User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/October

Small correction at ANI

 * (but not the 'Orange bar of Doom', I hope!)

Just to say that I didn't open the Sandra opposed to terrorism ANI, as you say in your closure, though I did post many of the later 'proof diffs'. It was opened by Versus001. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mix up, Pincrete -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I previously suggested that everyone should stay away from the train article for a while. I even tried that but others didn't listen and took advantage of that.

Thank you for locking up that article. In doing so, you made some other editors' POV stick for a month but I am ok with that.

Thank you again for your wisdom. Some of those editors are following me and reverting everything I do but that shows they are bad. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:WRONGVERSION -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See what I wrote..."but I am ok with that. Thank you again for your wisdom..." See, I am a nice person, not a complainer. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

War
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2015_Thalys_train_attack&type=revision&diff=683672897&oldid=683668865

This kind of edit is extremely provocative and has the potential to start an edit war.

Editors should not be so aggressive and remove people's talk page contents. At most, they can add "I don't agree with that because...." Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the talk page guidelines -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

GMOs ArbCom case
Dear Guerillero, on the talk page about this case, you asked for anyone to leave a message on your talk page if we think another user should be included in the case. I have had extremely bad and difficult interactions with both Pete/Skyring and JzG/Guy in the topic area, in which i found them to both be intractable and willfully obstructionist. I realize that is my estimation of their behavior, from my perspective, but i feel this very strongly, and several other editors have observed and commented on their outlandish behavior toward me as well as other behaviors. I strongly recommend including them as involved parties. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Guerillero. When the case opened, I was in agreement that  should not be added as a party.  At that point, he had limited his involvement to talk page discussion and admin actions.  However, since the case opened, JzG has been aggressively editing in article space itself - in fact he has been edit warring and has taken on a battleground mentality over content.  please see the edit histories and talk pages of Vani Hari and Glyphosate.  Based on JzG's recent edits on those two articles, I too believe that he should be added as a party to the case and can certainly no longer be considered "uninvolved" for purposes of performing admin actions in this topic area.  I was reluctant to post this - I feel like I'm tattling, but I do think it's worth you taking a look.  Thanks. Minor4th  16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your interpretation. The talk page of tells, I think, a different story - I don't see much evidence of you trying to help improve the article but Brustopher and I have, I think, come to a point of agreement, David Gerard and others are also active there - the article is progressing towards a resolution of a few minor differences of emphasis and interpretation. As for, it is clear that you and DrChrissy WP:OWN that. Were you going to mention your part in the very brief and already finished "edit war"? Or the serious issue of DrChrissy deciding that Wikipedia should place an effect on fish above glyphosate being classified as a Class 2A carcinogen, but refusing point blank to show any external reference to support the significance of that particular finding in the very large report from which it is drawn? Guy (Help!) 17:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, I am already a party in the case so my behavior is already under scrutiny. Without saying more - I disagree with your accusations, but Arb will draw their own conclusions. As you'll recall I agreed with you about the content and significance of the source in question.  This has nothing to do with content  - I'm simply requesting that Arbs look at adding you as a party  due to your article space edits since the case was opened.  Thank you. Minor4th  17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Guy accused me of OWNing the article Glyphosate, but i have never edited the article.This is the kind of thing that is so pervasive in this topic area, and it promotes an adversarial, battleground atmosphere.   <b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And JzG/Guy also accused me of owning the article when I have clearly invited him to make edits which I will not be able to revert because of my topic ban. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it is a "serious issue" that I choose to make edits about the effects of glyphosate on fish and other non-human animals while allegedly ignoring the human aspects. Glyphosate is a herbicide which is undeniably causing problems for wildlife. I would happily make the edits about it being a Class 2A carcinogen for humans, but this would violate my topic ban. Is Guy trying to draw me into violating my topic ban? - I don't know.  If Guy believes the information on carcinogenicity is so significant, why the hell does he not make the edit/s!  I totally encourage him to do so.  But in the interim, it is clear to me that he should be included as an involved party in the ArbCom case. DrChrissy (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Out
Out of town I will be out from 6 Oct 2015 through 11 Oct 2015. I will see what I can do during that time but real life comes first. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  05:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Email
<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 10:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

evidence to be transferred
thank you for letting me write this out. it's 1473 words. I can trim it to 1000 words by taking out all the edit summaries I wrote out, and deleting my repeats of violated policies. otherwise I am ending here. I focused on diffs of 3 editors, didnt rebutt any accusations. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * August 2014 Agent Orange removed content based on unverifiable sources (references were too brief to find). wrong. ref was complete, even archived, ref name="va-03-2010" the other ref had been orphaned in an edit war; one just needed to search for it in prior versions. ref name="last-ghost"{{York,Geoffrey; Mick, Hayley; "Last Ghost of the Vietnam War", The Globe and Mail, July 12, 2008}}
 * 2/2015 add USDA when in fact there was an extensive copyedit, most importantly removing "due to the increasing prevalence of glyphosate resistant weeds" with its WP:RS.
 * 8/15 on Monsanto"fine dont care" for deleting whole paragraph, and next diff "simple fact instead of any kind of story" for replacing detailed sourced content with sales figures +ref.

WP:Incivility mostly to WP:BAIT,WP:Civil POV pushing
 * wrongly accused ‎ on Agent Orange. editor restored information backed by reliable sources, which had been removed without explanation. After jytdogs first reversal he started eloquent discussion. Since counterarguments were false, wrong accusations WP:Copyvio, "removing almost a year of work by other editors", he reinserted them, but was reverted twice more with help of Kingofaces and warned. exchange shows many hallmarks of jytdog:false accusation, pushing to the point of breaching civility and tag team reversal. editor even started Rfc. He left WP since.
 * wrongly accused, reverting and belittling me [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid&diff=next&oldid=634030503 you seem to be confusing the reference name with the reference itself. there is no in-line reference here] was plain wrong. there was an inline ref and it was from "Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data". 24d.org (Dow AgroSciences, Nufarm Ltd. and Agro-Gor Corporation. he appeared to prevent me from tagging that.
 * wrongly accused user:EllenCT to be disruptive about neonicotinoid ANI didn’t go anywhere, but she stopped editing there.
 * wrongly accused and angered longtime respected chem editor user:DePiep on glyphosate, sought a block for violating WP:NPA by making unfounded accusations of COI 26 March 2015. De Piep got blocked x48h [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked]
 * accused me 13 April 2015 of "misconstruing" and wrongly attacked me w "stupid editwarring"(I did not – another user editwarred, I reverted the addition of an error) on my user page, then on article talk page correcting his false attack by writing "others editwarring". I asked him to retract the incivility by mixing in inaccurate information he provokes responses. Instead, reverted "restored back to last stable version", an inaccurate editsummary, was a simple revert i.e. he never discussed why he wanted sourced statements gone, no WP:FOC.
 * Vindictive, opposing RfA 23 sept 2015 after she posted preliminary evidence on this page about him.
 * Banned from numerous user pages (Coretheapple, Dr Chrissy, Viriditas, mine and likely more that I am unaware of)

WP:PRIMARY Dogmatic removals, never tagging WP: PRIMARY allowed when serving his WP:POV
 * on neonicotinoid 4/2015[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neonicotinoid&diff=prev&oldid=659781736 removed content based on WP:PRIMARY sources] --I reverted per WP:DONTBITE and wp:primary, kingofaces reverts me, Gandydancer reverts, then jytdog reverts her, I revert jytdog while discussing, jytdog reverts me, I rephrase, add results, in edit conflict, which kingofaces reverts- so the Nature study remains out of the article to this day.
 * reverted on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid June 2015 negative effect on male fertility  fails MEDRS when I challenged him that it looked like tendentious editing, he reverted me 20 June 2015 with more paternalistic tone we don't include content about health based on primary sources per MEDRS, but 14 h later  added source to his credit.
 * sept 2014 reverted content on neurotoxic mechanism of action
 * jytdog confused primary/industry reference with a reliable source when he removed my tag for third party ref needed.

WP:COI and WP:COIN
 * Opened cases on editors he doesn’t agree with SageRad 20 May 2015, suspicious for instrumentalization.
 * 18 April 2015 06:36 I posted a comment re WP COI guideline. someone posted Education noticeboard, and jytdog replied to it with the odd edit summary "damn german". given native speaker disclosure on my userpage, I read this as a personal attack.

Kingofaces43
Diffs below cannot be separated into categories usually showing more than one of these behavioral problems:
 * 1) WP:disruption by removing statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. #WP:Tendentious editing
 * 2) using misleading edit summary, presumably to dodge scrutiny
 * 3) overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines eg WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT.WP:AGF, avoiding to focus on content,
 * 4) judging content, such as WP:fringe, without providing evidence
 * on Glyphosphate "Seems fine to keep in the body for now per WP:RECENTISM with discussion in sources still ongoing about the WHO's statement. Best to give it some time. misleading edit summary ('Seems fine to keep in the body for now' implies KEEPING, ie moving it to body, but he deleted De Piep insertion of March 2015 WHO report re carcinogenicity citing WP:RECENTISM which is WP:JUSTALINK
 * 2,4D 28 June 2014 Discuss in talk if and how some content should be re-added. Removed an entire section WP:RS section on dioxin impurities Notability. I reintroduced a single RS sentence which he fought tooth and nail, claiming no WP:consensus, as another editor started to believe him solely because King kept reverting me. Called edit WP:FRINGE, though sourced by EPA, WHO and UNEP.
 * commented on Talk 2,4D Reversion of Update by continuous accusations harping on numerous side issues, but failed to engage on the central one: Dioxin contamination was in the article for a long time with an old source. when I added a source suddenly the whole section was deleted. At the end of the talk page he explained his use of "we", which comes across as pluralis maiestatis, as his way of addressing me. This is obviously false. The plural of you (singular) is the same word.
 * Neonicotinoid 21 July 15 Remove unreliable source for scientific content. Specify chemical. Kingofaces43 removes a Guardian source, but leaves the WP:primary, which the Guardian referred to (and which is subscr only, reason to add newspaper sources). on 26 July 2015 I reinserted the WP:RS of Guardian, warning he was edit warring, instead of discussing.
 * Neonicotinoid 26 July 2015 I inserted "An author funded by Bayer", which Kingofaces didn’t want to be mentioned. King reverts with "will need discussion and consensus per WP:STATUSQUO", but also adds: "A later study found the analysis was confounded with other co-occurring insecticides" in poor English ("concomitant use of" would have worked) and editwars to keep it.
 * on Monsanto removed 2 sections of biblio and documentaries "Agree that some are definitely fringe....aren't needed or adding much..happy to discuss" invoking WP:FRINGE I stepped in restore docu/ biblio sections COMPLETELY deleted by Kingofaces,which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary. On Talk:Monsanto kingofaces is unfriendly sounding, belittles my edit summary as "ranting". procaryote wrote he’s been bullied on his user page.
 * re-introduced bad source with misleading edit summary: "Restore sources with better attribution per WP:BLPSPS". INstead of discussing on talk, he editwarred and twisted WP:BLPSPS and was insincere writing "happy to discuss" in editsummary (lipservice). I started discussion

JzG
poor decorum for an administrator.

WP:Tendentious editing = disruption WP:Civil POV pushing =misrepresenting others or other discussions, labeling, to incriminate or belittle and discredit their opinion. uses pluralis maiestatis like jytdog, kingofaces
 * removed WP:RS which he orphaned, instead of correcting it with arrogant (don't see where it was nuked, feel free to bring it back with the original if it's reliable edit summary)
 * 14 September 2015 onTalk:Kevin Folta defended Kingofaces, replying "Rubbish. Wikipedia allows for statements by individuals to be sourced from their own self-published work”. Either he mixed up sources or deliberately made a strawman argument diverting to Folta's own blog, which was not the issue I raised.WP:Uncivil to call my communication 'rubbish'
 * sarcastic to SageRad in revertAlways nice to hear editors' opinions of what constitutes "top quality", but we go by peer-reviewed publication ? twinkle abuse, since no WP:vandalism.
 * sarcasm on talk:Kevin Folta inappropriate
 * false accusation on glyphosatereverting me sentence was correct and WP:RS
 * on Glyphosate 5 Oct 15 deleted with sarcastic edit summary citing essay stub he just created (‎Endocrine disruption: remove primary study in animal model. I think we should have a WP:IOANNIDIS policy.
 * referred to teaching moment, lectures others and saying editor is net drain to the project

WP:Primary argument
 * on Glyphosate reverting IARC monograph ref, then re-reverting editor in tandem with Kingofaces.


 * on Glyphosate 5 Oct 15 re-reverting. "Reverted to revision 684268644 by Kingofaces43: Yes, actually they are, because the article is bvecoming bloated and we need to start using broader and more summary statements. (TW)). no vandalism. And "Reverted to revision 684275942 by Kingofaces43 (talk): So you go for one older primary source? No.(TW)"


 * ✅ -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Proposed_decision
There is a serious issue with this proposal. ArbCom's responsibility on Wikipedia is to resolve disputes when all other methods of resolving the dispute have failed. ArbCom does not and can not create policy. This prohibition is the creation of policy. While smaller in scope than the ACTRIAL debacle, it is doing effectively the same thing; preventing the editing of a wide swath of articles. While ArbCom has the authority to apply discretionary sanctions, and apply sanctions directly against individual editors, ArbCom does not have the authority or scope to apply sanctions across the board to a class of editors. There is a distinct difference here, a line in the sand if you will, that makes this a case of policy rather than a case of sanction or remedy. Let's take two cases here, scaled up, to help illustrate the difference. I'm not attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument here, but rather highlight how this remedy is actually a policy change: In the former case, we deal with disruption. In the latter case, we upend the very basis on which Wikipedia was founded.
 * 1) A disruptive editor disrupts 100s of articles in a topic area. We have a multitude of options; topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, etc. If we scale such a remedy, we pick up more editors who are disruptive. This is a good thing.
 * 2) We apply this general prohibition to the same topic area. We scale it to cover many topic areas, perhaps all of Wikipedia. We've now blocked all new editors from editing any articles.

One might argue this sanction has already worked on Gamergate, so therefore it is probably good. If that be the case, then surely it would work on all of these as well? At what point do we declare this bad? One topic area? 10? 100000? Scale from 1 disruptive editor to 10, to 100000 and we're still ok. Scale general prohibitions and we're talking a shutting down of the project. The difference is stark.

I will state this as plainly as I can; ArbCom does not have the authority to put in place a remedy such as this. ArbCom could make a recommendation that the community consider such a prohibition, but it is up to the community to decide if that should be done, NOT ArbCom. Even so, the community's decision to do so would likely be shot down by the WMF, just as ACTRIAL was.

I'm engaging you on this as I believe you are the author of the general prohibition. Do the right thing. Take it down. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The question isn't can arbcom pass remedies like this it is should arbcom pass remedies like this. In 2009 all of scientology was banned and in 2011, administrators were granted the right to bar editing from an IP address from any page about abortion. There is nothing in the arbcom policy that restricts us from doing this. As for the WMF, from the informal feelers that I have sent out about this, there wouldn't be any issue from them. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between banning a type of editor based on their behavior and banning a class of editor. This prohibition falls into the latter. That's making policy, not remedies. Applying sanctions to people who have done nothing wrong is flat out unconscionable. That something similar has been done in the past is absolutely no excuse, and every experienced editor knows such an assertion is false on the face of it. Where would you suggest drawing the line? Just this area? What about other controversial areas? Why not all areas? There's a reason we do not ban IP editors from editing the featured article of the day, even though we KNOW vandalism happens to every featured article of the day. If any experienced member of the project can't understand why that is important, they shouldn't even be on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Hammersoft:) There's a reason we do not ban IP editors from editing the featured article of the day, even though we KNOW vandalism happens to every featured article of the day. If any experienced member of the project can't understand why that is important, they shouldn't even be on the project.
 * I have just checked you contributions. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia project and not a political project. I brought more content than you will ever bring in your whole life. You came on this case and made your comments without even reading the evidence, without even trying to understand the issues, without an once of empathy for those who suffer the situation. We all understand why the 500/30 is a complex issue but you clearly don't. You just complain.
 * If somebody "shouldn't even be on the project", it is clearly you. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mail
at ArbComL. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I got it and I am looking over it. - Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Toil
Hello - I moved the wiktionary link to the top because "toil" is a common English word, and even though we do not have an article on its meaning (because WP is not a dictionary), people can be expected to be looking for that meaning. So having a wiktionary link at the top of the page makes sense. I don't know how many GAs have one there, but it seems fairly usual for articles and disambiguation pages overall when the title is a common word. And bottom line, why not if it's helpful to our readers? Would you consider reverting your revert? Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a disambiguation hat note at the top of the page that links to more traditional meanings of the term as well as wiktionary. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine, although I see that another editor is challenging the existence of the dab page. If it gets deleted, maybe revisit? Dohn joe (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We can discuss it then -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Guerillero - I apologize but it appears that just as I was adding a little light-hearted humor to the Workshop TP, my edit conflicted with what you were trying to accomplish. I will stand in the corner for the next half-hour, so please don't be upset with me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * no harm, no foul -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
Guerillero, you topic banned me from all gender-related disputes for an edit I made to the Rape On Campus page. If you take a look at the edit, you can see that it is not inflammatory, nor is it a personal attack. Yes, I added some flair to the sentence, and I should not have done that. I apologize and it won't happen again. Secondly, I have not made ANY edits to the GG article in nearly 6 months. I understand the need for some accountability, but don't you think an indef ban is a bit strong? I'm hoping you will reconsider, because I AM interested in gender related topics, but I will agree to stay away from them for the time being. I just feel the ban you've given me is a bit heavy handed, and if you really look at my edit history, you will see what I am talking about. Please at least reconsider the length of my punishment. Very truly yours, Cavalierman. Cavalierman (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not reversing or reducing your topic ban. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK understood. Not sure why I've been handed such a heavy punishment, but it looks like I've made my own bed and I'll have to lie in it.  Cavalierman (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Reading through the case you cited. I was, and still am, upset over what happened, but having some context is useful. I still think desysopping Yngvadottir over something so trivial was not right, nor was the block placed on Melleus/Eric in the first place. Neither one was "harming the project". It seems, in honesty, like the type of cruelty that springs from having power. I expected better of all of you. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * whether you, me, or the prophet Muhammad agrees with the original block is neither here nor there. The blocking policy explicitly states that unilaterally reversing an enforcement block of an ArbCom decision "may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including desysopping—even for first-time incidents" and the discretionary sanctions policy states "Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped". Yngvadottir knew this and it has been policy general since before she joined the project. There is an appeal process and if there was a general agreement on AE or AN we would have been fine with the unblock. The reason that the arbitration process "works" is because it is final, for better or for worse. If people could reverse decisions or parts of a decision, the point of a final forum for dispute resolution would be null and void. I do not like pulling people's tools but when they knowingly violate one of the very few bright lines, there are few choices. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Peace be upon him. I wasn't being sarcastic, although I can certainly see how it might have seemed. I do stand by my original statement. I believe that the strength of this project lies in people, not beaurocracy. WP:IAR was written for cases just like this. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VlogBrothersYoutube2013.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:VlogBrothersYoutube2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * De orphaned -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)