User:Spitfire/sandbox

=AN/I=

edit dispute between user:widefox & user:Sminthopsis84: one-to-one resolution -> canvassing
While trying to resolve on a one-to-one basis an edit dispute about 3 DABs - Oak (disambiguation) and related Grey oak, and completely separate Albatross (disambiguation), agreeing to talk on User talk:Sminthopsis84. Sminthopsis84 was informed of WP:CANVAS, but user:Obsidian Soul was canvassed (campaigning) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Obsidian Soul (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. with an insult (1st sentence - which changes?!), misrepresent my position (2nd sentence), change Albatross (disambiguation) against 2 editors "partial match" removals (as to why Sminthopsis84 and Obsidian Soul were editing an unrelated article in my edit history?, and campaigning for that non-plant DAB in a plant project?). Considering the context of me trying to resolve this one-to-one. My warning for canvassing was removed by Obsidian Soul and ownership (with my reply to a personal attack). If you check my edits, I was trying to resolve these 3 DAB pages one at a time in a one-to-one way, when Sminthopsis84 escalated to many talk pages and the Plant project in a biassed way. I would like to get back to one-to-one resolving, which is not possible without intervention now. Widefox ; talk 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For your information, I already had Sminthopsis84's page on my watchlist way before you even posted there. I was already following the discussion and wasn't canvassed. Also WP:Don't template the regulars. Sminthopsis84 is an experienced editor, as are you. What's the purpose of templating in this case? It doesn't add credibility to your argument. Neither does dragging this to ANI. The editors on WT:PLANTS are more than experienced enough to side with whichever argument they think is correct, regardless of how the invitation was worded. Address the actual issue on the DAB pages please. You can't arbitrarily designate disputes as "one-to-one", this isn't exactly a duel. --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And care to explain this sentence: "I consider your comment on my talk page a personal attack. STOP escalating across different talk pages, and discuss as agreed on your talk page."? And your reply of course, which seems to imply that you consider Sminthopsis84 to be breaching a sort of chivalrous contract by posting on your talk page, commenting on another of your edits, daring to question the validity of your previous "one-to-one" consensus, and inviting other editors to comment on the issue. I was not aware there were such restrictions to dispute resolution. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  21:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm terribly sorry to have brought other people into the line of fire here by asking for help at WT:PLANTS! Re: discuss as agreed on your talk page, which was directed at me: There's nothing more that I can say about the basic issue of is an oak an oak, I'm all talked out about that one. Asking for help from knowledgeable people seemed to be appropriate, but it has led to (1) this ANI (2) attack on User:Obsidian Soul (3) bullying on my talk page (4) reinstating material on my talk page that User:Obsidian Soul had very kindly removed, and (5) reinstating material on my talk page that I had removed as I have every right to do on my own talk page. Enough already. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Widefox, edits like this and  seem a bit overkill.  Now, I normally don't care if someone templates the regulars, my ego can handle it, but when you are already in a discussion with them, then it becomes WP:POINTy.  And informing ONE user, well, that doesn't really strike me as a mass violation of WP:CANVAS.  Had he cherry picked several editors known to have edit that article before, then perhaps, but I don't see Obsidian's name in the last 500 edits of Oak(db).  What some might call canvassing, others might call getting an outside opinion.  It wasn't a neutral request, granted, and but hardly ANI worthy.  And "one on one" is hardly a consensus.  If anything, maybe you need to take it to WP:DRN and let a half dozen more people jump in.  That is one of the things I hate about our policy on canvassing.  The policy itself is generally sound, but it can be used to allow small groups (or two people) to make decisions that might better be made by more.  You obviously are upset, he probably should have worded his request to Obsidian better, but I am certainly not going to tell Obsidian that he can't participate, nor am I going to block anyone here.  You guys go discuss the article, NOT on your talk pages, but on the talk page of the articles themselves, so others can participate.  Oh, and bringing it to ANI, which has over 5000 stalkers, is a bad way to force the discussion back to just two people, for future reference.  I suggest someone close this, there is nothing here that requires intervention by an admin. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis, note that Sminthopsis84 has never requested that I join the discussion ever. I joined on my own volition after I saw it start to spiral down into templating. Sminthopsis84 posted a request at WT:PLANTS, but I did not reach the discussion from there. I've always watchlisted all talkpages I've posted to previously. --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, in the mix of things, I failed to see that was the Wikiproject Plants page, not your talk page. Even more so.  If you can't go to a project on "Plants" to ask for help on "Oak", where can you go?  In the future, he should be more neutral in his comments, but I still don't see the singular comment as a big deal.  We are all adults who can make up our own minds, not mindless drones.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"While trying to resolve on a one-to-one basis an edit dispute...". So basically you were hoping to browbeat Sminthopsis on a topic that is of broader interest without letting any of the rest of us comment? That's sure what it looks like to me. Take it to the talk page of the article! I didn't have Sminthopsis's talk page on my watch list (I do now), so I never would have seen your end-run. It's really hard to assume good faith when an editor tries to restrict who sees a discussion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There already was a discussion at the talk page of the Oak disambig article, but then Widefox suddenly took it to Sminthopsis84's talk page, and Sminthopsis84 followed it there. Then when Sminthopsis84 created a section on Widefox's talk page, Widefox suddenly objected and claims Sminthopsis84 "escalated" the situation and was making Widefox "confused" for not keeping the discussion in one place! I think Widefox should be more careful before spraying accusations around. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Eastern European matters
I'd like for another admin to look at Momčilo Đujić. I warned the IP for edit-warring before it occurred to me to check for one of the general sanctions--it might fall under Eastern Europe or Macedonia. BTW, I am a [fill in nationality/ethnicity/religious preference] and you can't wrong me on this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the editing dispute, but this article definitely falls within the subject-matters covered by ArbCom-directed discretionary sanctions from the various Balkans and Eastern Europe cases, if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This would definitely fall under the category of Macedonia's discretionary sanctions; given how the motion amending that case passed in conjunction with those of Eastern Europe, it can be deduced that the former's amendment was introduced so as not to confuse people over whether the Balkan region would fall within EE's article range. A cursory review of the IP's contributions leaves little doubt that this user is a POV pusher (to call a spade a spade). I would recommend a block of no less than 48 hours for continued disruption, and possibly a ban from Serbia-related articles if tendentious editing persists beyond that. Kurtis (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has reverted four times on 27 August at Momčilo Đujić, so he may be eligible for a 3RR block. 48 hours would be reasonable. A warning under WP:ARBMAC appears logical also. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside, how much longer before we expand those discretionary sanctions to include "The Earth, broadly construed"...-- Jayron  32  01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all the Earth, just those parts of it where people are more interested in propagandizing their own views than they are in the neutral propagation of knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so that leaves Antarctica. Such an optimist you are, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Antarctica is very civil. They always be chillin'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooof! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I counted 1 edit then 3 reverts (the last was a two parter, but still one revert). I left them a personalized final warning on their talk page.  As for 24 hours or not, if they revert again without using the talk page any time soon I would be inclined to block simply for warring.  Hopefully my final warning was clear enough.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, this is why people think Wikipedia is nothing but a totalitarian regime. I am Serb and I know well that Momčilo Đujić NEVER collaborated with the Nazi's. Would you really block me from this? Go ahead. It just proves that you are all crazy over what's true. I'm sick and tired of all this consensus/blocking/admins/etc. who are actually giving Wikipedia a very bad name. Chetniks never sided with Nazi's. Big lie from Tito. It was a lie demonstrated to put Draža under the value of Treason. Once you block me, it will be the last time I will ever edit Wikipedia. Goodbye (If you blocked me, no matter how long!). 142.197.8.220 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you, personally know to be The Truth, Wikipedia can only include what is verifiable through reliable sources. If all reliable sources state that X did Y, Wikipeida's article on X must say they did Y, even if it's "known well" that they actually did Z - Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. | Alright, if that is how you roll, bid yourself good day. Wikipedia will forever, in my book, be a large lie and hypocrisy. You don't have any sources for the Serbian legend bowing down to stupid fascists. 142.197.8.220 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to delete your artwork. I'm not sorry I blocked you, however.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the edit filter when you need it? WikiPuppies  bark dig 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on a failed RTV
Please see

Short summary:
 * I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
 * I ask Magog about the deletion
 * After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
 * I also notice that the contributions are missing
 * Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
 * I come here

My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you could link me to those that would be great. -Removed previous bad reading on my part- Arkon (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And by the way, this needn't be user specific. I tried to not mention names for that reason.  In similar situations (SA), the contributions remain. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually.  Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe   ε  08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's in the original report, right above you.


 * I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."


 * I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9 and a couple threads at the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10 from a year ago, along with other threads at different boards I haven't been able to find yet. Like I said, ArbCom is already fully aware of who Prioryman is (as well as several other parts of community). Again, what is it exactly you intend to accomplish by restarting this conversation? Why is it necessary to have a link between the two or have the contributions moved? Regards, — Moe   ε  09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the links, I hadn't read any of that previously. Arbcom being aware or not aware isn't the issue. The issue at this point is the linking of the contributions. I see no discussion related to the issue in your links, but admit to not reading them fully at this time (will do tomorrow.) Just because the failed RTV has been discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to come to a consensus of what to do when RTV fails. The fail I've personally seen was SA, and contributions are fully available. Get back to you tomorrow on the details :) Arkon (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, several things need to be done to normalise the situation: Nothing should be done here, because of the history of previous ArbCom cases that involved a lot of secret horse tradings. People have made compromizes and if we now want to do things according to the book, then you end up undermining these informal agreements. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User:ChrisO should be marked as indefinitely blocked, and redirect to User:Prioryman.
 * The contributions history currently attributed to User:Vanished user 03 should be reattributed to User:ChrisO (or User:Prioryman, whichever he prefers).
 * User:L'ecrivant should be marked as an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:ChrisO.
 * Prioryman should tell the community and/or the arbitration committee whether or not he authored the material contributed to Wikipedia by User:Helatrobus (which, in case anyone is wondering, was not an arbcom-approved sock).  J N  466  13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More or less, that seems to be consistent with WP:RTV and would make sense, and I would support that. Vanishing should never be maintained by Wikipedia unless it is maintained by the user.  I have no problem with Prioryman being here, but clarity and honesty as to the past should be required, as I would expect it to be for any user that unvanished themselves. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why indefinitely block ChrisO? As long as the person running the account has done nothing to deserve such a block for all his accounts, couldn't it be marked as an alternate account?  As far as I can see, the only situations when an indef should be applied to one account but not the other are (1) compromised password, or (2) disruptive socking or other problems that would result in a prohibition on Prioryman from editing as any other account name.  Obviously the first isn't true, and I don't see a reason for the prohibition in the second to be enacted.  Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User:ChrisO is indef-blocked already, per his block log.  J N  466  01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really grasp your argument here. "It's super secret, so hey, look over there"?  Dennis and JN have hit the nail in their previous comments, I'd say. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are "informal, secret agreements" that contradict the book then they absolutely need to be undermined. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In an ArbCom cases, you can always propose some compromize, you can get off with a lighter sanction in exchange for a volunatry editing restriction. In some cases, off site harassment may have been an issue and that can count as a mitigating factor. Such issues can be discussed privately with ArbCom and you can get a reasonable deal that works. However, to outsider things are not so transparant. What we really need to focus on is creating an environment that both Prioryman and Jayen466 feel happy to work in; continuing to fight old battles for which the ArbCom sanctions have long expired is not a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ChrisO invoked the right to vanish just before the conclusion of the climate change arbitration case, while sanctions were being considered against him. He then registered a sock, User:L'ecrivant, within hours of invoking the right to vanish. The sock was spotted a few weeks later by a steward, User:Avraham, who indef-blocked both the ChrisO account and the L'ecrivant account for abusing RTV. ChrisO then registered User:Prioryman; that account too was spotted by Avraham and blocked as a sock, but unblocked by an arbitrator (Roger Davies) after ChrisO came to an understanding with them about his continued participation. All that was discussed on-wiki at some length last year. The community did not learn that Prioryman was ChrisO returned until the summer of the year after that, when he began to involve himself in old conflicts (while pretending to be new to them). So the deal that got Prioryman back into the project was not part of any arbitration case. I don't have any problem with Prioryman working here at all; he has written some outstanding content. But the history should be transparent, if only for such cases where Prioryman argues that another editor should be site-banned on account of his block log, or other perceived infractions. Prioryman himself has a lengthy block log, and three indef blocks against his name, and he should not be able to pass himself off as a squeaky clean editor when proposing sanctions for others, which he is unfortunately fond of doing. Again, nothing against his content work, much of which is first rate. -- J N  466  00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would put this to a vote at WP:AN (or move this over there) as a proposal to unvanish, and point to (and protect if needed). At least that is what I did with SA, the last (only?) unvanishing I am aware of.  It requires a 'crat to do the actual unvanishing, and is easy to do but takes a bit to filter through the process.  I haven't seen Prioryman comment yet and prefer to hear from him first.  I assume he was notified, which is a little confusing for him not to pipe in.  My interactions with him have always been positive, but I agree about transparency, consistency in policy and how it might look like avoiding scrutiny if we didn't link them.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, notified him here. Arkon (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The CC ArbCom case was a big horse trade session where the Arbs did not consider the relevant facts and instead declared everyone who had a significant editing history in the controversial topics to be guilty. You could only propose a voluntary topic ban (like e.g. KimDabbelsteinPetersen did), or else you would be topic banned. The fundamental problem was that lacking good policies for that sort of topic area, the majority of editors by consensus decided how the topic should be edited, which amounts to enforcing policies that do not exist. The editors who didn't like that considered that to be "tag team reversions".

ArbCom failed to identify the underlying cause of the problems (the lack of good policies), and faulted the editors who did their best to keep the articles in an acceptable shape. This was too much for some editors like ChrisO and Polargeo. If ArbCom ends up to topic banning a scientist who works at ESA who is an expert at Earth observation from climate science articles because they don't want to get into the relevant editing issues, then the whole ruling is worthless. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, none of that is relevant to the question. Arkon (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been tied up with some more pressing things.

The status of my former contributions has already been addressed and resolved by agreement with Arbcom. It would be highly inadvisable for editors to unilaterally seek to overturn arbitrators' decisions - they don't seem to like that for some reason.

However, I don't have any objections if someone wants to redirect my old username to my present one. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous, the community cannot overturn an ArbCom decision, but there's absolutely no reason why it cannot impose a more severe sanction than ArbCom considered appropriate, or one that runs in parallel with it. Your "warning" in this context is quite inapppropriate and, considering the totality of your history, you'd be best advised to hold your peace and not make any more veiled threats.  If ArbCom wants to warn admins against taking a certain action, they're quite capable of speaking for themselves without you chiming in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever agreement you had with ArbCom became moot when you revealed your identity by returning to areas of prior dispute, rather than avoiding them. And you never clarified whether or not the contributions made by User:Helatrobus were authored by you or not. Neither the arbitration committee nor the community were ever given a clear answer. Could you answer the question now?  J N  466  01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm merely pointing out that the appropriate route to resolve this would be through Arbcom. It would be inappropriate to try to use a community process to overturn arbitrators' decisions. Their decisions are not usually subject to amendment by community processes. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were a clear and specific decision made by ArbCom, you would have a point. "Horse trades" madeby ArbCom are not, howeverm in that category. ArbCom, for example, does not have the power to say "Editor X is exempted from Policy Y because we made a deal and for no other reasons" which is the case at hand.  This is not an "amendment" to an ArbCom decision, and thus is properly discussed here, whether one likes it or not.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the community may now feel entitled to take Prioryman's continued refusal to answer the question whether or not they authored the contributions of User:Helatrobus as an admission that he did, and that this was yet another account he operated after the RTV. The Helatrobus account stopped editing a while ago, but should probably be indeffed as well.  J N  466  09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Take to AN and Vote?
Dennis made a suggestion for the next course of action. Unless there are significant objections, I'd appreciate an admin taking the lead on this. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I second the motion to take this to AN for an admin vote. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant objection. See above. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As the subject of the potential action, you would be expected to object, so your comment is irrelevant. You do not control here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also second this motion. -- J  N  466  01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's much benefit here. We are interested primarily in what editors are doing now and in the future. If there was contested behaviour in the past that is documented a Arbcom case, then the additional benefit of spending admin time on attributing every single edit seems slim to none.  Seems like something where we can usefully move forward, rather than living in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Apparently the effort involved is minimal according to Dennis above. I don't really see the rest of your comment as an argument against correcting this. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't personal, and I'm not beating a drum over the issue, but unless there is a specific reason that Arbcom has to handle this, then it would be a function of WP:AN, not Arbcom. The policy clearly says it can be reversed by the community, not by ArbCom.  Again, it has been a slow process, to allow plenty of time for someone from ArbCom to come in and present a reason, assuming you would ask them to.  If not, an editor has asked for it to go to a vote, and I've just said that WP:AN is the proper venue, based on the fact that the last unvanishing was done there.  That doesn't mean it will be unvanished, but there is a policy based reason why the editor would like to start the process, and regardless of how I feel about it, I don't see any policy based reason to deny it.  Once again, no one has rushed here, and we are all ears as to how this is counter to some previous agreement, even though it is doubtful that an ArbCom agreement has the authority to bypass policy here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours, to allow ArbCom to respond if they choose. My understanding is that they have been informed.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK.  J N  466  22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't help but feel that this AN issue has been initiated due to some other cases that may be under discussion elsewhere involving  Prioryman's participation.  In the interests of getting on with other stuff, I don't believe there is anything to be gained at this stage by revisiting the RTV issue at  all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel as you wish, but I posted the diff of the reason I brought this here at the very top. Arkon (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, if we can just wait a day, I'm told there is an ongoing discussion and I'm always for a simple, peaceful resolution. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm being a pest, but the innuendo of secrecy is supremely annoying. So:


 * "...I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours..." - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Again, if we can just wait a day..." Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * May I ask what super secret conversation could be ongoing that override a community granted courtesy? There has been no comment from this group of cigarette smoking men.  This should be elementary. Arkon (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear about two things: AN (or AN/I) doesn't have the authority to override Arbcom, and as Kudpung suggests, bringing this issue up now is quite blatant retaliation by individuals involved in the Youreallycan RfC/RFAR. However, I agree that at this stage there probably is not much point in maintaining the RTV. I've therefore asked Arbcom to agree to amend the earlier agreement to permit unvanishing. They have said that although they do not feel this is purely necessary, they have no objections to it, and the unvanishing has been carried out at my request. I think that resolves the matter. Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unvanished
After consulting with Prioryman and receiving input from ArbCom, I have unvanished the ChrisO account. The user contributions that had been attributed to User:Vanished user 03 have now been re-attributed to User:ChrisO. As part of the unvanishing, I have unblocked the ChrisO account (the entry for the block, "Vanished users do not need to edit", being no longer applicable), and have redirected both User:ChrisO and User:Vanished user 03 to Prioryman's current account. I will defer any action regarding any other accounts to ArbCom.

I hope this is sufficient to allow all parties to put this behind them and move forward. Feel free to ping me on my talk page with any questions or concerns related to this. Thank you to everyone for your patience while this was being sorted out. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

=AN=

Continuing BRD editing of core policy (WP:V)
It is, IMHO, high time for the WP administrative body to exercise due oversight as to the WP propriety of BRD editing to core policy pages, WP:V to be specific. The stability of that core policy page has degraded to the point where sandbox-esque editing has become the rule as opposed to the exception. The attention/consideration of administrators to this issue is, IMHO, sorely needed. Please have a look. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to have a few more eyes here, as well. We have good-faith editors genuinely trying to clarify wording and remove ambiguity, but it's very hard to make (or even attempt) any improvements whatsoever.  Pesky  (talk ) 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and Dispute resolution noticeboard --Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It ain't "BRD", because reverting any of these sandbox changes, no matter how inane, has been labelled "disruptive stonewalling". So BRD has been perverted to B, then D, and then maybe R (if it's not "disruptive"). It's a circus. Doc   talk  21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True, it isn't helpful when someone accuses someone else of "disruptive stonewalling". It also isn't helpful when someone calls good faith edits "inane". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't see me reverting anything in the latest free-for-all, now do you? And you won't - I have pretty much washed my hands of this. Being accused of disruption and sockpuppetry(!) over this colossal mess is just about enough for me. Enjoy. Doc   talk  21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see me reverting either, nor accusing anyone of disruption, socking, or inanity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. You can continue to not make any accusations and stay in the fray, but I am going to do what so many others have done before, and get the hell out of the quagmire. Many will be happy about this, but none more than me. It's off my watchlist, I really don't care anymore what the policy says. Completely rewrite the entire thing if you want to, as is happening right now (on a WP:CONLIMITED basis). Seeya, WP:V! :) Doc   talk  21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We should just slow down a bit. I think some progress is being made, and the changes haven't affected the core meaning. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. My reason for linking, above, to the mediation is that it might, perhaps, be a solution to the concerns raised here. (The DRN is what led to the mediation.) It's certainly true that additional eyes would be helpful. Beyond that, I'm not sure what administrators can be expected to do. Perhaps there's a case for full protection until after the mediation process is completed. But that would probably be excessive, since there really isn't any edit warring. Rather, there's some edits being made, some better than others, and a bit of name-calling on the talk page between those who object to BRD editing of a core policy page and those who feel obstructed by those objections from making progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been mostly constructive and friendly. (and I'm the one who put up the "Too many edits" title/section.) We need something that is in between a 1,000-man-hour 3 month dead-end process for each proposed change and spontaneous edits with no conversation.   Like get a few folks to agree before doing "B" in BRD   (= semi-bold :-)  ) North8000 (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc. I wish you would consider getting involved in the mediation. I've been substantively gone so long from that page I don't know what is going on but I think if the recent participants got involved in mediation you could wrap this all up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm done. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the events of the last few days have really made me want to have nothing more to do with this. Cheers... Doc   talk  21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah well, you can always join in later . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never again. The community needs to fix the situation with one of their core content policies, but they are going to do it without this particular member of this allegedly powerful minority that has allegedly been part of "controlling" this policy through "stonewalling". Cheers, Alanscottwalker! :> Doc   talk  05:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * hmmm, Yes. You do sound evil and incredibly powerful.  Perhaps it's a badge of honor?  At any rate, happy editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a G6 or not?
Plastomer (disambiguation). I've had a G6 denied a couple times. This is a dab with one blue link and two reds. It disambiguates nothing. Anyone want to tell me how in the flying hell this is NOT a G6? I see no reason to let this rot in AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe that page could reasonably have been deleted per WP:G6; edit summaries such as this one, however, are completely unwarranted and over the top. That said, the AfD will be snow closed quite soon I'd wager. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the edit summary was "(Undid revision 476889682 by Nyttend (talk) don't be an idiot)", and the diff (for admins only) is now here. Graham 87 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, why was the page speedy deleted as uncontroversial when I had already declined it? "Uncontoversial" means that nobody disagrees, and I daresay an when an attempt is declined multiple times, it's controversial.  Moreover, why did I only learn about this discussion by browsing this page?  Why was I not notified?  Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This three time renomination for speedy deletion was inappropriate behaviour by TenPoundHammer, but this has already been discussed by those involved. The close of the AFD is also not the best as it should have waited for a full delete decision as a declined speedy delete should not be speedy deleted. However snow deletion could have been fine if it waited a while.  Because it has only been deleted with a G6 if it is recreated there is no recourse to delete it again immediately, which if the AFD had been fully debated would have allowed a G4 delete on recreation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss to understand why Nyttend thought the G6 criterion didn't apply. db-disambig clearly says: disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)". This was obviously the case here. Nyttend simply misread the rule. No point in making a fuss about it now. I also don't see how the technical distinction between a G4-able AfD decision and a speedy makes any practical difference here. If anybody should ever recreate the page, then either there will still be no more than a single target, in which case the dab will automatically again fall under G6, or such targets will have been created, in which case the dab will undoubtedly have become legit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have deleted that as a G6 myself, but someone's decline should still be respected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the original decline is based on such an obvious factual error about the rule? I don't see why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoidance of drama, perhaps? Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC).


 * That page was an obvious G6 candidate. I'd like Nyttend to explain why he thought G6 did not apply, as it seems he did not explain himself other than by asserting that "neither of those cases is true". Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-Free Media Usage Warning
Good Evening,

I am Malikussaid, a newbie Wikipedia editor. Here, in my personal opinion, I felt that mechanisms of warning users of inappropriate edits is quite highly... (sorry) shocking. I uploaded a few screenshots, having good faith that these are appropriate ones and complies with Microsoft Screenshot Licensing practice. Unfortunately a bot (which I cannot blame) posts warning on my user page, and I panic-ly checks the pages of my screenshots, and there I found the following warning :


 * di-orphaned fair use

I know it's my bad to unable to link it immediately to any articles, but I was consulting with a more senior editor to help me decide the best form of those images to use. And then suddenly a big red scary warning (for me) appears underside of screenshots I uploaded, giving me a 7-days chance to fix it or it's going to be speedy deleted.

As I known (tell me if I wrong), a speedy deletion is reserved for downright wrong edits, such as vandalism, blanking, harassment, etc., but now I am is getting threatened with the same action. This is... really scary for me. I tried all my best to comply with screenshot uploading policy and/or licensing rules, and with one mistake (orphaning the image), I am being faced with the consequences of speedy deletion.

I am suggesting that the way of notifying user upon this form of offense is modified, so, as for example, the user is told that his images must be modified in a certain way to kept in Wikipedia, instead of telling them that their images will be deleted if they do nothing. I think it is more informative, and helps user learn upon mistakes they've made. I also suggests, in a way I don't know, the "scare level" of speedy deletion is decreased.

Thank you

Malikussaid (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-free content enforcement is something that we are supposed to handle quickly, given the Foundation's resolution on handling of non-free media. We regularly delete non-free content not used in articles (per WP:NFCC), and do so in a timely manner. And the message is correct - you have to include those in articles to keep them around, so there's no "modification" that can be done.  --M ASEM  (t) 17:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing, speedy deletion is not reserved for downright wrong edits as you state, it's reserved for any content where the result of any deletion discussion would result in overwhelming consensus to delete. Downright wrong edits are definitely part of that, but not only, there's a number of purely routine deletions that are covered by speedy. As Masem explains above, we will not keep non-free content on the servers that aren't used, and deletion of such unused content within 7 days is routine maintenance.


 * There's also an important notion in that warning, which is that non-free material should not be uploaded without a valid reason and a plan for inclusion. A non-free image isn't "yours", in this case it's Microsoft's, and while there are a couple of good reasons to use them, limiting that usage to what is strictly necessary is a sound policy to help ensure that our access to what we DO use doesn't get more restricted in the future. MLauba (Talk) 17:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully accept the M ASEM 's reply and first paragraph of MLauba's reply. But I has a plan for inclusion of those images in articles.


 * Malikussaid (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Realistically until you know you can use them, you shouldn't upload them here. If you were asking for advice of which of two or more images to use for an article, it is much better to use a free image hosting site to provide the links, and then once you're ready to include the selected image in WP, upload then. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know this policy.


 * Malikussaid (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)