all, I just wanted to give a personal thanks for your work and wonder if we couldn't work out a solution that didn't involve the block button. I notice that since the notice went up, for example, Arzel has avoided edits in either controversial area.

jps (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Josh. Based on ArbCom's comments at the Clarification request, I wasn't planning on taking any action other than a "caution" without any editing restriction.  I don't agree with their consensus but I can apply it.   20:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! jps (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

why do you care??
tell me just tell me Coolidon (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I care because I want Wikipedia to be a good encyclopedia, so the information has to be correct, and supported by good sources.  19:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel your block was right in this case, I saw that you tried to lend a hand too but nothing came out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm still not 100% sure what his intent was when he first started out but by the end he appeared to openly declare he was vandalizing. I did check a couple of his edits, some seemed well-intended, some were way off...  I think in general our community response to him could have been handled better, but his personal attacks didn't help.  Of course he's welcome back if he'd like to go through an unblock request.   19:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK!
IM GOING TO VANDALIZE WILD ONES WIKI THEN!!! Coolidon (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The EC/LB IBAN
Hi Zad, community sanctions really need to be discussed at AN or ANI. But the discretionary sanctions authorised in the case referred to in the AE request could have been used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Separate followup - I think the arb case authorizes it; it imposed Discretionary Sanctions on everything related to the task force, and then expanded that with the ammendment to anything related to the topic on wiki. I would say that editors specifically named in other sanctions would clearly fall under that.  DS includes topic and interaction bans, etc.
 * I don't know if it practically matters, but I am afraid someone will try lawyering (see above 8-) and the DS should just blanket cover it under the arb case enforcement, so why not shift it back to that?
 * My two cents. Eric may consider me involved, so take with grain of salt, etc.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, yes you're right, the sanctions can reasonably be interpreted to fall under the updated GGTF ruling, I'll fix my close.  01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After watching this whole drama unfold, and admittedly not an expert about how AE works, I'm rather confused how any sanctions were applied when the vast majority of commenting admins called for no action. At AE an admin can just make unilateral judgement? Seriously asking because I have no idea how AE is setup in that regard. Capeo (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes any admin can make a unilateral decision, so (for example) I could have just blocked Eric and no one can reverse it without a "clear and substantial consensus" to change the decision. However good faith best practice is to wait for discussion if you disagree with the majority (but that's not required at all). And this this case the IBAN was a sort of compromise and there was a little agreement between admins that it would be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, Callanecc. That's interesting.  Wouldn't that make AE the only place on Wikipedia where decisions aren't consensus based?  What was the intention of setting it up that way?  It would seem to invite more drama rather than lessen it.  And drama between admins no less.  I know a couple months back, and I forget the specifics, but and admins AE block was brought to AN and overturned through a rather acrimonious thread that had admins sniping at each other publicly.  You'd think following a consensus model would avoid that. Capeo (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the purpose of AE is to reduce the amount of energy the community has to spend on habitually problematic editors in contentious areas. The establishment of ArbCom rulings and AE was done with general community consensus, and the process continues to be supported, so individual AE decisions are (indirectly) supported by community consensus.  Keep in mind that ArbCom rulings and AE cover probably less than 0.1% of all Wikipedia content.  And as you noted there is indeed a method for the community to challenge an AE action.   12:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The idea is that they are a fast track way of dealing of problems, hence without the need to have long discussions (as what happens at AN & ANI) about. Also remember that not all discretionary sanctions are issued as a result of AE requests, I think it'd probably be safe to say that around/at least half come from individual admins without much (of any) discussion and consensus building. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the explanations. Capeo (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional point - I think there was general agreement (either active or via silent support) of no action on the original complaint and counter-complaint-claims. That was the "no action" part.  The interaction ban was essentially a secondary action coming out of watching the interactions over the complaint (and elsewhere), which indicated a problem of the two users getting along, in a topic area which we have under a lot of heightened scrutiny after the earlier incidents.  It's not that either side was abusing the encyclopedia particularly, but they could not evidently stop abusing each other.  So we hopefully stopped just that, without any other action.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that I abused anyone is rather rich. I've tried to keep out of her way, as have several others and for obvious reasons, but I have no power to stop her, or you, from abusing me. Eric   Corbett  19:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)