User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 5

See here for related revision history

A Question
Sorry to bother you, but do you know what's going on with your amendment request? It's been about two weeks since any arbitrators commented in it. It also looks like Roger Davies never answered the question you asked him in his user talk.

I think maybe if you go to one of the arbitrators about this, it should be someone other than Roger Davies. I don't trust Roger Davies to know how to resolve the current situation, because I think he has some responsibility for why it exists. He was the one who proposed that SightWatcher and I be given interaction bans with everyone who's edited R&I articles, at a time when I hadn't edited them in four months and SightWatcher hadn't edited them in a year. I was not planning to get involved in R&I disputes again, so Roger Davies' proposal did not prevent anything that wouldn't have happened anyway, and it also created the new issue that you raised in your request. One of the other arbitrators might be more helpful for resolving this.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see now that AGK just proposed something in the amendment thread. I didn't notice that until after posting here.  I guess this proposal would be a very slight improvement, but I don't see how it would address the substance of the problem you described there.  What do you think?--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Grateful
asked me off-wiki to relay the following (reformatted slightly for clarity)


 * "Please let (The Devil's Advocate) know I am so very grateful for his investigations - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan "

Nobody Ent 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. :) --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A friendly notice
...so you will be aware.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. When you recently edited List of stutterers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

re ""Rape and pregnancy controversy" is not sufficiently clear and descriptive"
The title that you have moved the article to is at least as insufficiently clear and non- discriptive, as the controversy is about Akins claims that there is no such thing as rape-induced pregnancy. Please see the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just provided sourcing and arguments. His comments were that it is "rare" not that it does not exist, and even if he did claim there was no such thing it would still be clear and descriptive because saying "rape-induced pregnancy does not exist" would still very much be commenting about rape-induced pregnancy.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * please revert if his comments were only about rape induced pregnancy there would be no issue. THE salient features are the DENIAL of rape induced pregnancy and the use of the phrase "legitimate rape". --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it is all within the context of his comments on rape-induced pregnancy and denying its existence, even if that were anywhere near an accurate description, would still be a comment on rape-induced pregnancy. Detail on exactly what was said is provided later.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

see page move war -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN Review, Paul Ryan
Have some cookies!



Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer as reviewer to replace me from the consensus that was formed that I have significant enough contributions to disqualify me as reviewer. While the move of the original GAN review was done without my knowledge and before a formed decision was made to move forward with sufficient time for editors to weigh in, I support you as reviewer and if the review should go forward, please do not feel obligated to "Lean on me" or use me in the manner that was proposed. You need to feel free to do this as you would any other review. I will be happy to collaborate with others to address any concerns you may have and hope you enjoy the project. Happy editing and again, thank you for stepping forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and I would be happy to see you involved in helping the article meet up to Good Article standards.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are probably aware that this GAN is a collaboration sponsored by WPConservatism and is composed of 4 editors. I wanted to inform you that due to a recent series of confrontations with a certain editor on the Ryan Team I am reluctantly withdrawing from this GAN. The rest of the team can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw I would've enjoyed working with either of you--since both of you are fine editors. Good luck. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giordano's Pizzeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Plotting to have me blocked.
After this comment, I think it would be best if you stayed far, far away from me, including my talk page. This sort of scheming is precisely what makes WP:AGF an ironic joke. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you take it that way, but I am simply noting the facts. Voluntarily stepping away was a less messy option to take and you did not take it. Mind you, I was not the one to bring you up at ANI and that you were brought up is a product of the attention you have drawn to yourself. Certainly do not like the idea of you being singled out on this matter, though.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for losing my temper with you. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, no big. Far worse has been said to me I assure you.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason I'm here, the only reason I put up with all the nonsense, is that I'm motivated by a strong sense of justice. However, every strength is, in some context, a weakness. Here, I responded to a perceived injustice in a manner that was itself unjust. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So true about strenghts sometimes being weaknesses. The flip side can be good to keep in mind too.
 * "Don't look for the flaws as you go through life
 * And even when you find them,
 * It is wise and kind to be somewhat blind
 * And look for the virtue behind them." FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, I have no mercy for flaws, but I do have some mercy for the people responsible for them. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the sources
...and you'll see why this reversion of yours makes no sense. It is about BP and its safety record. The leader of BP is implicated in its strategic goal of cost-cutting which resulted poor safety. The person involved, John Browne (now Sir John) is quite famous, so the WP:WELLKNOWN part of WP:BLP applies. High quality reliable sources can be used to say negative things about the guy. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the article is about BP and you are inserting this material about a living person into the lede and other prominent areas of the article. The material could even be taken as implying Browne was at fault for Deepwater Horizon, since it makes no mention of him having resigned from the company three years prior to the oil spill while clearly arguing that he was responsible for the company's poor environmental record.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you're seeing. None of the sources say Browne was directly connected to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and I didn't say that either. It looks like a straw man argument against my perfectly good text, cited to high quality sources.
 * If you had simply intended to make it clear that Browne had resigned before Deepwater, you could have added that datum easily. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that still wouldn't justify singling out a living former executive prominently in the lede of an article on a company with over a hundred years of history.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. After a recent edit, Browne is no longer specifically singled out in the lede.  The "issue" is still there in the lede; it just doesn't have his face on it anymore.  I do feel this subject matter deserves summary space in the lede, even if the most notable living figure central to that subject matter isn't given a name until later in the article.  I made that edit not because there was any WP:BLP issue (I don't see any violation, although there may be a valid WP:WEIGHT concern), but because it was being cited as a justification to perform mass reverts involving unrelated material. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

New motion made
Hello TDA, I wanted to make sure you noticed the new motion that Roger Davies proposed in the amendment thread. He never responded to your question here, and from the motion he's proposing, it seems like he maybe never saw your question at all. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you understand why the arbitrators are saying that restoring Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk was a violation of my topic ban? Echigo Mole has never edited R&I articles, his comments that I restored did not mention R&I, and he was banned by the community just for socking, not for anything R&I related.  I pointed this out here, but none of the arbitrators acknowledged it.  If I get site banned because they think my restoring the posts was a topic ban violation, I don't think I'm ever going to understand the reason. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think unless they approve of my initial request you should avoid discussing Echigo's conduct anywhere but the amendment case. While Echigo's obsession with Math has nothing to do with R&I, his obsession has included going after Math directly or indirectly in userspace and projectspace on matters concerning the topic area so talking about Echigo's conduct would at least fall under the "commenting on conduct" restriction that extends to all of Wikipedia. As a result, you could conceivably be blocked for commenting about the non-R&I conduct of this banned editor as absurd as that may seem.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My topic ban says that I am prohibited from commenting on the conduct of editors "who have worked in the topic." Ever since I got blocked for violating this the first time, I've thought what it means is that I'm not allowed to discuss the conduct of anyone who has edited those articles.  Do you think "editors who have worked in the topic" really also includes editors who have never edited the articles, but attacked other editors who did?  That probably includes about half of all the people at Wikipedia, and Mathsci could argue that it even includes you. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am saying the Echigo mole has contributed to project pages specifically concerning R&I even if it was just to attack Mathsci's conduct. I don't really know how other admins would interpret it, but during this process (I believe it was at AE) an admin has already suggested that commenting on Echigo mole's conduct would therefore fall under the restriction. Since "worked in the topic" does not mention the nature of that work or strictly state that it is referring to work in articlespace, it is probably safer to presume that it refers to any R&I-related activity.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think this means I can never say anything about you either? You've also criticised Mathsci's conduct on R&I related project pages. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My conduct would specifically be a forbidden subject for you as I understand the restriction given my involvement on the R&I issues in this case, especially since I have made an edit to an R&I page during the course of this case. Interactions and mentions of my name are perfectly acceptable under that restriction.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think maybe it would be best for you to withdraw your amendment request. It looks like the only outcome it will have is an additional sanction for me, and it won't even be a sanction that affects anything that matters.  The new prohibition is against restoring edits of people banned in respect of R&I, but the reason for Echigo Mole's ban has nothing to do with R&I.  A few people have mentioned this, including Roger Davies here, but the proposal looks like it will pass anyway.


 * I really appreciate the gesture and the effort you've made to help me, but I think the avenue you've pursued probably will only cause more problems for me. Sometimes it's wisest to just cut one's losses. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point they won't close it without reaching a decision on the proposed motions. Withdrawing my request won't do much.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your new motion
Regarding your suggested motion, doesn't TrevelyanL85A2 already have the right to appeal? His topic-ban apparently contains no restriction against filing an appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't know. Usually there is some mention made of a way to appeal a sanction either in the wording about the restriction or on a section of the case page and appeal is mentioned explicitly regarding Ferahgo and Occam. If the position of ArbCom has been that they can appeal at any time then this should probably be stated.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If they put a restriction on Ferahgo and Occam, but not TrevelyanL85A2, that means TrevelyanL85A2 doesn't have a restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

9/11 TBAN Violation
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for Violation of 9/11 TBAN per my talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. WGFinley (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I'm a bit disappointed you have chosen to violate your ban. Whether you think you are being helpful or not doesn't enter into the decision, you are banned from those pages, broadly construed which means going to my talk page about those pages is in violation. --WGFinley (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please rescind your block. This kind of error is only different from obvious vandalism in that it was unintentional. I don't think any editor could possibly disagree that this was a glaring error in need of fixing.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the change DA made; he fixed a neutral problem in the formatting of the talk page and then notified you. This is very clearly a harmless action taken in good faith, so I don't see any benefit to punishing him with a long block.
 * The reason for a topic ban is that an editor has shown an ability to contribute positively on a topic, but his edit had no bearing on the contents of the article and was entirely inoffensive.
 * I suggest that you terminate the block and let him off for time served. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WG probably didn't even seriously examine the edit, if he even looked at it, because his whole mantra is that he doesn't "analyze" content when deciding conduct disputes. He even boasts of it on his user page. It is patently ridiculous to block anyone for any period of time for fixing an obvious formatting error that didn't have any impact on content whatsoever when anyone else would have done the same thing. Had he blocked me for a day I could just shrug it off, but this is absurd.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is counterproductive. At most, you needed a stern warning. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be a severe over-reaction. Arzel (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, WP:BAN doesn't explicitly say this sort of thing is exempt from topic bans, but I kind of doubt the failure to mention obvious errors that have the same disruptive effect as vandalism is due to anything other than a lack of imagination. Policy just doesn't talk about the appropriate way of dealing with obvious mistakes by editors-in-good-standing.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense isn't. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the nature of your ban, and it really is not relevant. What I see is an editor that was trying to fix a problem that had nothing to do with a point of view or edit warring or anything for which a ban would have been put forth.  I can understand the desire by Admins to treat these issues as black and white in order to avoid any appearances of unequal application across events, but such an approach puts into question the need for an admin all together.  If rules are always bright lines which must never be crossed, then it would make just as much sense to create a bot that does all the dirty work.  Two weeks for this trangression IMO is simply not consistant with the purpose of blocks.  Arzel (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thing is I can't even prove them wrong about whether I was "testing the boundaries" because there is no way I can prove my motivations. An admin is free to say that I was just trying to "test the boundaries" and not assume good faith, while I am incapable of proving them wrong because it is inherently an argument about something intangible. If they aren't willing to take my word that I thought an error was little different from the obvious vandalism exempt from topic bans and that, therefore, it was fully respecting the spirit of the ban to correct the error, then there is no way I can refute that claim.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban is just that, a ban. It is there in place of a block to allow the editor to constructively edit in other areas and stay out of the one they cause disruption at. TDA has been blocked for willfully violating the ban before and he has done it again in this case. His own edit summary indicates he is aware of his ban and he is not to edit that page, he could have notified any number of admins, other editors on the article, or just left it for another editor to fix. This ban was issued to prevent further disruption because TDA has gradually escalated as time has gone along, this started out as a short TBAN, then a long one, then a long one including ALL of 9/11. It's a pattern of testing the boundaries of the ban. --WGFinley (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Offer
In light of the long period you went without any violations to your ban I am willing to lift the block. I only require you to acknowledge your ban (of which you have only a bit more than two weeks left) and that means no edits to articles that fall under your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will commit to not fixing any more glaring errors on these articles for the rest of the ban if you like, but if something is clearly vandalism or clearly a BLP violation I am allowed to address that per WP:BAN. This doesn't mean I acknowledge any legitimacy to your actions in this case and I always "acknowledged" my topic ban.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WG, I think you should also consider that this block is enforcing a rigid adherence to the letter of policy at the expense of allowing improvements to the encyclopedia, which is ultimately what we are here to do lest you forget.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish, the block stands. --WGFinley (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I pretty clearly said I would not repeat this type of edit. The only thing I would conceivably do in the next two and a half weeks, if it should even come up, is revert obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And those were not the terms. Your edit was neither reverting vandalism or making a revert on a BLP violation. Since you continue to test the boundaries of your ban the terms are no edits to 9/11 articles, no exceptions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the course of the next two and a half weeks I probably won't even see anything like obvious vandalism before it gets reverted so it is basically about the principle. Please, allow me that much consideration and let me get back to actually improving content.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I have outlined the terms, you can agree to them (no weasel words allowed) or you can remain blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

TDA, I know you look to me for highly valuable unsolicited advice, so allow me to offer you some: take the deal. Agree not to edit that article at all. I'll put it on my watchlist and if I see vandalism or BLP, I'll remove it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if he frames it as "voluntarily agrees to refrain from any edits, exempt or otherwise, related to the topic area for the remainder of the ban save for those involving dispute resolution" then that would be fine. Any attempt to frame this as a necessary restriction to address some misconduct is no good, because I have not done anything that would justify preventing me from reverting obvious vandalism.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As to your suggestion to get involved, I'm not concerned about vandalism too much, I just find WG's demands inappropriate and punitive given the circumstances.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm requiring you not to edit articles you aren't supposed to be editing anyway. You aren't exactly demonstrating you've learned from your ban and can harmoniously contribute to the 9/11 topic area by continuing to carry on. The terms are you acknowledge your ban and agree not to make any edits of any kind to 9/11 articles for the remainder of your ban. A simple "I understand" or "I agree" will suffice and I will unblock you. --WGFinley (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: my usual action for a TBAN editor who violates their TBAN is to block and reset their ban. If this had been an article edit as opposed to a talk page edit that's what I would have done. I haven't done that here and understand you thought you were just helping out. What I'm asking you to understand is that you are banned and you need to demonstrate restraint and come up with other ways to deal with it or just ignore it. That's showing you've learned something from your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what, just impose whatever conditions you want and lift the block. Dealing with you isn't worth it anymore. I only got two weeks left on this topic ban anyway.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, I am not suggesting an extension of the topic ban. That would simply be unacceptable.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've lifted the block, you are not allowed to make any edits to any article that would fall under your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not able to comment at this point (see above), but I will say I think this is a little much. There are general sanctions on the article and Rtm has been warned about them so you could have just requested sanctions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free covers and such
With all due respect, I don't think putting words into my mouth is at all fair. I most certainly do not "only begrudgingly accept" (for instance) album covers on articles about albums. In fact, I often add them, and you'll note that album articles I have written (which include several featured articles) feature non-free covers, despite the fact, in most cases, that the covers themselves are not particularly noteworthy.

It seems to be an issue of common sense that album covers do not automatically meet NFCC#8 when an album is discussed. We have to remember that albums and their covers are different things, and while an album may be highly important to the subject of an article, the cover of that album simply needn't be. NFCC#8 requires that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Are we really going to say that readers are always worse-off when they cannot see album covers when albums are discussed? No, of course not. To take a concrete example, is the reader significantly worse off when they read through this article and don't see File:Faryl album cover.jpg or File:Faryl Smith Wonderland.jpg? It's clear that the albums are discussed at length; but that doesn't mean that the covers are particularly significant. Do you feel that my article is worse-off for not having those covers? If not, then our positions aren't all that far apart. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I stand corrected, though my comment is certainly true of Masem.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wikimedia UK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK problem now addressed?
Hi, many thanks for doing the DYK review. FYI, I think I've now addressed the problem you identified (DIFF), and responded on the DYK review page. Perhaps its now good to go? If not, I'll work on any followup. Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. FYI, I've offered an ALT1 hook at the DYK review page. -- Presearch (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wikimedia UK
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

==Modification to May PC be applied to pages to protect against violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)?==

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Zoological conspiracy theories AfD
In a long discussion, most closes aren't going to address every offhanded point. The closing comment doesn't really delve into NOT#NEWS because the policy don't say what it's being used to say (and consequently, it doesn't form a very significant part of the subsequent discussion), whereas the SYNTH argument at least has some merit. And here, unless you're making an esoteric argument I'm missing, INDISCRIMINATE and SYNTH - and NOR - for that matter - are all making the same fundamental argument - that the article is a collection of unrelated material that the editors here have combined into a topic even though no reliable sources do that - which is a sensible argument, but runs into a wall that some of the sources do do that. Which I did address. If you're expecting me to address every comment in a discussion where a few dozen people comment and there's back and forth - you're always going to be disappointed. If there's a specific question you think I should've addressed but didn't, ask for it (specifically). Wily D 16:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the policy says exactly what it was being used to say. The events being cited are just the typical flash-in-the-pan news stories about paranoid villagers spreading bizarre gossip about their supposed enemies. I did not say that the material was unrelated either. My exact words were "tangentially-related" and the sources bear this much out. Basically the sources provided were just news stories about one non-notable event at the time it happened that had a paragraph or a few sentences noting some other non-notable news event that also involved crazy claims about animals and Israel. Sometimes the sources mentioned other claims that had nothing to do with animals just as much or more than they mentioned the claims about animals.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Go and re-read WP:NOT, then, since you're clearly confused about what it says. There's a reason that argument didn't gain any traction in the discussion - because it doesn't apply.  If you're going to try and apply it so far from what it says and how it's usually applied, you need to make a compelling case (at least, a real case - not just relying on the policy to do the heavy lifting where it doesn't apply).  Beyond that - my closing rationale pretty clearly addresses the (un, tangentially)-related complaint - I see where it's coming from, but there's other sources presented are making this connection, which effectively refutes the complaint that it's the result of Wikipedia's editors combining (un,tangentially)-related material. Wily D  17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-read it before you even suggested it and read it before I cited it. Here is what it says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." That is exactly how I was using it as that's exactly how one would describe these events. As to your comments about the material somehow not being tangentially-related, the term "tangential" does not mean that a relationship is not claimed. It means the events are only "slightly connected" and this is definitely the case. All that is being used to connect the events is that the events all involve some group of Arabs/Muslims claiming some animal is being used by Israel for something bad. Articles should be based off more than that.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A subject where all the coverage exists over a day, or a week, would fail a presumption of enduring notability; every professional sports game is written up in newspapers; often even national or global ones, yet they typically fail because they're written about the day after, maybe the day before, and then forgotten. A subject with coverage over the last three years can't be presumed to just be news merely because most sources are newspapers - maybe it's possible to make that argument, but in such an exceptional case one needs to compile a compelling argument (and realistically, since you're moving so far away from the policy and its normal usage, it's effective an IAR and thus needs a strong consensus - not to be a weakly argued minority position).
 * Beyond that, how strongly related the cases are is subjective, but where the sources are tying them together, it's effectively the case that the "unrelated-ness" is OR, and the relatedness is V; the opposite of the case where sources don't tie them together (or better, explicitly note they're unrelated). Where editors disagree, as closer, I have to favour the editors who're backed by the sources. Wily D  05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously aren't clear on what WP:NOT#NEWS is about or how it applies here. WP:INDEPTH has some more specific guidance on this issue. The article basically just put together routine news reports over specific events based off trivial mentions of one in connection with another to try and circumvent the WP:PERSISTENCE objection. Also, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but my argument was not about them being "unrelated" at all. It was about them being only tangentially related.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should go back and look at the article then - you're either confused about what NOT#NEWS says, or so mistaken about the article's content that it comes across to me like you don't know what NOT#NEWS says. INDEPTH makes the point that trivial mentions of an event don't demonstrate notability (this is just restating N anyhow).  I'd say maybe go back to the discussion, but the discussion essentially ignores the NOT#NEWS argument because it's complete rubbish, whereas the SYNTH argument has some merit (though it can't carry the discussion against the sources to the contrary).  Routine news reports are things that are reported routinely - hockey scores, lotto numbers, traffic accidents - then forgotten the next day; something that maintains a news presence for three years is far from that - enough that you'd need to build a real argument, not just link to policies that don't make the argument that you want to make.
 * And yes, using unrelated when you're saying tangentially related is a little lazy language on my part, but the underlying argument remains the same. Wily D 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say you are adhering too strictly to the letter of the policy, but even the letter of the policy is not so obscenely limited. Generally WP:NOT#NEWS also applies to events that only see a brief spike in media coverage around the time the event is occurring. All of those incidents saw nothing other than a brief spike of coverage. No "years" of coverage exists for the manufactured subject or any of these incidents. All we have is coverage in reliable sources of one event where, occasionally, there is a trivial mention of one or more of the past events.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think DRV is better than re-opening the discussion (especially after it's been closed for a while) - although I suspect the outcome will either be endorse with a substantial minority wanting to overturn to no consensus, or overturn to no consensus with a substantial minority endorsing. Neither is a change from the status quo, unless you're inclined to think an overturn to no consensus is a necessary step to an immediate new AfD (which'll just go to the same place - either a weak keep, or somewhere on the keep-y side of no consensus).  If you're keen, go ahead, but I suspect it'll just be a pointless mess.  Fundamentally, I think it needs a smart plan that makes disinterested editors go "Hey, that's a smart plan" - which neither deletion nor keeping in it's current form really are; but as closing admin, based on the discussion, there wasn't much I could do expect note that there's a POV problem, and tell people to fix it (at least, I didn't see anything else I could do.)   Wily D  08:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese
The DRV was closed as no prejudice to having a merge discussion. Obviously, I want to start that discussion, but to what page? I'm leaning toward Mozzarella cheese or Pizza p  b  p  06:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking that it could be turned into a disambiguation page. Content about analogue pizza cheese could be moved to the cheese analogue article, content about mozzarella moved to mozzarella, and anything left moved to the article on pizza along with a summary of the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DA, I am very concerned to see you attempt to accomplish a merger without having the merge discussion as directed by the DRV ruling. Yes, I will likely be opposed to a merge as I was in the AfD, but your unilateral acts are simply the same as those arguments which failed to gain any traction in the DRV discussion.  There's nothing wrong with having a minority opinion and being unable to convince other editors of your viewpoint, it happens all the time.  There's always so much else we can do around here.  Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken  00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins are not the arbiters of content. They cannot "direct" how merges are implemented and there was nothing improper about my edits, one way to get consensus is through bold edits. A majority of editors at AfD actually supported a merge, most of these editors being completely impartial, and you and your ARS cohorts gave no valid argument against it, just the typical partisan "WP:GNG!" and "Merge is the same as delete!" nonsense.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese and the ARS
First off, I kid you not, there's an "I voted to keep Pizza Cheese" userbox

Second, IRWolfie (with a little help from me) is tinkering with an RfC that is probably going to mention some of the concerns you had on the ARS talk page with CANVASSing (and hopefully, it'll mention the increased vitriol promulgated by Milowent and others) p  b  p  22:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the "pizza cheese freedom fighter" thing. It is not unusual conduct at all for the ARS. Earlier this year, when I first ran into them, the immediate cries of "censorship" and "deletionist" that greeted me made it abundantly clear that the dominant members of the group have a serious persecution complex. However, IR's planned RFC will not achieve anything if it is an attempt to shut down the group as the broader community will likely not find that to be appetizing, so it would have to focus on how to reform the group to the point where it would strictly comply with WP:CANVASS. You would also have to be extra clear that shutting down the group is not the purpose and be sure to pre-empt any attempts to characterize it differently. At least a few editors who jumped onto the previous RfC to support the ARS were likely getting there from a rather slanted Signpost article that implied the RfC was moving to get rid of the ARS.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the answer is get rid of Template:Rescue list and to topic-ban the one to three most egregious editors (coughmilowentcought). But I wouldn't mind it if ARS went away  p  b  p  01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt topic bans would achieve much. For one, there will likely just be more editors popping up to take their place. Getting rid of the list would certainly make canvassing difficult, but many members would rightly see that as effectively killing the wikiproject. Not to mention that the rescue list itself was created just two days after the rescue tag got deleted so that could easily happen again with an editor coming up with some new way to do the same thing the list does. No, the easiest way to sell it is to have their activities restricted to the point where a notification can't sway an editor one way or the other and voting by members at the AfDs of listed articles will be more strongly discouraged.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have one possible suggestion for reform. limiting ARS to working on userfied deleted pages, and working through AFC. This was there are no deletion discussions to canvass for etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is that, while the problem may seem obvious to us, it will not be as clear to the wider community who may have had little or no interaction with the group. So, being as conservative as possible in your suggestions increases the chances of success. I have some ideas that I can work on for how the group might reform.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to present a bucket load of evidence. For that reason I'll need the full month. I've already started here User:IRWolfie-/sandbox3. If you want to dump any diffs, I'll wade through them. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
There is a discussion concerning an issue you have been involved in here: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.10.133 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U?
Someone commenting in my user talk pointed me to this thread, and this comment from you where you said you would consider an RFC/U against Mathsci if his behavior didn't improve. Is that something you'd consider now?

I feel like an astronaut who's in the process of being sucked into a black hole. In some cases Mathsci continued focusing on editors who had been disengaged from the R&I topic for more than a year, so even if I quit the R&I topic right now I'm not confident that will solve anything. I don't want the same thing to happen to me that happened to all of them.

If you have any advice on how to stop this other than an RFC, that would be great too. Zeromus1 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to give Mathsci a little time before pursuing any such action.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At what point do you think an RFC/U will be appropriate? Based on how long these things have been going on, it's difficult for me to imagine they will end anytime soon. Zeromus1 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is appropriate to wait at least until the AE case is resolved.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, as long as you don't get a block or an interaction ban in that thread.


 * In addition to the current issue involving you and Cla68, I think an RFC/U about Mathsci also should cover some of the editors he pursued before I came on the scene, such as Ludwigs2, Miradre and SightWatcher. In their cases Echigo Mole seems to have had nothing to do with his reason for pursuing them, so they show this whole issue isn't EM's fault. Zeromus1 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Zero, I am really not considering anything at this point and don't think you should be considering anything either. That is not because I somehow think his conduct is appropriate, obviously not, but I just don't feel like the current situation warrants it as of yet and I don't really want to expend much energy on this at the moment.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have my heart set on an RFC/U. I'm just looking for any way to stop the same thing from happening to me that's now happening to you.


 * You haven't yet answered one of the things I asked in my first post. Can you think of any way it would be possible to stop this besides an RFC/U?  I initially considered raising the issue at WP:WQA, but that appears to no longer exist, and Mathsci also has already told me not to post in his user talk.  But maybe there are some other dispute resolution options that I don't know about. Zeromus1 (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Please see WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Per this AE thread, you are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with,, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a mutual interaction ban?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Harbor Country wikipage
I am an employee of the the Harbor Country Chamber of Commerce in New Buffalo,MI. I have added more to the Harbor Country page only to have you revise it each time. My understanding is Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that can be added to by anyone with positive intentions and with factual information. Hence I do have permission to update and add to the page as an employee of the Harbor Country Chamber of Commerce. Please revise back to my latest revision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.192.18 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The key there is that it is an encyclopedia, not a travel brochure or an advertising venue. Content should be written in a neutral manner that reflects what is found in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Simply copy-pasting promotional material from a site that is looking to garner business for the region is not appropriate.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also our conflict of interest guidelines. Sædon talk  20:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are named in an Arbcom request
Here.

World War II: What a story!
You’ve seemingly done research on my edits. When the devil takes enough interest in a mortal to send an emissary with a message, it merits serious attention. Thanks for "the heads up." Betempte (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are being accused
Of being a sockpuppet of this guy over here. Figured you have a right to know. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, it's just some trolling by an obvious sock account. Elen restored the trolling for some bizarre reason.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)