User talk:The Devil's Advocate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboards

I asked about your ban here. Tom Harrison Talk 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Very cute TDA...above I tried to prevent a block and now you're over at arbcom and AN/I bad mouthing me...so much for my olive branch.--MONGO 04:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mention you at ArbCom and I only mentioned you at ANI because someone asked me who I was referring to as Earl's devoted supporters with the implication that failing to do so would be taken as a personal attack. The only reason I mentioned the "devoted supporters" thing is because Earl was claiming I was using failed ANI cases as evidence against him, so I pointed out why they failed. My personal hope is that the case resolves itself at ANI without anyone but Earl being subject to sanctions. Personally, had you not already weighed in to once again try to block any sanction against Earl, I probably wouldn't have mentioned you at all. You should really stop enabling him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that he is the main problem there so I commented. You are of course allowed to disagree with me. Your comments there and at arbcom probably would be seen as in violation of your remedies BTW, depending on which admins look into it, but you were encouraged to avoid dramaboards and to not comment on cases that did not involve you (you haven't edited those pages for half a year), so you're hardly still involved. Mentioning me wasn't even necessary, really, but whatever.--MONGO 05:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Were what you are saying actually the case, then I doubt I would be allowed to continue participating. Several Arbs, all knowing about my restriction, have not suggested in any way that I am incorrect about this falling under my exemption. Funny that you and Tom are both so concerned about my restrictions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
TDA's comments at the Request for Arbitration page do not breach his topic ban as he was directly involved in the dispute prior to it coming to Arbitration. I have not checked AN/I (and don't immediately have time to) but if you are referring to the same topic of discussion then that would also not be a breach of his ban. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Please comment on Talk:UNFD

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:UNFD. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philip Benedict

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philip Benedict. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Following

Following other editors edits that you are in conflict/grievance with is sometimes called wiki-hounding. I think this is an example of you trailing my edits [1] I can not help but think that you are not complying with your edit sanctions by editing that controversial article also or rather trying to pick some kind of editing quarrel over a simple edit that was reedited by you I think provocatively. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the source you cited:

Roughly half a million of Islamists in Cambodia, 80 percent of whom are Cham Muslims

This is your phrasing:

Of the roughly half a million Islamists in Cambodia, 80 percent are Cham Muslims

Another user modified it due to the implications of using "Islamist", but it remained largely the same:

Of the roughly half a million Muslims in Cambodia, 80 percent are ethnic Cham.

You copy-pasted material from a copy-righted news article, again. Doubt you will find many people who would take issue with me addressing blatant copyright infringement, especially when I have raised the issue with you and at ANI repeatedly with no change in your behavior. They may even fuss at me for not doing something sooner given that copyright infringement is a serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Its not a copy paste. Plus it is short enough so that it would not matter. Another editor modified it anyway. I think you are Wiki-stalking my edits which is the same as Wiki-hounding. I think it better you stop talking about issues you have raised at Ani, considering all those issues were not issues but issues to you and several others that had ideas about certain edits. I suggest you stop following me around. I realize you are extremely limited now due to sanctions you have been penalized with. Don't take it out on another editor that you have disagreements with. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Removing two words from the middle and adding a few to the beginning does not magically make it something other than a copy-paste job. Alas it does matter regardless of length when it is a clear case of copyright infringement and it is not as if you have not copy-pasted much more substantial material. You can characterize my actions however you like, but I find it doubtful that anyone would take your complaints seriously on this matter. This is a simple matter of phrasing things in your own words rather than copying what others have written. Quotations, just so you know, should be limited to instances where the quote itself is noteworthy rather than used as a way of avoiding NFCC issues. Please stop just copying off the source and try to phrase things in your own words.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Walashma dynasty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walashma dynasty. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing

As far as I remember from your editing sanctions, you are prohibited from editing any controversial article and The Zeitgeist Movement or film series article is about as controversial as it gets. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have told you several times now that I am not prohibited from editing controversial articles. The outcome was that I was advised to avoid them, which is not the same as being prohibited from editing them at all. Given that all I did was request an admin take action on an RfC that others wanted addressed and then implemented that admin's decision, I can scarcely imagine there will be much outrage over my involvement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thats not really true, you edited the article also [2] Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
My only other edit, the one you mention, was to replace a parent cat with a sub-cat and remove an unused reference that was leaving an error message. Still failing to see why anyone would have a problem with it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Again this is another you did [3] Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That edit was part of implementing the split as there should be incoming links to the page from related pages. Again, there is no issue no matter how much you try to create one.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Email

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Everymorning talk 00:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Supernatural

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supernatural. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:You've got mail

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:You've got mail. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The_Devil's_Advocate reported by User:NE Ent (Result: ). Thank you. NE Ent 01:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked for two weeks in enforcement of your topic ban from the admin noticeboards, as per this. Fut.Perf. 13:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Settling a grudge are we? One of the people who reverted me acknowledged my point and the only other admin who responded suggested doing nothing. Exactly how does it look when an admin disregards all that to block one of their most long-standing critics for attempting to remove defamatory accusations?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
TDA, if you think that Arbcom will be happy for you to use BLP as a wide-ranging excuse for reverting others' comments on admin noticeboards, you're an optimist. There is a case involving similar issues now open at WP:ARCA. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously different circumstances as they specifically omitted BLP exemptions for Collect in the arbitration case and he removed content that was backed by a reliable source. I was specifically allowed BLP exemptions and the material I was removing was not backed by a reliable source. Your assessment of BLP and when something is considered a violation appear mistaken as well. WP:BANEX states only that removing "obvious violations" is exempt and WP:BLP is clear that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourcedwhether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionableshould be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So even if one accepted that stating some expert on the matter has declared a person guilty of a crime without any proof of this person being an expert on the matter were somehow not libelous, then it would still be an obvious BLP violation to state that someone is an expert on a matter without any sources to back the claim and thus removal would be exempt from any bans or restrictions placed on me.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Citizens United v. FEC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Citizens United v. FEC. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So are all the admins on this site retarded?

Or is it just the ones that have no life outside of wikipedia? 70.56.26.237 (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Some admins are pretty good and some are a bit lame, while others are just so-so. There are also a few who outright abuse their status. I don't think it has any relation to the vibrancy of their social life.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
For example of an admin outright abusing his status see current block for removing a BLP violation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

AE block

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of a month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This is in relation to this edit, which shows total disregard for your topic ban. It appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt to use BLP to advance your side in a content dispute. I strongly suggest you take all things Gamergate-related off your watchlist, and that if you happen across an egregious BLP violation that you seek administrator intervention—by my reading of remedy 8.4, a good-faith report to the BLP noticeboard would not be a violation of your restrictions, and would be significantly less likely to lead to drama.

You can, of course, appeal this block to AN or AE (you can use {{adminhelp}} or {{unblock}} to request your statement be copied there in the event that I'm unavailable), or you can appeal it directly to ArbCom in accordance with WP:ACDS#Appeals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How about you reverse your block and resign instead? There is really no disputing in this case that I was removing a BLP violation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It was not, quoth Seraphimblade, "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations of BLP ("John Doe is a child molester" type stuff)", and considering that the arbs look set to uphold your previous block for essentially the same thing, I find it hard to believe that you honestly thought what you were doing was not likely to be seen as a violation of your topic ban. Moreover, there are multiple avenues you could have explored other than removing the supposed violation yourself, such as asking another editor to intervene, talking to an administrator, or reporting the issue to BLPN, but you chose to stick two fingers up at your topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Whenever invoking a ban exemption, I can never be quite sure that hardline trigger-happy admins such as yourself will let it be, no matter how legitimate the claim of an exemption. This is not essentially the same thing, however. It is a direct negative claim against another living person and the kind that I have removed several times before and been supported by admins in removing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dumuzid and MarkBernstein: the claims made by Quinn's ex have gone unaddressed by reliable sources save for one claim about her having a relationship with Grayson, which was confirmed. It is not appropriate per BLP to say whether any other claim was true or false. @Artw: should make the call on the wording of that sentence, but I would suggest something such as "unsubstantiated" or "unproven" when adding a qualifier.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Boston Magazine, April 2015 [4]

On the flight back to Boston, Gjoni began drinking heavily....Gjoni had already collected enough material on Quinn—personal Facebook messages, texts, and email chats—to fill a bible. What’s more, he had an inkling about how to get back at her—how to weaponize the metadata of their relationship. He wouldn’t even need to touch her. In fact, he already had the goods to destroy Quinn if he wished. But it wasn’t enough. He wanted more.
Gjoni, a software engineer, had set out to construct a machine to destroy his ex. Every written word Quinn had ever entrusted with him—all of her flirtations, anxieties, professional grudges, and confessions about her family and sex life—would serve as his iron and ore.

New York Magazine, October 2014 [5]"

Quinn’s ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni set everything ablaze with a long, unhinged blog post.

There's plenty more in these. See also The New York Times description of this rambling post, in the judge's reported comments granting the restraining order, and much, much else. For that matter, see this morning’s urgent "all hands" summons about this specific topic in one of the Gamergate organizing boards. Again, we have many published stories that describe the ZoePost in terms like those ArtW used; it's hard to see a BLP at all, and impossible to see an "obvious" or "blatant" violation where the editors of so many newspapers and magazines have found none. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources suggest anything he said was inaccurate or "debunked" as you claim. To suggest otherwise is a BLP issue in itself.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone editing a sanctioned area like Gamergate, or associated enforcement requests, should randomly be subjected to checkuser

That way you wouldn't have to deal with the various socks of Ryulong, Tarc, etc like PetertheFourth and other obvious sock SPAs. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Message to SLOWP observers

I was talking about this IP user whose comment on my clarification request Guerillero removed with a claim the user was someone with an account evading scrutiny, not the IP user you all are talking about. Also, May Tree, I have not discussed Baranof's real identity or any of his personal details on Wikipediocracy. You seem to be confusing me with some of the other users on that site.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to comment there directly, as I and other editors have. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I second that recommendation. Giving these nutters your IP address is an excellent idea. 161.202.72.152 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Just because your doxxing and sliming BS about NBSB got removed the same way the recent slime about Nyberg got yanked doesn't mean you didn't do it. Regardless, anyone who looks at that thread can see you ranting about Bernstein for pages, making you, in the immortal words of Senator Al Franken, a Lying Liar Who Lies when you say you "don't have a beef" with him. I bet you edit WP without pants on because your undies instantly catch fire when they touch your smelly butt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.207.39 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Some stuff I have said has been removed, but I don't believe I even mentioned Baranof in any of the posts that have been deleted. I also wasn't lying when I said I have no personal conflict with Bernstein. You can certainly find me criticizing his behavior towards other editors, but I do not think criticizing someone's behavior amounts to a personal conflict. We have barely ever talked to each other.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Note on Wikipediocracy

So, apparently, I have been "muted" on Wikipediocracy, which means I am unable to reply or message anyone on the site, but am not banned. I have received no message about this so I am only left to presume this is what has happened. This appears to be a response to me asking questions about why a mod departed from the site earlier this year. Undoubtedly, the excuse is that I was "warned" i.e. threatened, but the message I received only concerned speculating on the departure. I was certainly not told I could not even ask questions about it. At any rate, presumably this is only meant to last a week. Just noting this in case anyone is wondering why I am absent.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears I have now been banned from Wikipediocracy, apparently because I corrected the admin who gave me the warning.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration clarification request archived

The GamerGate arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 12:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Here we see another user trying to be an admin who most definitely should not ever be an admin as we have more than enough abusive admins who show open disregard for neutrality. I would say something about this at RFA, but I am currently blocked by an admin I have previously criticized for removing a BLP violation. Not able to draw wider attention to my criticism here, I would consider going to Wikipediocracy, a site ostensibly for criticism of Wikipedia, but I am currently banned there now as well explicitly due to me criticizing an admin. Unfortunately, there is not much one can do when criticism of authority on one site gets you banned by an abusive admin only for the site supposedly there to challenge that abuse banning you for criticizing its authority. My only hope is that this editor's failings will be made clear by others or he will reveal his nature to others unwittingly during the voting process.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: if you want to see a glimpse into how Ian handles contentious disputes with other editors, see the two examples I include above.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, TDA. I know we have rarely gotten along or agreed on anything in the past. But I'm sorry to hear about WO, they seem to be going on a banning spree. I'll look into the diffs. Right now, I have no opinion on this RfA but a lot of background, good and bad, comes to light about the candidate. It's the longest 7 days of ones life. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We have only had a few conversations to my recollection and all on basically one general topic, so I don't quite see it as rarely getting along or agreeing. Personally, what bugs me about WO is all the hypocrisy around this issue. Someone posts random porn with a woman's pseudonym attached and there is post after post about misogyny, wanting to dox and seriously harm the person responsible, and how the WMF should ban this person forever, then a banned WO user gives out a man's real name to shame him with sexual commentary and they immediately invite that person back onto WO with open arms.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: see the two examples I give above and consider whether Ian is really someone who can be trusted with the tools.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what the fuss is. Were you worried about his stand against Zeitgeist nonsense?--MONGO 22:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah seems that was it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to advise you that this block is increased and you have had the talk page access revoked because you have been using your talk page as a soapbox which violates your ban. I am hoping that your increased ban will give you the time to reflect on your recent edits.--5 albert square (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, The Devil's Advocate!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.