Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:20, 26 October 2012

User:Sally Season

Repeatedly blanked and restored during ANI, which was closed with page blanked. Concern that this may be a prohibited list per WP:UP#POLEMIC (editor at ANI suggested possible conflicts list). Taking to MFD in an attempt to settle more permanently the appropriateness of this list. No unique names 07:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my conclusion of the ANI discussion, which I participated in briefly, is that this is a list of editors that Sally Season has had negative interactions with - there appears to be evidence that names were added to the list after such interactions. The user page should be deleted, and the user warned about a) having the list in the first place and b) lying about it at ANI. Giant Snowman 08:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is where things should have gone the first time rather than an ANI thread and then an edit war on the userpage. I'm not sure if it's an "enemies list" or just a list of editors Sally has interacted with (assuming good faith I'll go with the latter). It's still inappropriate to have it, so it should go. If Sally wishes to maintain a list of editors she/he has interacted with that can be kept off wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:UP#POLEMIC wouldn't seem to apply here as this is, As Sally has stated, directly related to their editing on Wikipedia. I find a lot of what editors do with their home pages, comments and signatures to be extremely offensive and disruptive but I also don't dwell on those things. Where's the cutoff of what one person finds offensive another finds empowering? Perhaps there is no easy answer here but I don't think this case rises to any disruption except by those wishing Sally wasn't here at all, and that seems to be based along party lines so likely will ebb a bit after the election season has passed. I can't help but feel this is a bit of a waste of time and making something more of what it actually is. Sally has stated this isn't an enemies list and frankly who's looking at it anyway? Is it really prohibited to have a list of editors? Perhaps that's a proposal that needs scrutiny. Insomesia (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate series of actions would involve a series of trouts being issued to the various uninvolved editors involved in this ridiculous hounding and a long block for Baseball Bugs for making a habit of the same. Is the list entirely innocent? Perhaps not. Does it fall foul of WP:POLEMIC? Don't be daft. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments presented by the "Delete" !voters so far are neither persuasive nor grounded in any policy I am aware of. I rebut them as follows:

"WP:UP#POLEMIC applies.": WP:UP#POLEMIC applies only to "material not related to encyclopedia editing". Notes on and used for on-wiki collaboration are clearly related to encyclopedia editing.
"This is a list of users with whom Sally Season has had negative interactions.": There is no direct evidence of this. This is merely a list of user names with neutral, single-word annotations.
"Lists of users with whom one has had negative interactions are against the rules.": Wikipedia is replete with lists of users with whom people have had negative interactions. Some of these are "official" pages in project space (e.g., WP:LTA), and others are in user space (see User:Psychonaut/User watchlists for a partial and very outdated list). So far no one has been able to point to any policy explicitly stating that such lists are prohibited, nor defining these lists in such a way as to make it clear whether or not Sally Season's is one of them. Previous attempts to delete such lists have not achieved any consensus. (The arguments presented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be instructive.)

Given that Sally Season's page is by no means unique, and that no policy specifically addresses such lists, this discussion can by no means "settle more permanently the appropriateness of this list". Editors who are interested in settling the matter need to use the usual channels to create a policy specifically treating such lists. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you skip this part in that section "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Arkon (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Thumperward, but his comments are spot-on; particularly the need for a lengthy block of Baseball Bugs. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been on the receiving end of Thumper's personal attacks many times. This is par for the course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced policy (POLEMIC) states "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." No evidence notations adjacent to user names are either attacks or flaws. Nobody Ent 11:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per thumperward and Ent, as there are other possible uses and there isn't any negativity at this point. The discussion is more disruptive than the page so far. If it actually goes polemic, then it can be reviewed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons already mentioned above. Ridiculous small-minded spill-over from the USA elections. - Takeaway (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously an enemies list, and such lists are against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm listed on the page and I don't see it as an attack. Could you show where we define this as an attack page? Likewise as an enemies list? Insomesia (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating these claims over and over doesn't make them true. Please provide evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the item below called "Evidence". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue is whether the page can reasonably be viewed as an attack on specific editors - in the case at hand, and seeing SS's SPA nature and interaction with such editors, it is more than reasonable to view it as an attack page. Surely SS has a blank sheet of paper if he or she wishes to "keep notes" - user pages are singularly ill-suited for such purposes. If SS wishes to have an "evidence page", then those strictures apply. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed is clear, and this is a guideline-based prohibition which is generally viewed as binding. The !votes for Keep do not negate the Wikipedia rules cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that this can reasonably seen as an attack page. I'm on it and certainly don't feel that way. Insomesia (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing written down that is negative in that short list. - Takeaway (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Arguments for delete simply aren't there. No evidence that it's anything bad. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand what the indication by my name means, but a short list containing indications of where conflicts arose with certain editors seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies. If SS were not an SPA, even if not well-liked, it would certainly be in keeping with policy. Basically, I agree with Psychonaut on this issue, and have little to add to zer reasoning. This is not to say that I believe that Wikipedia is better for SS's editing, but this list is not related to a reason for SS to be blocked or banned. I don't think there's grounds for a "Speedy Keep" though, as something like this list could be inappropriate. A raw list without comments (other than as a list of editors banned from SS's talk page) would be inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We delete pages that violate policy. The claim that this violates policies is a stretch too far. (I must point out I am here due to a talk page notice.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also, or I wouldn't have known about it, as SS is off my watch list. The editor who first raised the issue was Devil's Advocate. Whatever he currently thinks about this, I'd be inclined to go along with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is largely unnecessary; we simply need a cajone-laden admin to block this user if they restore the hit-list. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True. And since they already did restore it... well, there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence - as already stated at the ANI thread, which I doubt everyone here has read, all the editors listed have reverted, or been reverted by, Sally Season. Example - SS reverted Arthur Rubin's edit at David H. Koch following some back and forth between the two on that article, and then added him to the list only a minute later. That looks extremely dodgy to me, and AGF can only go so far. Giant Snowman 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) comment this whole thing has been handled poorly, but we do have "evidence" "My page is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, and to-do stuff. I have already explained that, and even went so far as to explain why I use that location. There is no enemy list, that is just weird fantasy, and overlooks the fact that the notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones. " I see no possible benefit to the project or the user to keep a grudge list to remind them of "less positive" encounters, even if it is mixed and merged with other content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the evidence above, it's obvious that this is a list of people who've reverted/been reverted by SS. Keeping such a list of editors -- along with labels like 'Rep' which are no doubt labeling someone as a Republican -- doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin seems to be a Libertarian. In any case, "Rep" could stand for almost anything, but assuming it is "Republican", in what way is that negative? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's "Republican"? Why not "reputable" or "reported" or "reprimanded"? Even if it is "Republican", it doesn't necessarily mean that Sally Season thinks he is a Republican. Perhaps it's a note that Rubin has been editing Republican-related articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little more common sense and a little less white-knighting for an obvious single-purpose-account would probably help you see that "Republican" is the far more likely of any of the above choices, given that this user's brief history consists entirely of anti-conservative editing. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't equate "common sense" with "a thorough examination of the user's editing history". I have not performed the latter, and don't think it's even particularly relevant to this discussion. POV-pushing concerns should be dealt with at the appropriate venue, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two are quite equitable, and if you'd done a bit of homework before jumping to an SPA's defense without the facts, we'd all have been better off. You're making ridiculous claims that "rep" could mean things like "reputable", when a simple perusal of Special:Contributions/Sally_Season show why that is clearly not the case. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Neither from the page itself nor from the so-called 'evidence' can it be concluded that this is a list of personal attacks or that there are any other breaches of rules and guidelines. I agree that this has been handled very poorly: the very first step, if any, should have come from the people listed there, not from a totally uninvolved editor. My advice to Sally Season to avoid future drama of this kind would be to put the list on a subpage like User:Sally Season/notes where it is less obviously displayed. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Per User:Dennis Brown and many others here. No one has provided a credible reason for deleting this, and the drama board and its denizens seem keen to waste everyone's time with this rather than making an encyclopedia. One can also easily argue the other side of the silly arguments they make: Sally is a new user, so in keeping track of interactions s/he might become a better editor. Perhaps this editor wants to make note of people who are knowledgeable (especially after a revert, since that might indicate to a new user that they've inadvertently introduced bad edits) such that they might learn from them. Baseball bugs and so on seem to be forgetting about WP:AGF. Note: I was invited here on my talk page T. trichiura Infect me 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Psychonaut and Dennis Brown. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[ec with JohnCD: John, it's always nice to see you.] I'm not really interested in this page and have no opinion one way or the other. I'd like to know why I'm on it, I guess, since I'm no policy buff--I suppose this is meant in irony or sarcasm, but I can't be bothered to care. I am stepping in as an admin here to fully protect the page for the duration of the MfD. As it happens, it's the unblanked version, which is the wrong version of course (but it always is); if anyone wants the list blanked while this MfD is running, I guess they can email ArbCom or file an Arbitration Request. Or get the president to intervene, claiming that national security is at stake. Or maybe an admin can speedily delete it for being divisive. ;) Good luck to everyone here, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think putting question marks or exclamation marks next to an editor's name inherently draws suspicion that there is something negative being stated or implied and Sally has not been willing to offer an explanation for the list, despite repeated civil requests. The circumstances that led to Arthur being listed, which Snowman notes above, make me suspect that this list is not simply a constructive log of interactions. Unless Sally offers a plausible and respectable explanation, it should be deleted. Surely, Sally can take notes about editors off-wiki without any difficulty and no one has to be left guessing as to the editor's intentions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments, especially The Devil's Advocate and OP. Very suspicious. User's stubborn attitude does not help. – Richard BB 14:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC). [reply]
Delete. Per policy (WP:Attack): "keeping a 'list of enemies' ...on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." Sprinkling in a couple friends (at the end) does not help. The first five listed people (of the seven total) are obviously listed as a result of having reverted, or been reverted by, the list-keeper earlier this month.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insomesia.--В и к и T 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is nothing the slightest disruptive about the user page maintained by the user himself. The disruption is the witchhunt against the user and his page by people that need to butt out. This is nothing more than an aid to memory for a user about wikipedia interactions. Nobody is accused of anything yet the page has been repeatedly blanked, as if messing with the user pages of others is standard operating procedure and there is something inherently and obviously wrong with the page's content. There isn't. Shameful that this is even being brought up for deletion... Carrite (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what instance would reminders about "as well as less positive" interactions, (as the editor has indicated the list to be) be of any value to either the editor or the project? A list of editors who know how to format tables or the intricacies of hummingbird polination or interpretation of copyright application would be perfectly fine. Grudge lists arent, and grudge lists candy coated and dispersed among other potentally acceptable data are not either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's so he can WP:DISENGAGE from those editors. Please remember to assume good faith T. trichiura Infect me 16:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - AGF is not a suicide pact. Arkon (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    - Enemies lists are barred even if they are intended to somehow help the list-keepers avoid the enemies. And that was obviously not the intent here. Sally reverted Arthur Rubin at 22:13 on 18 October.[1] Then added Rubin to shit list at 22:14 on 18 October.[2] Then (at 00:44 on 19 October) reinserted content that Arthur Rubin and another editor had both removed.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You guys can keep stating over and over that it's an enemies list, but it will still not be a proven fact. Sorry, facts don't work that way. Neither of these comments moves the discussion forward. T. trichiura Infect me 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And you can keep being dense. The relevant part of the policy states "perceived as...", which as this discussion makes clear, is what is happening. Arkon (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think making a personal attack against me will help your case against what you apparently perceive to be a personal attack. This discussion does not make anything clear, and it seems like most here disagree with your position. T. trichiura Infect me 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As your non-response here shows, I'm afraid you are in spade territory. In fact, why don't you respond to TDA above, telling him why he's wrong. Since he's actually -on- the list. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I've responded repeatedly and clearly shown the fallacies in your (plural) arguments more than once. Perhaps you need to read more carefully. You're in POINT territory now, I fear. But I've already forgiven you. T. trichiura Infect me 20:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny, I made exactly one argument in this thread, and you didn't even attempt to refute it. Again, go take your 'There's no way anyone could have a problem with this list' argument to the people on the list who -do- have a problem. Or continue your empty arguments, whichever. Arkon (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Apparently you refuse to get the point I'm actually making and prefer it in a mischaracterized way. No problem. T. trichiura Infect me 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People on the list have asked why they are on it. These questions have been evaded. It does not take bad faith to then assume that it is a list of 'perceived flaws' as per the user page policy. This should be removed without the need for this MFD. But since we are here... Arkon (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a disgraceful witch hunt, with people just making things up. What is so wrong with Sally Season keeping a reference list of names on one of his or her user pages? It may well be a list of users Sally Season has had disagreements with. So what. Where are the "attacks"? People in this thread are just making attacks up, and are themselves making the only real attacks here. Such strange times. I even agree with Thumperward and Arthur Rubin. As Chris says, don't be daft. Surely the current silly season has exhausted itself by now. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of your sentences that ended with '?' are answered by many people above. What's disgraceful is your lack of reading what's been said. Arkon (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removing someones personal page opens to many flood gates for reasons to delate others personal page for the same flawed reasons. --216.81.81.81 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. – Richard BB 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been advised to avoid this mass absurdity and let it die down, but some people have crossed the line with their fabrications and insults of me, so here I am again, for better or worse. Put on your thinking caps for a moment and consider the following questions. I won't answer them for you (again!), I'll leave that up to you.

1- I've been accused of creating an "enemy list" or "attack page". I say that I don't have any enemies yet (definitely some disagreements though!), and that my page contains no attacks, and that it is instead a notepad of interactions (good, bad, stupid, whatever) and to-do notes. Look at the actual evidence and compare it to the lies and conspiracy theories and answer: which is it?

2- It's been suggested that "Rep" on my notepad means "Republican", and it has also been suggested that astronauts never landed on the moon, but instead landed in Hollywood. Speaking only to the first suggestion, that isn't what it means. It's shorthand for "representation", and is a note to me that something isn't right about how something was represented, probably wording from a source, or the sorce itself. The characters ? or ! usually indicate I plan to question for more information, or I plan to make a statement on it. I have no way to know if someone is a Republican, nor do I care. And why, in the name of internet gods would I note a stranger's political voting registration designation on my page? Really?

3- It's been suggested that me being reverted by someone, or me reverting someone, makes me and that someone "enemies", and therefore listing that someone on a notepad creates an enemies list. I say that people making that suggestion are wrong in the head, and they need to grow thicker skin and not consider "disagreements=enemies", and they need to seriously practice their deductive reasoning skills. Now look at the evidence and answer: Do names get on my list because a revert has been done, or because there has been more general interaction that concerns me. Don't struggle too hard with this one!

4- It has been stated that I have "refused" to explain, or "evaded" explanation of my notes to myself. I say that these idiots making these statements give themselves away by not citing even one such refusal, and that I did explain on my talk page that it was just notes of interaction, and any further pressing for more detailed information of my notes was an invasion of my personal business. By the by, only Advocate has pushed for more details on what is not his business, and even with him I didn't refuse, but instead suggested a trade of dialog. So which is reality? Sally Season (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a cogent explanation. Please understand that people are not going to be immediately familiar with your note-taking process so when you use a shorthand it can confuse people as to the meaning of the notes. I would suggest you take De728631's advice and move this list to a sub-page. Explaining the significance of the notes more clearly would also be important to prevent people from thinking that there is any ill intent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete per WP:NOTHOST. I'm not too concerned whether it's an attack page or not (I tried adding my own address, but the page is protected). Wikipedia pages are supposed to only be used for encyclopedic purposes. We're usually pretty loose about user page contents, but if a page has been questioned by multiple other users as this one has, it's incumbent on the page author to explain the page's encyclopedic purpose when asked. "It's not your concern" is not a valid answer in a collaborative project where users don't own pages (including user pages). "Your personal business" is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia pages (consider getting a pen and some paper if you don't want to use external hosting). "There is no rule against it" is also never a valid justification for anything. Since Sally Season has repeatedly refused to supply a clear and believable explanation of how this page helps the project, the page should go. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use it for wiki business. Try reading again.Sally Season (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained the wiki business with enough clarity, so people aren't convinced, and in this situation the onus is on you rather than them to show that the use is productive. The page is basically pointy disruption by now. I'm not currently calling for a block against you, but maybe it will come to that. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially an attack list, should not be web hosted on wikipedia.Blethering Scot 22:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point out just 1 attack.Sally Season (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page can reasonably be construed as an enemies list and is therefore disruptive. It has zero benefit towards the encyclopedia. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The only proof offered so far proves it's a list of editors the user has interacted with, which Sally Season flat out stated. Where is there any evidence this is more than that? What litmus test do we hold it up to declare it an enemies list or any kind of attack? Insomesia (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this page about a week ago, and it sure looked like an enemies list to me. Apparently a lot of other editors agree. If SS were to clean this page up and state it's purpose, or even state on the page it is NOT an enemies list, then I would strike my !vote. The fact that he won't do this is disruptive. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sally has provided an explanation for at least some of the details of the list a little bit above for those who want some understanding. Honestly, I think it does need to be made clear on the page what the notes mean, but the explanation Sally gives seems reasonable enough.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 **Disagree. The only proof offered so far proves it's a list of editors the user has interacted with, which Sally Season flat out stated. Where is there any evidence this is more than that? What litmus test do we hold it up to declare it an enemies list or any kind of attack? [[User:Insomesia|Insomesia]] ([[User talk:Insomesia|talk]]) 01:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 :::I saw this page about a week ago, and it sure looked like an enemies list to me.  Apparently a lot of other editors agree.  If SS were to clean this page up and state it's purpose, or even state on the page it is NOT an enemies list, then I would strike my !vote.  The fact that he won't do this is disruptive.&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Little_green_rosetta|<font color="blue">little</font> <font color="green">green rosetta</font>]]{{SubSup||[[Special:Contributions/Little_green_rosetta|central scrutinizer]]|[[User talk:Little green rosetta|(talk)]]}} 04:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' Sally has provided an explanation for at least some of the details of the list a little bit above for those who want some understanding. Honestly, I think it does need to be made clear on the page what the notes mean, but the explanation Sally gives seems reasonable enough.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 07:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)