User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 10

When God Writes Your Love Story

Hi Devil's Advocate,

Thank you for taking an interest in the When God Writes Your Love Story article. You mentioned that the Irby article mentions the Ludys' book. The abstract does not mention When God Writes Your Love Story. Do you have access to the text of the Irby article?

Neelix (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no, it just shows up in the search result preview. Not sure how it is mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I may be able to retreive the article through my local library. Neelix (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you have been involved in discussions surrounding the When God Writes Your Love Story article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's current featured article review. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY survey

Thanks for hatting the canvassed votes. The survey had been swamped so it's much clearer now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I, too, think that hatting the canvassed votes helps, but there is one canvassed vote I would ask be un-hatted (de-hatted?). The vote by 70.119.30.246 included several sentences of commentary to explain the vote and was replied to by DavidK93 (giving his religion and engineering examples). I then replied to DavidK93 and he replied again to me. DavidK93 and my comments are not hatted, but by hatting the original comments by 70.119.30.246 it looks like DavidK93 is replying to a previous un-hatted vote by RA. So for clarity about the follow-up discussion I recommend that only 70.119.30.246's vote be un-hatted. 99.192.71.6 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Courous

How are you being Devil's Advocate?  Courous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.12 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 

Operation Blue Star

Hey

I see that you removed the following points:

• Military control of the Sikh spiritual and political buildings.
• Sikh reference library burned by Indian army.
• Thousands of Sikh pilgrims taken hostage by Indian army and killed.

Could you tell me why you removed the first line? Do you disagree with the statement.?
The Sikh reference library in the Harmandir Sahb Complex was the main library for Sikhs scriptures and writings. It is not a trival thing that happened.
It is widely known and unargued fact that unarmed Sikhs had their turbans removed and used to tied up their hands and then they were later shot dead. The debate is about high civilian causalities this is a different point.

I would strongly advocate against using the word temple because that unfairly gives a distorted version of what the Akal Takht is, I'm sure you know that that it is placed on the same level of the Gurdwara, making one spiritual and political dependent on the other as established by Guru Hargobind during Miri Piri and the construction of Akal Takht and the making of the dual Nishan Sahibs in the courtyard to illustrate this concept.

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Stating "thousands taken hostage and killed" implies casualty figures much higher than most accepted estimates. As to the rest, I feel the statement about other buildings being damaged was covered, with clearing of the temple complex covering the first point well enough. Concerning the library, it is trivial with respect to the overall outcome. Many important buildings to Sikhs were involved and singling out one in particular is too much to include in the infobox. The results section of the infobox should cover the most significant outcomes from the event. That you also changed "Sikh militants" to "Khalsa" puts the other edits in the context of trying to paint the operation as one of the Indian government against all Sikhs. While many Sikhs perceive it that way and there were legitimate concerns regarding the government's handling of the situation, it is not accurate to portray it in such a fashion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay I can sympathize with the other two points somewhat but for the Khalsa it is legitimate to include that here because all the militants were required to be baptized for more info see the talk page of Operation blue star.Jujhar.pannu (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your change isn't actually much better. Saying Sikh pilgrims were taken hostage and killed is still a misleading statement of considerable severity that is not supported by reliable sourcing. The description of the combatants as Khalsa implies that it was India's government against Sikhs in general, rather than India's government against a specific group of Sikhs with separatist ambitions. While I am not fond of the term, reliable sources from outside India generally refer to the Sikh fighters in the operation as "militants" and thus it is appropriate to describe them as such in the infobox. I also do not think the library's fate needs to be singled out at all in the results section. Although significant from a Sikh cultural perspective, it is not significant from the perspective of general history regarding this event. It is just one of many things cited as evidence of government abuses in the operation. The results section should focus on the most important outcomes from the point of general history, not on listing any real or alleged abuses by the government.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Voice Cast Vandal

I range blocked 173.209.204.192/26 in response to your AIV report. I'm finding some un-sourced and un-reverted changes from the range to revert. I wanted to see if you had spotted any recent edits from outside the blocked range that you think are consistent. Monty₈₄₅ 02:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not very good at sorting through IP ranges, though the edits I saw seem to all be within that range.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 18:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reverting my tags

Hi Devil's Advocate, Did you read the discussion at the bottom of the talk page for LHO? Could you please read and respond to that before reverting? There's an acknowledged, as it turns out longstanding, lack of support for the assertions. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There are not specific citations provided in the article for the specific claims about the FBI and DPD, but I don't see anyone suggesting these claims do not have support. I also do not think it is contentious enough to warrant the tags.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggestED very clearly in LHO talk that the claim rel the FBI specifically does not have support. I.e., I have challenged it. I refer you to WP:Verifiability, specifically "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Could you please state some WP authority that permits you to remove my tags (or prohibits me from removing the non-sourced material, which I am not now doing to allow the sources to be provided if they exist) or not do so until the disputed content is brought up to WP standards. (There's no problem if the material stated in the intro is supported in the body. It's not supported anywhere in the article, however; thus the tag up top as well. Paavo273 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cite tags inherently cast doubt on material and there is no reason to doubt the material other than there not being a specific citation provided. It seems fairly clear that the material is correct and just lacks a citation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. I saw the tag added, and I thought policy said something like that, but I wasn't sure where to find the appropriate policy. I know Steve identified as Jewish (and was quite heavily involved in the 'what is a Jew' debate on-wiki quite a few years ago)...I'm not sure he would have objected to the category.

Wow - it's amazing how hard it was to finish that sentence. Anyway, thanks again for dealing with this. Guettarda (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

re: edit summary

Hello - here to respond to your message.

You violated 3RR on one of the articles and did three reverts on the other, as did the other IP. I could have blocked both of you; I chose to lock the articles instead. Since your block log is full of edit warring blocks and topic bans, you obviously know better, but it seems you can't stop yourself for some reason.

As for tendentious editors: you've been here a long time; the IP has edited for less than a month. Read WP:BRINK, then try to solve the problems. He has cited edits. Put both your cites in the articles. Make a footnote. Do something besides reverting over and over again. They're articles about movies, for goodness sake, and while it's important we document them, in the big picture, it's not worth getting blocked over.

I hold nothing against you; I just want you to succeed here instead of repeatedly getting warned or blocked for stuff like this. I hope you have a nice weekend. KrakatoaKatie 02:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did not violate 3RR, nor did the IP. You are mistaken on that point. Note that at MOSFILM talk, two other editors have agreed with my statement that labeling films with terms such as "flop" is generally inappropriate. Oh, and don't presume to speak about my history as though you have even the slightest understanding of it from a cursory examination of some log of data.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard evidence

Hello The Devil's Advocate. In your recent post to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence, you wrote, "Having apparently disclosed another editor's personal information on his blog, Gerard was stripped of his oversighter and checkuser privileges in 2009." However, it seems neither of the two sources you link to supports your claim that David Gerard was "stripped" of his privileges. The Signpost story you cite says that he resigned the privileges himself, and the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard page refers only to a "removal" of privileges without stating the agent. Unless there is something else I have overlooked, it seems the only logical interpretations of the "removal" statement are that Gerard removed the privileges himeslf, or that they were removed by someone else in compliance with his resignation. Could I therefore suggest you remove or amend this part of your statement? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The announcement says the "removal of his checkuser and oversight rights would remain in force" and all the wording suggests it was not a simply voluntary resignation. Perhaps an Arb who was involved could clarify that point for me, but the wording was not suggestive of a simple resignation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest just dropping that section. Focus on the actions during the debate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no good reason to "suggest" a particular interpretation to the Arbitration Committee. If you're going to present this evidence at all (and, like Obi-Wan Kenobi, I'm not sure that it's a good idea in the first place), why not use the wording of the sources you use instead of imputing something which they don't actually say? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that his oversight and checkuser privileges were lost over his misuse of them and that ArbCom was involved. He is described as having been stripped of those tools, and the ArbCom statement did not present it as a voluntary action. The statement that he resigned them does make it a bit confusing, so I am asking one of the Arbs who was active then to illuminate on the situation. As to why I bring it up, that comes down to a pattern of behavior. Stating that he misused his tools in this one contentious instance does not signal much of a problem on its own, but when it involves a pattern of misuse of the tools then it becomes a more serious concern.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear The Devil's Advocate.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding relevance of my edit to editorial conduct on Manning title

My edit on Manning that you deleted and put back was about article title and not editorial conduct. Did it get in wrong section? Do i need to submit something on editor conduct to make this pertinent? Thanks. Patroit22 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee's remit only extends to conduct issues. They may present non-binding principles regarding policy, but they do not decide who is right in a content dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not report any editor conduct issues.Patroit22 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Accidental revert on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop

Hey DA-- I apparently reverted an edit you made on the page above. This was completely unintentional and I'm not actually sure how it happened; I may have hit rollback on my watchlist by accident. Anyway, sorry about that-- just wanted to alert you and explain myself to avoid any confusion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, cool. When I saw that I was all frownie-faced and thinking "What did I do?"--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon Bombing Page Edits

Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia content, so I'm just looking for clarification. On 9/9/13, you [[1]] some content I posted on the Boston Marathon Bombing page related to a Boston Marathon digital archive project, citing "no reliable sources indicating significance." I then undid your deletion and added a link to a Boston Globe article on the project, but that edit was quickly deleted by another user who informed me that I have undid your revision "without cause." I want to make sure I'm not violating some issues of Wikipedia decorum: what's the best way to add that content to the page? Any help would be appreciated: thanks!

Jimroks1 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that unless you give some strong and diverse sourcing to indicate this as a significant project, it should get barely a mention, if any. A lengthy paragraph in an article on a significant event such as this with only one independent reliable source is a bit much.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Race and intelligence

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion which involves you has been proposed at the above named request for clarification. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to register your comments at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Scientology

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I have proposed a motion at the above named request for clarification, and that this motion or involves you. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to submit your comments at the clarification request. Regards, AGK [•] 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit

The picture of Dr Afnan Al-Shuaiby was removed after I simply corrected the year of her date of birth.

Why?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serafin Wolski (talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When you click undo it opens up the edit window. You may have mistakenly done that instead of going to the normal edit window.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Dark Knight Rises

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Dark Knight Rises. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Footpaths of Gibraltar

Your merger proposal is not well-supported obviously. Would you please withdraw the nomination, so i can approve the DYK nomination? --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for people who don't have some sort of bias to weigh in on the subject. That is the point of promoting it through an RfC. Were I just looking to get the opinion of Gibraltarpedia's stalwart defenders I wouldn't have bothered, because I know what they think and why they think it. Honestly, I don't even care about all that stuff and am more upset with the use of tour guides about a nature reserve to conjure up an article about something that doesn't really warrant its own independent article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Face it, RFC or not, you still won't get enough supporters. And you still will get future opposes. I wonder if continuing the discussion is valuable (antonym for "pointless"). --George Ho (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How about you leave me be and leave the issue alone?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Too late for that. You don't get to start an RfC and then tell everyone to leave you alone. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly ask someone to stop impolitely badgering me on my talk page to get me to shut said RfC down.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

This is a message to inform you that a request for clarification has now been closed and following motion has been passed. The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 00:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Departed

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Departed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hocus Pocus (1993 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• out of 5.<ref>[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1045250-hocus_pocus/ Rotten Tomatoes: Hocus Pocus)]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Audie Murphy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Audie Murphy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RWBY, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike (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) 11:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to List of Stoked episodes: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles - Golden Slumbers - Ballad is a genre?

Hi, I know you're a fan of the Beatles, their song "Golden Slumbers", the term ballad is in the infobox, and I guess ballad is not a genre. I trying to remove ballad which is not a genre but I'm afraid that Yeepsi would not let contributors to give permission to revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.85 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart

Why did you remove my updates to Andrew Breitbart? Those things I posted about ACORN, Sherrod, and Weiner were WHY he was popular and has an entry in the first place. I am new at this so I knew maybe there would be some editing but I thought this was a wiki site where people can post relevant information and source it. I sourced all of my contributions but you deleted them all outright. Why sir? Chrisnelsonimagine (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a biography, not an article for describing various political controversies where he played a role. The article already mentions that he played a role in these events. Also, the stuff insinuating his death was something other than natural was completely inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

Please see WP:BRD - youi made a Bold edit, I Reverted, the next step is that you Discuss the potential change on the talk page. Please don't revert again when I return the article to the status quo, where it should stay until a consensus is reached. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting due to "no consensus" is a classic tendentious editing tactic, especially when the status quo material was not a product of consensus either. Someone being able to get shit past the radar does not magically make it consensus. I am not going to discuss this with you if you cannot immediately see the problem with this kind of material. Hopefully, some more sensible individuals will notice this and take the appropriate action of reverting you.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia Entry for Charlie Engle

Hey, I'm not sure how all this works (I've only edited a few pages), but I saw that you edited the page for a marathon runner named Charlie Engle. Apparently he made big headlines when he was arrested for mortgage fraud, and he spend some time in jail -- none of which is mentioned in his wikipedia entry. http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/ultrarunner-charlie-engle-makes-post-prison-plans

Anyway, I saw that you had edited that page and wondered if you knew anything about that.

My name is Wyatt Roberts (wyattroberts@gmail.com) Wyattroberts (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I created the article because of that and was planning to add it in, but did not get around to it as it would involve compiling and summarizing a lot of sourced coverage. My intention is to add it in at some point, but I have been a bit lax on major content editing for the last few months.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Bonkers' userpage

Regarding [2], would you mind enumerating the reasons why you believe the usual blanking and replacement with indefinitely blocked user template was "unwarranted", and why you find this to be "clearly malicious in intent"? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I don't know about "clearly malicious", but it was certainly unwarranted, IMO. No matter how bad we think Bonkers has trolled us, there's no need to kick him while he's down, which is what blanking is userpage looks like. There's no need to mark his userpage like that, so why not just leave it as it is? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not "usual" at all as indefinitely blocked editors who are not banned often do not get the tag and there is no policy-based reason for adding one. Such a tag serves only to shame a maligned editor and in this case the edit summary of "goodbye" together with your "torches and pitchforks support" vote at ANI certainly makes it clear that you were acting maliciously.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maintaining a sense of humor towards editors who deliberately disrupt Wikipedia can be salubrious. The completely serious version of my comment at AN/I would be that Wikipedia is one of the most highly visible sites on the web; this, when combined with our openness towards pseudonymous editing, provides an attractive platform for trolling, to which we can respond only after a significant disruption has already occurred. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

If an article is entitled 'Murder of X', almost any content violates WP:BLP if nobody has been convicted of murder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, that is not how it works. This woman was fairly clearly murdered, unless you are suggesting this was some sort of extremely bizarre accident or misunderstanding that led to her dying from multiple stab wounds, her eyes being gouged out, and body parts being tossed out the window. At any rate, that is a naming issue, not an issue with the overall content. I can move it to "Death of" if that will suffice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom nom

If you are serious about running, I believe you must indicate whether you have edited under any other account and whether you are willing to identify to the foundation. From the rules:"

• (iii) confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data;
• (iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committe". Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I forgot about that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reward board

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reward board. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with Admin board posting

Hi, I added a note [3] as I'm still looking to clear this off the Arbitration case. Can you help me with that? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User Jspeed1310 vandalizing, edit-warring, sockpuppeting, insulting others, POV-driven article blanking, trolling

Hi, can you please intervene in a serious ongoing problem by user Jspeed1310? That user has been going around and vandalizing, edit-warring, sockpuppeting, blanking, and trolling on Vietnam-related articles and is causing much disruption. That user has:

• Reverted the Dân Bắc Kỳ article [5 times], without any explanation whatsoever, almost all within the past 1.5 weeks, and as early as 2 hours before this post
• Used the sockpuppet Vantungk35 to blank the Dan Bac Ky article, and replaced it with this insulting, misogynist message "dân nam kỳ chỉ biết phá hoại, gái nam kỳ chỉ biết làm đĩ nuôi chồng" (translated: Southern Vietnamese people only know how to vandalize all the time, southern Vietnamese women only know to be whores and care for their husbands". He used the Vantung account as a throwaway account for adding insults instead of using his original account, to evade any community punishment/sanctions that may follow after from the discriminatory remark.
• Sockpuppets by using this Saigon Vietnamese IP 113.172.224.235, Hanoi IP 113.22.28.205, and the account Alphama to nominate the Nguoi Bac Ky article for speedy deletion to create a fake "community of people" aggreeing for it's removal.
• Blanked the Người Bắc Kỳ article twice without valid explanation, just because he didn't like it, despite this article having multiple, proper cited references.
• Deleted and challenged content in the Reunification Day article that didn't conform with his POV, namely anything that was critical of the Vietnamese government, under the false guise of "sources needed". If he truly had concerns about the lack of sources, he would either placed a "citation needed" tag fairly on all content (not just the anti-government content) without refs, or kindly posted a message on the article talk page or on mine asking for refs. He decidedly ignored the lack of refs of pro-communist content and didn't challenge them.
• Pervasive problem of reverting edits/deleting content without any explanation, as noted by other users.
• He trolled through my edits and blanked/deleted all disambiguation links to the Nguoi Bac Ky article without any explanation whatsoever, and edit warred when I reverted his vandal edits, like in Tonkin (disambig), Northern Vietnam, Bac Ky, Tonkinese.
• Jspeed has some sort of animosity towards Vietnamese poetic literature, esp. of a very popular poem created by prominent Vietnamese poet Nguyen Tat Nhien, and went on a campaign to delete it wherever it appears, even though it was well cited. It was popular to the point Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung even put it on his website, and it was used as 1 of 3 refs for citing the poem.

I hope there would be a resolution to this and i look forward to your response. Thanks in advance. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a justification for having multiple articles on various terms for the Northern Vietnamese. Seems these details would be more suited for the article on Vietnamese people as a whole. As for any sockpuppetry suspicions, you should go to WP:SPI if you believe there is sockpuppetry.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vaporware

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vaporware. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironic

Well, we wouldn't want to say anything "vaguely suggestive and inflammatory" about a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The film does not talk of them being Jewish. A journalist making an off-hand insinuation in an article does not warrant inclusion of the remark.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to give the official Zeitgeist view of the film Zeitgeist: The Movie or do you want to work in some perspective [4]. The film sources over and over to agitprop perspective issues of insinuation and that has been picked up by journalists world wide. Removing the source citations is removing perspective on the movie and presenting Zeitgeist by Zeitgeist. No perspective. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

We have been over the issue of Goldberg's piece. She is only one of a handful who have made this observation and the context of her observation is purely political. Her allegations are mentioned in the article, but they should not be mentioned in the general summary of the film as that gives these ideas undue weight.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a failure to get the point on this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The synopsis of the film should be a reasonable summary of what occurs in the film. Reception and analysis from critics is typically reserved for other parts of the article. If we include such things in the synopsis they should be common interpretations of the film, not a minority view held by a few select partisans.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)

You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

BP article RfC

I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RED

Template:RED has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitchell S. Steir

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitchell S. Steir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev? You commented on Melangepasty on a Mikemikev SPI earlier this month. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I left a comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hilary Duff

You reverted my edit here citing "baseless tagging", and I guess neglected to read my edit summary which mentioned the talk page. The article is biased and unsourced, and needs work. --184.166.113.34 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the edit summary and the talk page comment. Nothing said there even remotely justifies the tagging. The lede is often unsourced, for instance, and what you called "bias" was really just a reasonably accurate description of her successes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely not true, as the introduction makes heavy use of weasel words, and every part of an article needs sourced, introduction or no. You simply disagreeing with my assertion is NOT grounds to remove my edit. I've seen your block log and am aware that you have been banned for edit warring before, and I can already see where this is going. Let me be clear: you will not simply revert me into submission. My tagging of the article is entirely reasonable, as it has issues that need to be addressed. If you remove the tags again, I will bring up arbitration. --184.166.113.34 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the lede, which is traditionally unsourced as it merely serves to summarize existing material in the article. There is no excessive bias in the lede to warrant your tagging either. A few of the things you point out are a bit peacocky, but they would be easily resolved. I suggest you go through the article body and add citation needed tags to things you consider unsourced. Should the vast majority of details be sourced then a general tag is unwarranted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend to edit the article myself because I have neither the patience nor time. Wikipedia's laborious processes and pretentious userbase has long devoid me of any motivation I had to contribute to the enormous circlejerk of bureaucracy that goes on here, and the only reason I even bothered to tag it was to draw attention to the issues so that someone else could take care of it. I once had a wonderful vigor for editing and doing what I felt was something good, but that has been long replaced with bitterness and vinegar. The tags were me pointing and saying "here, look; this needs attention by someone who is not me". You yourself admit to "a few... things" being "a bit peacocky" -- is that not an issue in your mind, warranting at least the attention of someone with knowledge of the subject? Whether in a minor or major fashion, articles should not reflect the opinions or admirations of the writers. "A bit peacocky" is just as bad as "totally weasely" or "written by a shill". There should be no gray area when it comes to bias. Either the article is neutral, or it isn't. A few excessive, fannish connotations about a pop singer may not be as important as someone re-wording genocide into a positive light, but the relevance of the subject ultimately shouldn't matter. Every article is held to the same standards, and this did not meet them, however slim you believe the difference may have been. The tags were appropriate, at least for the sake of drawing attention to real issues, small or no.

At any rate, I begrudgingly took care of it. The changes won't stick -- the people who made it that way in the first place will slowly change it back -- so it's more than just a single edit; keeping it neutral would require vigilance far beyond what I'm willing to contribute. It's a drop in a vast ocean of content, but it still matters. Or at least, it should. Having said that, I'm frankly beyond the point of caring. This entire episode has been a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with Wikipedia. RickK had it right years ago, and nothing has changed. --184.166.113.34 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

184, in fact I've only heard legends of the WikiGiant known as RickK ... the modern-day equivalent is Rich Farmbrough, methinks, or maybe BetaCommand (I doubt Kafziel is even the same species) but I'm not sure what a WikiDragon like TDA thinks about such folk. I've got some unorthodox ideas about tagging... that they should generally be invisible to the readership, and should not increment editcountitis... which are over here, if TDA or any talkstalks are interested in WP:RETENTION and/or WP:MMORPG issues — see Wikipedia_talk:WER#Editor_retention_of_tag-bombers plus maybe Wikipedia_talk:WER#.22Everyone_reverts_my_changes.22. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)

If you have time, could you take a look at the current conflict in Talk:Race_(human_classification)? A few editors have suggested changing or altering the "race has no biological or genetic basis" line in the article but there's been no agreement on how to change it. Discussions appear to have hit a wall. Could you help toward forming a consensus? Thanks. BlackHades (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you.

Hope that's useful for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake is on a 1 Revert limit

The article has been placed on a 1 revert limit per day. [5] is your second within 20 minutes, you should revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It was an unsourced statement on a BLP. That is explicitly exempt from edit-warring policies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

if that is your position, fine, but do not say you were not warned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced statements about a living person should be removed on sight. The only argument you can give here is that the source actually supports it and that means pointing to where the statement is supported by the source without requiring too much personal interpretation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The only sensible reply to this is that it wasn't sourced. The only issue you seem to have is our pointing it out in plain terms that it is transparently stupid. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

As you've also been informed Rupert Sheldrake is subject to a 1RR restriction. Regarding your reason for the revert, I'll point out that the 3RR exemption for BLP violations also states that "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." In this case it was obviously controversial, which should have been plain after it was reverted by an established user and the fact that the article was subject to 1RR. In the future, unless it is a blantant and uncontroversial BLP vio I suggest you seek other opinions before breaking a revert restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, which is disappointing since you are an admin, even if only recently gaining the tools. Restoring unsourced or poorly-sourced material on a BLP with the edit summary "issues" is a blatant violation of the policy. Why should it make any difference that an established user made such a frivolous revert? The answer is that it doesn't and the person you should really by talking down to is the one who made that revert.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It is really hard to argue that stating plain facts is a BLP issue, but well done for trying. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The only plain fact here is that Sheldrake's book did not say anything to the effect that he is questioning facts, which is what you and Josh tried to insert into the lede. At no point have either of you identified where it does say such a thing. Instead it is just your personal statements that these things are facts and that he is thus questioning facts. You don't get to insert your own personal view of what Sheldrake is saying. It has to be supported by a reliable source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello TDA, please call me 74... and I must say, your username is ideal for the Sheldrake wp:battleground basket-case.  :-)   A little longwinded to type every time tho... can I call you TDA? or simliar? I find it hilarious that Barney would argue *here* on your talkpage that the plain fact clearly is that BLP is intuitively obviously inapplicable when conservation of energy is concerned, it *is* a plain scientific fact you know, virtually all the professional academic *really* reliable sources agree, roughly paraphrasing, that COE is factual... oh nevermind. Seriously though, TDA, you are touching on the lightning-rod issue, however, the root cause of all the noticeboards and protections and frustrated-pillar-four-violations, which is whether sources are being followed, or elided, or oh-so-slightly slanted, based on WP:POLLing results local to the talkpage (and FTN). Please stick around; awesome wikipetan-compliant userpage, while I'm doling out the schmaltz. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm Dogmaticeclectic. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of Nelvana programs without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I explained why I was undoing the previous edit. You could have just restored the part not covered by my explanation and left it at that. No need for the little templated message.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You might not have noticed my edit otherwise, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For brilliance in analysis and logic, in combination with understanding how Wikipedia works, and the commitment to the project to use that to try to make Wikipedia better. Wikipedia needs folks like you. My apologies that if this is so late and thus sort of "out of the blue", but my resolution is to catch up long overdue much-deserved barnstars. May the wind be at your back! North8000 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Massive unsourced and poorly formatted addition.

Hi TDA, I tried to add needed citations after your reversion edit to the previous stage of article "Slovakia" and "History of Slovakia before the Slovaks". I changed only latter one, pleas take your time and see changes yourself, and write me if you want to see some more changes in this respect. I would also like to ask you to do correct formatting of the section as well, as I'm not aware of specific formatting rules I breached. I would also appraise if you suggest how to change article "Slovakia" concerning mentioned periods, or do it yourself, based on the approved version of "History of Slovakia before the Slovaks". Thank you in advance for your time and efforts! I'm sure this will help to cover topics "Neolithic" and "Eneolitic/Copper Age" in the future, as they are either completely missing or giving very strange choice of information (naturally completely unsourced!).

All the best, Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.182.239 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand?

What sources do you require? Do you understand, how shallow and off the topic is current text? I think you don't have any sources for current text, unless you give me some reliable reasons for reverting to original text, which is COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED (or if you want, created from someone's own mind), I will end up with wikipedia, as I think there is no was how one can reasonably contribute and correct absolutely made-up texts with no informative / education relevance!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.182.239 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A tag is included noting that there is a problem with sourcing. Of the sources you added, one is a blog and another is a news report on a specific find that does not support most of the preceding details. Three of the six sources included support little to none of the material being added. I do not believe it is good to compound existing issues with the article by adding yet more uncited text, especially with the various grammatical, formatting, and stylistic issues with your addition. Seems English is not your first language. Perhaps it is not a good idea for you to edit the English Wikipedia unless you can compose your edits better.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't get this! 91.127.182.239 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egalitarianism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Egalitarianism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

So Steve had to be convicted for it to have been a notable enough event to be included? The sources seem reliable enough. Alatari (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

TMZ as a "reliable source"? No thank you! Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people demands high quality sourcing and not giving undue weight to certain details of a person's life. A rejected criminal complaint from years ago that an ex leaked to the paparazzi should not be given any weight.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Knockout (violent game)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Knockout (violent game). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Help for comment on Reconquista

Hi Devil's Advocate, hope you are doing well! I wonder if you could take a look at a recurrent dispute and vested edits on the Reconquista but with a recent breakout on this (and other articles). Since you intervened a couple of times, it may help sort out a tedious dispute, and it will be appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Message received

Hello, thank you for letting me know about this violation. Right now I am currently searching for a bureaucrat to help me change my username. The change may not take affect immediately, but I can assure I am fixing this problem currently. By the way, I have just created this account a few months ago so I am learning as I go. Michael Crichton Stephen King talk 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Abilene paradox

Dear Advocate, I have requested that a key external link be whitelisted. I posted the request on Jan. 11 and, as of date, nobody has commented on the request. Could you please assist in moving the request forward by offering your viewpoint? Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your perspectives to help move the request towards a resolution. IjonTichy (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Middle Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Middle Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you close this discussion? This request was started by a banned user that refused to discus anything on the talk page. Anyways, it has been 24 days and 3 out of the 4 who have commented have said no. AcidSnow (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It will only be up for another week and there is little chance of it getting approved now. There is no real reason to close the discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Landau

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martin Landau. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Don Benton

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Don Benton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notification

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

Your input here would be greatly appreciated! The Cap'n (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Legobot, you crack me up sometimes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The website wouldn't be the same without a Devils Advocate. MONGO 03:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Soviet Union

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Soviet Union. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Another move request regarding Ukraine and Crimea

Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republic of Crimea

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republic of Crimea. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stoning

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stoning. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:French Revolution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:French Revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your evidence in American politics

Hi. Thank you for submitting evidence in this case. As your first section of evidence (Several past cases are related to the subject) is background to the case, I have excluded it from your word count. Feel free to enter further substantive evidence with the remaining words, if you so wish. AGK [•] 21:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Visa policies in the European Union

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Visa policies in the European Union. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Federal State of New Russia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Republic

Novorossiya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Republic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2013–14 protests in Turkey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013–14 protests in Turkey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yank Barry

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yank Barry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slender Man

Category:Slender Man, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human scale

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human scale. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabancı family

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sabancı family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Contact for payment of $12 Reward Board item

Please e-mail me (with the "Email this user" feature), describing how you wish to be paid the $12 that I calculated you're entitled to. I can pay you via a friendly PayPal account, check in the mail, or donation to a humanitarian charity of your choosing. - Stanton By Your Man (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• You probably want to put a comment on the Talk page of Stanton Foundation, that you were paid for your contributions, so that you're not in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. I mentioned this here, just so you know. Thank you for your work! - Stanton By Your Man (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious

controversies and peace
Thank you, user from Earth, for quality articles such as Wikimedia UK, for gnomish work on pictures, for contributing to the list of controversies but advocating peace and truth, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 538th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alcohol flush reaction

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alcohol flush reaction. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cleveland Cavaliers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cleveland Cavaliers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

fyi

Rachel Shteir "When Pornography Pays for College: The trouble with Belle Knox" The Chronicle of Higher Education Aug 12, 1994 (Section: The chronicle Review) link DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Drollinger

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ralph Drollinger. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:September_11_attacks#RfC:_Are_conspiracy_theories_relevant_to_the_effects_chapter.3F

Hi there, I saw that you took part in the conversation here [6], where the possible addition of a section for conspiracy theories was discussed, and thought you might like to comment in a current RfC on the same subject. Found here. Thanks Smitty121981 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Your recent editing history at War in Donbass shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice?

Hey The Devil's Advocate, thanks for commenting on the RfC. If you don't mind, do you have any specific advice on how to improve the POV issues you mentioned? Is what I have salvageable in your opinion, or is it just totally off-base? Smitty121981 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would reiterate the complaints about "hundreds of professionals" as their credentials are debatable. Some of the AE911 members do indeed have professional credentials in the broader field, but as I understand it they do not have experience regarding the particular kind of case we are talking about, i.e. skyscrapers and other high-rise structures. At any rate, it gives undue weight to that group and other academics who are in the fringes of the debate. From my perspective, the paragraph certainly reads as though it was written from the viewpoint of someone sympathetic to the conspiracy theories. How it mentions the basis for objections by theorists reads more like an effort to present evidence for the theories rather than discuss their encyclopedic relevance. I believe a CT section should focus on providing a basic description of the theories and other relevant information.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I agree that a basic description of the theories would be good - that's what I was trying to go for already with the second sentence. I thought that limiting the discussion to just the aspects of the theories that are published multiple times in journals would be neutral, but I guess not because of how I presented them? As for the 'hundreds of professionals' line, this was paraphrased directly from an academic paper (Manwell) and backed up by the C-SPAN clip - but I admit, I certainly don't know much about encyclopedic writing style. Could you maybe suggest a better way to use a source like the C-SPAN clip? I guess we don't know for sure if the structural engineers and high-rise architects he mentions are actually real, but Washington Journal is an important show about important issues so I still think it's a good source to use. It's certainly a public objection against the 'official version', but how can I characterize this neutrally? Any help you can give is much appreciated. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe something like this? "Conspiracy theorists allege that the government investigations into the attacks were deeply flawed, and have called for a new investigation." Smitty121981 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even that is still a bit suggestive. There is no need to mention their criticism of the investigation or calls for a new one. Natch, conspiracy theorists are going to be critical of the investigation and want a new one. Such is implied by their being conspiracy theorists. I think referencing AE911 in the main 9/11 article at all is excessive as, while they are mentioned, they are not particularly noteworthy in relation to 9/11 itself or the conspiracy theories about it. A section in the main article should basically just sum up the most prominent conspiracy theories and perhaps reference surveys on the subject to indicate their popularity. The section should not be used to expound on what the conspiracy theorists think about the investigations or the mainstream version of events.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, I will have to think on this one. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being a bother, but your feedback has been very helpful. I reviewed the 9/11 Encyclopedia, and it spends a lot of time on the "made it happen" vs. "let it happen" type of definitions for the conspiracy theories, and the wikipedia page you mentioned on the Oklahoma City bombing does the same. Do you think this is a good direction to go in? Smitty121981 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that is the best approach. A good gauge is to look at the ledes for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and 9/11 Truth movement article. Obviously, you would want it all condensed into a shorter version, but those have decent summaries of the key facts a section in the main 9/11 article should have.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK cool, thanks so much for all the advice. Smitty121981 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence in the RfC proposal now, if you are interested. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Linked discussion

Seeing you reverted the edit I addressed the edit in question on User talk:Yulia Romero's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Putin's boast

I'm glad that this time you discriminated between my two additions, rather than submit them to the same treatment. But are you sure that you really read the Spiegel Online article (using Google translate unless you read German)? Right under the photograph, the google translation states "The corresponding report an Italian newspaper SPIEGEL ONLINE was confirmed in Brussels." This means that Spiegel confirmed it in Brussels. (German has a different grammatical order of subject, verb and object, which google doesn't always get right.) Also, further down, it says "A Western European diplomat who accompanied the summit, confirmed SPIEGEL ONLINE that Barroso had the episode portrayed as."Layzeeboi (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Either way, the quote has inflammatory implications and without having the context of the conversation between Barroso and Putin, we should not include it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries

I notice that you're an NPOV editor when it comes to Ukraine conflict Wikipedia entries. I am currently under severe attack -- see Haberstr -- for also being an NPOV editor of Ukraine conflict entries. Any comment or support at the Arbitration will be greatly appreciated! Maybe if enough of us protest the obvious, anti-Wikipedia bias, we'll get things moving in the right direction.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You have are edit warring. (3RR) You do not have consensus. Please self-revert and bring your proposed edit to talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The paper Süddeutsche Zeitung has an article discussing the VIPS memo. In that article it says "thousands of Russian soldiers" were "admitted" to be in Ukraine by the rebels. However, the article links to another article in Süddeutsche Zeitung, stating the rebels said "thousands of Russian volunteers" with "many soldiers among them" and you are insisting we favor the inaccurate summary over what the article being summarized actually said, over what the rebel leader actually said. I provided a link to both articles so people can verify that the article being summarized did not say "thousands of soldiers" and you apparently know this is true, but insist on reinserting inaccurate information. Sorry, but I stand by my edit. Our policies on verifiability do not mean we add demonstrably false information just because a generally reliable source presents false information due to some shoddy summarizing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit may be correct. I don't think so, but I could be convinced. I think the 2nd SZ article about the acknowledgement talks about 3-4000 with "many" soldiers. You do not however get to edit war because you believe your assessment is correct. BRD not BRRR. You should have taken to talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What should have happened is that you should have considered whether my point about the falsehood was apt, rather than going with "it's in the source" as though a newspaper has never misstated something before.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please remove your personal attack at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a personal attack as people on that page, such as yourself, are misrepresenting the nature of sources and are ignoring policy. It is also fairly clear that you are all doing it in favor of a shared opinion on the subject. You and several others are clearly biased on this matter and the fact you have not bothered addressing my suggested source on the basis of policy-based discussion, but personal opinion is a good indicator. You did find the policy on reliable sources when you were defending a source that was broadly supportive of Sarkeesian, but couldn't seem to place it during a lengthy discussion of a source critical of her views. Quixote's talk-page section was clearly meant as a defense against my criticism of the standards being applied on that article. Some editors literally said any criticism of Sarkeesian is "undue" because most sources do not criticize her, even though most sources talking about her don't even really talk about her views or what she is saying. We really only have one source that actually reviews the series. The motivation of editors in keeping out criticism is quickly becoming apparent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Could I know where?

I'd like to know where Wikipediocracy is discussing this (other than the comments section) of the article that was published doxxing me. Could you email me where it's happening? Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion board with a public sub-forum for blog post discussion. You can get there from the main site. One discussion about you, before the piece was published, would require you to register an account.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

VIPS members

Hello, thanks for your message. I agree that the members of the group should be described generally but as they changed for each memo I'm not sure how to do this. Also I found a list of all their memos, which are way more than the ones described. Some just did not raise so much attention. In some news pieces this is also mentioned but I did not find any recent ones and the primary source will probably be opposed by the usual suspects because they seem to post on blogs and not have their own official page. Anyways, we should discuss this at the article talk page. Galant Khan (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please help on that page? Iryna seems to think she owns it and behaves aggressively and out of control. Galant Khan (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Galant Khan: Right now I am blocked over a silly separate matter so I won't be able to help until tomorrow or if I get unblocked. I do think the material about the members of VIPS at the time of the Russia memo is a bit too much. When you added that it just invites someone to add material about the "evidence" of a Russian invasion and that keeps getting misrepresented because of that error in the source. As to the other detail about the Iraq War, I believe the best approach there is to have a separate section. It does not directly pertain to the 2003 memo that I can see as they released several memos regarding the conflict. Then again, you could refashion that section into one about the Iraq War generally as I think some of the other memos got coverage in reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing user discussions at WP:AE

Hello. My archival of the comments by users not a party to the request is authorized by Wikipedia:AC/DS#Decorum, which provides that "Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct." In this case, I closed comments because, as also described in that provision, "editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination"; but that was what was, in part, going on. Closing comments appeared more expedient than blocking or banning several users. Please do not again revert administrative actions with respect to arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying every single uninvolved party providing comments was being disruptive? If not then there is no authorization for you to do that contained on that page. You are essentially casting aspersions on an entire group of editors and concealing evidence at the same time.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, only some participants behaved disruptively, but I judged it less problematic to close the discussion in its entirety, given that one can assume that little new relevant evidence will be submitted at this stage, and keeping comments open would mostly provide a venue to those looking for a soapbox for their views about the conflict in Ukraine, and for bickering about the same. No evidence has been concealed, of course, as all comments are still viewable on the enforcement requests page.  Sandstein  19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	[[7]] I have to say the only inspiration I give to other wikipedians is one to drink...no clue if this was genuine or sarcastic don't really care but it made me belly laugh and log in just to tell you it was funny. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nabih Berri

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nabih Berri. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you . . .

. . . for your lovely words ("...fucking gobs of shit..that is what you fucking are..ignorant jerkoff") at AN/I.[8] I shall always treasure them! Writegeist (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do try my best.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you're certainly trying. Writegeist (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Vivian James.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Vivian James.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dreadstar ☥ 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

An outlet called Global Viral News just ran a critical story on her. I don't know anything about them but they seem professional. I'm sure a bunch of people will scream blog but it's worth a try.184.64.27.69 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you mean "Viral Global News" and I have seen this story mentioned elsewhere. There are only four staff and it is not clear that there are any editorial policies in place or that there is editorial control. The author of the piece does not appear to have prior journalistic experience, and his qualifications to comment on the matter are also unclear. Nothing suggests this outlet meets our standards for reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

Hey, I know we've had our differences and I'm sure we'll continue to have some in the future, but I wanted to express my appreciation for your rewrite of a very thorny article. I think you've done a quite fair job laying out the issues and it's a massive improvement in readability and structure. At the very least, it's a much, much better base to begin working from than what we had. Good work, and thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for contributing to the GamerGate article. You're awesome. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source for Thunderf00t's video criticism of Anita S.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/20/twitter-suspends-anita-sarkeesian-critic-abusive-behavior/

BSN appears to be a legit news site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.148.7 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There do appear to be numerous articles in reliable sources mentioning Thunderf00t and Bright Side News looks like it may meet the reliable sources criteria. Some editors might consider mentioning the ban undue weight, though the articles mentioning Thunderf00t suggests mentioning him in the article in some fashion is warranted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Devil's Advocate, that thread is long and torturous enough. Your material is not about the topic of discussion, and if you want to anything about it, you can start a new thread. I have no opinion on the matter, but I will not let you hijack a thread that's already all over the place in so many ways that it will probably never close with any kind of useful conclusion. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The thread concerns the WO piece that called out two editors. It turned into a lynch mob against one of those editors. Another of those editors was topic-banned and my comments are about the topic ban. It has everything to do with the topic of discussion and is not hijacking.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. You could have handled this in an appropriate manner, you chose not to. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Devil's Advocate posted several diffs indeed showing Gamaliel has participated in the the content disputes around the topic, in a relevant section about Gamaliel placing a topic ban on an editor and thus being involved. Why would you hat the evidence and why would you block this editor for posting it? --Pudeo' 04:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Eh, because we have more proper ways of addressing it and to continue not choosing those is disruptive--wait, I already said that. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• A sanction was imposed. It was already raised in that discussion because it concerned one of the chief parties being discussed. My comments were simply to raise complaints regarding that sanction on the basis of the admin who imposed it being involved. Nothing I did was against policy or disruptive. Attempting to shut off discussion, on the other hand, is disruptive and abusive as is mocking people after blocking them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wasn't aware I was talking to admin Drmies as opposed to regular editor Drmies. Your reasoning for trying to hat the discussion was completely off-base as Titanium Dragon was the one who opened the discussion due to him and Tutelary being attacked in a WO piece over their contributions to the Zoe Quinn and GamerGate articles. In that discussion people tried to get Tutelary banned and Gamaliel called for TD to be banned as well. Gamaliel eventually imposed the topic-ban on TD himself and I called him out for being involved. I provided an initial selection of evidence and when he and his supporters insisted it was inadequate I provided a more extensive listing of evidence to demonstrate he was an involved admin with regards to the Zoe Quinn and GamerGate articles. You are claiming I was hijacking the discussion when I was simply discussing the topic ban and the admin who imposed it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Helloooooo. Where'd you go @Drmies:? Are you really just gonna block me for calling out admin abuse and then run and hide?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was out abusing some other innocent editors, Devil's Advocate. Also, I was trying a new recipe for cole slaw for Mrs. Drmies's lunch tomorrow. Tell me you won't reopen this thing and I'll unblock you right now. (Sorry, yes, this is admin Drmies speaking.) But quick, since it's already past bedtime. If I miss it, tell some other admin the same thing and that they have my blessing to unblock. (And, again, feel free to start a separate discussion for these serious charges--but not in that thread.) Drmies (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You are the one who erroneously closed down a discussion (telling me to put up and shut up despite me having provided reams of evidence) and then blocked me when I pointed out your error. Why should I apologize and make promises to you?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  He used the exact "put up or shut up" phrase with me. I looked into this situation, and you owe him no apologies or promises. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The pattern is the same: a user (you, me, TDA, anyone for that matter) makes an edit or a talk page comment. What follows is a rude response by Drmies, a revert of some kind, and a threat of a block. We can document this time and time again. And yet, we get accused of incivility when we protest, and we are the ones who get blocked for refusing to be treated this way. It's time to take a stand and to say we will no longer allow it. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, then just file an unblock request and let a real administrator look at it. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You hatted the discussion for an invalid reason and then blocked me for contesting your hatting of the discussion. The only appropriate response is to reverse all of your actions. An unblock alone is insufficient. In fact, your reasoning was so obviously wrong that I have to wonder if it was really your idea at all. Did someone direct you to that discussion so that you could hat it?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• TDA, it's difficult to follow what's really going on. If you could make a brief timeline with diffs, that would help LHM and I investigate the problem. Both of us would like to see you unblocked, but I don't really understand the problem at this time. You may want to consider creating a list of diffs like this. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Basically, an editor was topic-banned and the matter was raised in the ANI thread filed by that editor. I stated that the admin was involved and should not have sanctioned the editor. When challenged to provide evidence I listed several diffs. Some editors commented to say that was not enough so after a little bit I provided many more diffs to back up my claim. Drmies hatted the discussion claiming I needed to "put up or shut up" because I was making serious allegations. I stated that I had done just that and re-opened the discussion. Drmies restored the hat then left a comment on my page claiming I was hijacking the discussion. I responded that it directly concerned one of the editors the discussion was about and removed the hat again. Drmies then simply said "I disagree" and blocked me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  I watched the situation develop, and thought about warning you that he wasn't afraid to use his tools in a dispute, but he'd already blocked you by then. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I need to run out for dinner, but I want to ping @A Quest For Knowledge: because he may have some interest in your case. If he doesn't, I'm still curious about whether he has an opinion. I'll take another look when I get back. Am I correct in assuming that the locus of the dispute concerns involved admins? Because we sure the hell are seeing a lot of that lately and we all need to start doing something about it pronto. I have a great interest in addressing the involved admin problem, and it looks like you got blocked for sharing this interest. We need to all start working closely together to do something about it. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• TDA, admins are allowed, one should hope, to maintain some decorum at their noticeboard. Viriditas, enjoy your dinner, and consider advising your friend to simply place an unblock request and let another admin judge the matter. Remember, the truth will set us free, and it may be quicker than rounding up the posse. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, it will expire by the time I wake up tomorrow, so I am really only concerned about the issue of your actions. There is a certain troubling attitude among admins that they can basically do whatever they want and run roughshod over non-admins. In this case, every reason you gave for shutting down the discussion was wrong. Basically, your only reason now is "I'm an admin so you need to do what I say." You refused to recognize that your original actions were in error and blocked me instead. I am seeing a little too much of that recently. The thing of it is that right after I posted a large amount of evidence, someone weighed in to oppose the sanction I was challenging. You did not hat that part, but by hatting my statements you may have prevented anyone from weighing in further in response to what I presented. What that looks like, unfortunately, is one admin covering for another. Anyway, I am again curious what caused you to hat the discussion, which had been going on for a while. Did someone point this discussion out to you?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fo shizzle? A conspiracy? Come on. And for the last time: you can present all the evidence you like in a thread devoted to that matter. You can write it yourself. Make it as long as you want. With pictures. I find it funny that so many editors complain about ANI and how it fails to produce the result they want, when they themselves are responsible for torpedoing it. Lengthening such thread, bringing in side issues, only distracts from the main one and makes it less likely that anything can happen. The whole "I'm an admin"--well, yeah, it's an administrators board. If you don't like my decision, ask another admin to reverse it. Or, eh, start your own thread. And again, this conspiracy nonsense has to stop. In that whole discussion I don't know whose side you're on, and I don't care. I don't know Gamaliel from Adam; I don't think I've ever interacted with them. I'm not a gamer, nor am I an anti-gaming scholar. It's none of my beeswax. One day you'll have to realize that not everything is some sort of Opposing Viewpoints game: there is such a thing as disinterested judgment. Now, you are free to edit again, but you could have been yesterday already; you could have asked via an unblock request to have another admin adjudicate this, but you chose not to. I don't know why you didn't--pride is the only reason I can come up with. That's fine. But suggesting that I was influenced by the scenes--that's ridiculous. Now, happy editing. If you really want to do something, something more than vent, you know where you can bring up my conduct: on WP:AN. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given how horribly wrong you were in assessing that discussion I can only conclude that you did not give it much of a reading. That means you either did it after someone complained to you about it or you just didn't look that hard at it and made a snap judgment. In either case it would be a bad thing. Don't worry, I will start a separate section. Only, now I am going to have to bring your actions into it as well, unfortunately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's not necessary. Please address it in the ANI section where I just pinged you, as Drmies' behavior is under discussion in that thread. Try to be brief and to the point. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I proposed you be topic banned

I propose that you be topic banned from dramaboards. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_for_The_Devil.27s_Advocate. jps (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bright side of news and getting recognition as a reliable source

Hi, I'm sorry to bug you here again, but the Sarkeesian talk page is still locked down to new editors. I noted Cúchulainn simply made three statements in his critique of the source:

• The source didn't give him "any confidence at all". I wasn't aware that the gift of confidence was a determining factor in Wikipedia's process for accepting the reliability of a source.
• The author claims "no particular credentials". Even if this were true, what special credentials does an intelligent layperson need to report facts of an internet dispute between two video-makers? I thought that being accepted for publication through an editorial board is sufficient.
• Finally, he says Mr Strickland is "not listed in their professional staff". Again, I had no idea that Wikipedia required its sources to be on the permanent full-time payroll of the publication before their pieces were acceptable for the label of "reliable".

All of this in the context of an article filled with sources which fail to acknowledge the mere existence of Mr Mason, let alone give an overview of the immensely influential and widely-quoted (albeit only in thousands of self-published pieces rather than the "reliable" ones) critiques he made of Anita S.

Are Cúchulainn's critiques really how Wikipedia does business?

I note that Bright side of news is listed in 35 other wikipedia articles without any question as to its reliability. Is reliability determined by wikipedia on an article-by-article basis? If so, doesn't that mean that, in theory, a future article on a medical issue might come to the conclusion, because of a group of eccentric editors, that The Lancet is a non-reliable source? Bramble window (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, a reliable source is generally considered reliable everywhere and unreliable sources considered unreliable everywhere, but since each article is worked on by different editors there may be some where a reliable source is kept out or an unreliable source is allowed. As far as the critiques, the determination of a reliable is partly based on the credentials of the author, but what is most important is whether it is a professional outlet with editorial control and fact-checking. Establishing that can be difficult sometimes, though.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding you

Hi The Devil's Advocate, I've closed the discussion on ANI regarding the proposed ban from certain noticeboards as there is consensus in favour of not imposing a ban. However as it was raised by more than one commentator I'm going to suggest that before closing or unclosing (including hatting/unhatting) discussions you first consider whether there is a less controversial way of achieving the same goal, such as requesting that the discussion be closed or requesting a closure review or further discussion from the closing editor, in another section or on AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, sorry, but that whole case started with bullshit, anything that wasn't an "oppose this as bullshit" vote was pretty much bullshit and so any decision short of "closed as bullshit" is gonna be bullshit. When it comes to bullshit I either address bullshit or ignore bullshit. The latter seems to the most appropriate response to this particular bullshit from here on out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds pretty arrogant to me. I think you should have been blocked for stuff like this [9] I voted for you to be blocked and for people like you that are uncivil there is no place on Wikipedia. I make this comment as a person that has been needled over a period of time by you on certain articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you have been far more consistently uncivil to me. Like, fo' realz. I don't really hold it against you, though, because that is just not my style. Anyway, have a good night.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

They're trying to Topic Ban me, too. Their methods are disgusting as they are pathetic. I have never seen Wikipedia this bad in my life. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• This notice is regarding Zoe Quinn, Gamergate controversy, and Anita Sarkeesian, as well as other BLP-related edits. Dreadstar ☥ 01:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your unwavering support. According to several admins I had spoken to that were not WP:INVOLVED, I did violate WP:BLP. The confusing thing about it was that I had actually backed up the sentences I wrote with sources. Or thought I did. In any case, from what I also learned, the block was borderline overzealous and, I guess, needed a "consensus". Matters not. Block is over. Fresh start and all that. Even still, thanks. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it was definitely overzealous, especially given the circumstances. The attempt to indefinitely block you has been shut down, so I hope you will just avoid engaging further on-wiki. If you decide to write that story, try not to be too heated about it. TD's topic ban has been lifted due to a procedural error so you may not have as much to write about now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The story's halfway written. The problem is separating the fat from the sauce, so to speak. As I'm not Wikipedia, I can question and utilize things they can't and also speculate but the only things I have to go on are screencaps of Tweets, logs of hacks and what-not. I am, however, definitely moving forward with the portion of the article criticizes the media and social spectrum. The media, obviously, for taking the word of one side, unchecked, while nearly ignoring ethics in gaming journalism or questioning the connections between developers to the writers. Both sides should have been included. I will be examining Facebook, followers on Twitter, as well as Wikipedia editors and admins and the policies of the encyclopedia which I both admire and question. The problem is that this might take some time. I think this is all still raw and that, by the time emotions subside, we'll finally start examining this thing objectively. That's the thing: at some point, somebody starts asking the right questions and, THEN, we will finally get all the answers instead of 50% of them. Cracked used to do that a lot with articles like "5 people it turned out were full of shit", etc. Nobody should be harassing Quinn, the journalists involved, the people behind GamerGate or anyone else. That's incredibly ridiculous. What I would like to see is for the people in the media telling the story to stop framing everything in such a way that it's black-and-white. GamerGate is a very grey issue with a lot of moving parts. In any case, I hope you and I get to collaborate soon. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tutelary (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Fine Young Capitalists

Hello! Your submission of The Fine Young Capitalists at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar ♔ 19:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prem Rawat

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prem Rawat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock of Snakebyte42. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/GamerGate_(controversy)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/GamerGate_(controversy). bot didnt notify you lol Thanks. Retartist (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Ridge

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Ridge. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Fine Young Capitalists

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian as you did here and here. Making serious accusations without evidence is not cool.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling you and others POV-pushers is not a personal attack, but an observation of exhibited behavior on that talk page. Ignoring reliable sources and instead working to exclude criticism on the basis of your personal opinion about whether what the sources have said is right is a blatant violation of NPOV. That you previously agreed to this material, but reneged the moment you found another supporter does suggest you had no interest in compromise in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Making serious allegations about other editors without evidence is a personal attack. Stop immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My evidence are the very arguments you are using to exclude reliably-sourced criticism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with other editors' behavior, take it to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Stop disrupting the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you see any disruption? Calling you out on your behavior is not disruption.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Commenting on other contributors rather than the content is disruptive. Throwing around serious allegations without evidence is disruptive. Your battleground behavior is disruptive. For the last time, knock it off.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I find nothing disruptive about Devil Advocate's behavior. His comments tend to be on point. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate general sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar ☥ 03:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement

Warning, you are edit warring against consensus from the RFC on The Zeitgeist Movement article. With your long history of conspiracy article sanctions against any editing of conspiracy related articles and tendentiousness connected, could you please think about your actions as being disruptive and cease. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

#GamerGate hashtag origin

Apologies for my edit which you qualified (I removed the bit about Adam retweeting a feminist blogger & you re-added it). I was having difficulty finding the retweet, 'cos obviously it's much easier to search for the actual tag which followed. (I'm sure I can find it).

I don't know which source we're citing here though. Did you notice one of the citations as mentioning this? If you're just working with the primary source, I've not noticed a cite of that :(. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcejedi (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young's piece has two pages. It's on the next page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for fixing my confusion. Sourcejedi (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anil Dash paragraph

Please describe on the talk page the issues you have with this paragraph rather than just vaguely removing it. I've restored it (and moved it to a different part of the article). The harassment of this peripheral person is relevant to discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Gamergate controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Edit warring violates Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate, if continued, you risk general sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 03:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:3RRNO. You might also want to direct the people restoring that trash to the policy as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CRYBLP again because there's nothing that's a BLP violation. Bribery is only a crime on the political level. Going "Say something and I'll donate this money" is only being described as a bribe so stop WP:BLPsplaining already. I asked you hours ago to go to the talk page on your issues but you clearly haven't.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going there now. Honestly, though, if an admin does not ban you from this topic area for an extensive track record of rampant POV-pushing and generally hostile behavior towards editors within the next 24 hours, I am going to do everything I can to see to it that you are banned from it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate:, believe me I'm very familiar with WP:BLP and WP:3RRNO, I'm not seeing any exemptions for your claim - if you continue, you'd best make it very clear what the BLP vios are, and I'd strongly suggest bringing the purported BLP vio (or other edit warring exemption) to the attention of WP:BLP/N, WP:ANI or an admin instead of you edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 03:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have exactly zero trust in your competence or your objectivity on this matter. It is only out of my general desire to avoid these kinds of situations that I have not been actively pushing for the removal of your bit. The fact your only response to Ryulong's behavior is to advise him indulgently on how to not get in trouble is a pretty good sign of where your allegiances lie. You shouldn't be adminning on this topic at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You clearly violated 3RR, I'm not blocking you because I warned you afterwards. I strongly advise caution. Dreadstar ☥ 05:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you blocked me for a few minutes there so let me just make this clear: you impose any block or any other serious sanction on me over this situation and you are being dragged before ArbCom. That you apparently have no concern about the blatant POV-pushing that is being used to shove in an accusation that a named living person engaged in criminal misconduct is just another example of your rank incompetence and lack of objectivity on the matter.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You'd best take that claim to WP:BLP/N right now; especially if you plan to continue your edit war, you will definitely be sanctioned unless there is a very clear reason under BLP or WP:3RRNO for you continue. Dreadstar ☥ 06:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing it at talk already, but if you think taking further action is going to result in anything but your name being added to an arbitration case, then you are not heeding me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a discussion on WP:BLP/N, and that's where it should be if it's a violation of BLP as you continue to claim. I'm not seeing any resolution on the article talk page, if there is, please point it out. Dreadstar ☥ 07:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, you might want to read about this 3RR report for the possible ArbCom case. Dreadstar did not sanction an editor that reverted the Gamergate controversy article whopping 12 times in 24 hours because 15 hours later it was "stale", yet you were instantly sanctioned at the minimum. As with how Dreadstar's obvious bias go, edit warring was overlooked when the editor was from the opposite side of the dispute from you. --Pudeo' 03:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Principle

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Principle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning: Violation of the No personal attacks policy

Please don't call other editors that disagree with you POV pushers or tell them they have been using Toxic Hostility without proof. I found your comment here to be very uncollaborative. Please refrain from further personal attacks to avoid being penalized by way of a block and or topic ban. Thank you.--MONGO 12:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy of the highest order. You all have been attacking me non-stop in that topic area, but the moment I say a cross-word against you it's all "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!"--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All I said was you're overdue for a site ban which is not a personal attack....it's merely an observation.--MONGO 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi TDA. You're dealing with some poor editors over at Zeitgeist which is unfortunate. I'd recommend doing regular RfC's to get more editors involved. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I want to thank you for your professional work on the #GamerGate article. You live up to your name. Keep up your hard work and have a nice day :-) Racuce (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist RfC

Hi TDA. If you're concerned about what's going on at the Zeitgeist RfC, I recommend you take it to this messageboard [10] ---- You need feedback from numerous uninvolved editors which you are not getting now. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rude

You start a party and forget to invite me? I am most offended. I had to dig through thousands of redirects, forgotten talkpages, and such to find the ArbCom. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 01:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You found it very soon after I posted it so obviously it wasn't that difficult to locate. XP At any rate, I am going to add a notification to the article talk page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

Hi, I noticed you reverted all of my edits to The Fine Young Capitalists. What was the POV issue with my edits there? Hustlecat ^{do it!} 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The obvious POV issues you introduced were the deletion of Kain's opinion on Vivian James without explanation and the alteration of the material about Quinn's allegations to say she "called out" issues, which implies her allegations were correct. Additionally, some of the stylistic adjustments you made were unnecessary and did not look good, though that is not a POV issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm trying to cut out some of the Gamergate bloat that is making up the majority of that article at the moment. I'll try again.

There is really no need for three quotes on a character that is more associated with a controversy than with the company itself, so I attempted to cut down some of the excess. Two of the Vivian James quotes said basically the same thing, and I figured it would be more neutral to remove the Erik Kain one than to remove the rebuttal to criticism quote (which restates Kain's quote as well).

As far as "called out" goes, "accused" is very loaded lanaguage as well and wording throughout the article seems focused on painting Zoe Quinn as an aggressor, so I think it should toned down quite a bit. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative to both?

As far as formatting - "Did not look good" sounds like POV to me, but to each his own :) I'll be less bold with my next edits, then, but I hope you'll be more specific in your edit descriptions next time so I can learn and adjust. Thanks, Hustlecat ^{do it!} 01:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your latest changes are fine mostly, though I restored certain details about the contest since I feel they are warranted. I don't really agree with the section heading being called "involvement in GamerGate" since it ignores that many aspects of their involvement directly related to the project. Vivian James is a character designed for the game because 4chan had made sufficient donations and their IndieGoGo got fully funded as a result of their involvement. That said, I don't think the heading change is too objectionable. My points do indicate how their involvement is directly relevant to them overall, however.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are the contest details needed? Including them is very promotional and news release-y. Wikipedia shouldn't have promotional language on a company page... Hustlecat ^{do it!} 02:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the project is part of the reason they attained so much negative attention and thus became involved in the GamerGate controversy so detailing certain aspects is pertinent. I also think noting the exact breakdown is important as there are some claims that all profits go to either the woman who wins the contest or charity, when there is a portion that goes towards TFYC and the production company. Simply saying most goes to charity leaves room for confusion, while laying it out makes it clear that "most" means 75% of profits go to charity with the rest being split pretty much even between the production company, the contest itself, and the winning game designer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Spell it out

Arbitrators are normal people and as a result, are prone to human actions. They won't delve into something as deeply as you'd like them too, you have to spell it out for them exactly why and how something is unacceptable, in specific terms. Linking all those noticeboards and the like may seem to you that they can just go see all the evidence, but they're not going to do that. You need to explain how each one is relevant to the case of GamerGate, and not just hope it will be all fine and dandy and they'll look deep enough. (But maybe you were waiting until it actually started to do that, I dunno.) Tutelary (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is to have them accept it. I think the list of cases illustrates a big part of the problem. My motivation stems from events after the last arbitration request and I would be willing to clarify as much should an arbitrator ask, but for now I am going to let things play out. Even Masem, in his own noncommittal way, gave a pretty strong argument for why it should be accepted citing events since the last request so I think they are going to be more receptive to this request than the previous ones.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the arbitration guide, aren't they supposed to have accepted the case already? The requirements had already been met before NativeForeigner registered a decline vote, and it's at +4 again with David_Fuchs. Maybe a gentle reminder is in order if more time elapses? 74.12.93.242 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

See the guide to arbitration. It has met the criteria of having an absolute majority of active non-recused Arbs accepting the case and will be opened after 24 hours pass.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

...How many arbs are there, exactly? 74.12.93.242 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

You need this more than i do. DSA510 Pls No H8 07:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gamergate controversy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Multiple Issues|{{POV|date=October 2014}}
• game-authority-art-video-games//|title=The Object of the Game: Authority, Art, and Video Games]]|date=February 14, 2013|accessdate=August 23, 2014}}</ref> -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Arbcom case request statement needs trimming

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 1735 words, so is way over the limit. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that evidence is for the next phase, but I was trying to illustrate my concerns about admin conduct since I felt Arbs were not taking them seriously enough. That said, I can trim the statement and include a diff of my original statement. My intention is to respond to Carcharoth's concern as well so I will need the space anyway.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

After making this request, Carcharoth shared with me that there was a request for a brief response. I also note that other contributors are over the limit as well, and I will be contacting them as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does this mean?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Several times today on that page you have referred to other editors as "POV-pushers". You are welcome to comment on edits that you believe to be POV and label them as such, but do not comment on other editors in such a manner, as it unnecessarily inflames the discussion. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what really unnecessarily inflames the discussion? POV-pushing editors and the involved partisan admins who enable them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are trying to convince me that you need a break from the article, it's working. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool down blocks are disallowed, Gamaliel and criticism of admin actions and/or proposed admin actions are allowed per policy. Tutelary (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@TDA: I don't really understand what you're hoping to achieve. You've filed a request for arbitration which is about to be accepted. There's a good chance you're going to end up topic-banned as a result of the case you filed. Unless your strategy is a war of attrition and you're happy to sacrifice yourself for the greater good, I don't understand what you're hoping to achieve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I got pretty pissed after Ryulong, Baranof, et al started removing reliably-sourced details about women and minorities who support GamerGate receiving death and rape threats, while also trying to remove or dilute any material suggesting GamerGate has women and minority supporters at all. The editing on the draft is so ridiculous that I can barely take it. Baranof used a deceitful edit summary to remove some stuff backed by The Washington Post for fuck's sake. But, oh no, you can't call someone who does that a POV-pusher. THAT is simply unacceptable and means I need to step away from the issue completely and let those Honorable Knights of Neutrality have free reign. Not a chance. I would be happy to do so if I knew that lot would no longer be able to touch the issue, though. Even then, outside this most recent discussion I have barely touched the talk page, let alone the article, since November 5th because I got sick and tired with their crap and admins sitting on their hands about it. Not surprisingly, that's about when it started really going to shit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do anything while ignoring the blatant POV-pushing by your co-partisans then you will only be proving correct everything I have said about you. They get away with edit-warring like hell to label GamerGate a misogynistic harassment campaign, randomly accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being SPAs or zombie accounts, defaming a named lawyer and named journalists, but you rush to threaten me swinging around your admin billy club because I call them POV-pushers due to their blatant POV-pushing. #JustWikipediaThings--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Beat your chest at me all you want, as long as you keep it off the article talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity: if "POV-pushers" is inappropriate language for a WP talk page, does "sexually repressed basement dwellers" also qualify? Or are the rules different for epithets directed at other editors vs. the subject(s) of the article? I mean, I'm sure I can find dozens of similar examples from the talk page's history, given the time and effort. In fact, I'm pretty sure I can find multiple instances of Ryulong, RPoD et. al. making the same "POV-pusher" accusation, again given the time and effort, and to the best of my knowledge no sanction or even warning has ever been forthcoming for that behaviour. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A few of them have been warned or advised at one point or another, though I am grateful for the diff all the same.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For any troublesome behavior that I missed due to lack of omniscience, please submit it here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of what I have in mind is stale, but I imagine a lot of this sort of thing will come up in evidence for the Arbcom hearing.

Just quickly while I have your ear, though: I've been hearing a lot of talk about WP:FORUM violations. Would this include, say, speculating on the Gamergate controversy talk page about the motives of GG supporters, talking about whether they're "misogynists", etc.? I know people have previously objected to a lot of this sort of content on BLP grounds and been summarily dismissed. But if WP:FORUM means what I think it does, then from my perspective, the talk page has been a continuous morass of WP:FORUM on all sides essentially since day 1, and the discretionary sanctions have done absolutely nothing about it. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Heads up, I got another irc threat, this time specifically in the name of, and you are gonna love this, gama. "We'r gonna dox thedevls advoctate too if he keeps questoning galamiel(gamaliel?)." But yeah, heads up. --DSA510 Pls No H8 09:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Peh.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not be too concerned about threats from those who cannot spell. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For once I gotta agree. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Wood (Room to Read). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gamergate Arbcom

I noticed that in your statement for Arbcom, you argued that User:Cuchullain was WP:INVOLVED, specifically via the Anita Sarkeesian article. I thought I would bring to your attention that he was also involved with the talk page for TFYC, where he argued for deletion on the rather strained basis of BLP1E, and proceeded to vote for deletion formally (near the bottom). 74.12.93.242 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Already knew that, but that activity came after the last admin action, while Cuchullain has been involved on Sarkeesian's page long before GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I didn't see it was you who made the Adam edit, I just saw the wording and saw it a bit too BLP and I see now you wrote it to "appeal to both sides". I've always said you're one of the few decent editors regarding GamerGate Loganmac (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan article

Hey so the 8chan article was created and right now it's BLP after BLP based around a single weak source as The Daily Dot, I've reworked the lead and added the websites template. Could you lend a hand in giving ideas to treat its criticism? I'd do it myself but I might need a second opinion. My current worries is the article implies Frederick Brennan allows pedophilia based on only that one source Loganmac (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

GS/GG/E

Please remember to limit your statement to 500 words. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you withdraw this?

Though I perceive what you were thinking, this post is unwise. MB is also stepping over the line in some of his posts but we trust that after his personal safety is addressed, if he does return to the GG discussion he won't continue in the same vein. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Whole thing is hatted so it is hardly worth changing at this point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence

Since you're arguing that RL made BLP edits, I thought I might draw your attention to these diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=next&oldid=625650471 (Gjoni himself did not harass Quinn and to the best of my knowledge none of the RSes make this claim)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&curid=43758363&diff=631534723&oldid=631534559 (this is a diff undoing RL's content, because the BLP concerns are explicitly cited)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=625650471 (that this was seen as 'irrelevant', meanwhile, might be argued to demonstrate POV)

76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was gonna look for edits regarding Gjoni, but you saved me the trouble.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please keep looking. I'm sure there are more; those are just a couple I happened to keep links to when I was involved (this is the "formerly involved IP user" from the case request).

Also, regarding Anil Dash: I'm pretty sure that the claim "even though he had not been involved in the GamerGate debate at all" has been shown to be false; although I don't know if I can find an RS for it, maybe I can find something that's convincing enough for Arbcom, since this isn't about actually adding content to the article.

(I'm considering making my own statement, but I don't want to repeat major topics brought up by others.)76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is demonstrably false from looking over Dash's Twitter account, but Death and Taxes does say something to that effect so it is the source's offense in that respect. Death and Taxes is hardly a reliable source, of course, and that is the offense on Ryulong's part. There are supposedly reliable sources that make demonstrably false statements on a variety of issues but when using unreliable or highly questionable sources the insertion of false information is more egregious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, a key premise of the argument I intend to make is that the printing of a "demonstrably false statement" is a reason to question the reliability of a source. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would mean challenging the reliability of most news media, even vaunted papers of record such as The Washington Post and The New York Times.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gamaliel: "Puedo" is clearly a typo for User:Pudeo, and not referring to User:PseudoSomething. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is then he was mixing up Pudeo with Pseudo. His description of the reasons for banning those editors matches his argument with PseudoSomething.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Suppose anything can be done with this? Civility, demonstration of bias etc.? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

So I see where you're coming from with this "Gjoni is being maligned" shit now, IP editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Actually it should be a cuddly rottweiller for all the good you do defending the defendable and even the undefendable with precise and accurate summaries and great section headers.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tutelary (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Be careful man

Don't bite the bait, approach everything calmly, that encounter with Silver is stuff they're looking for Loganmac (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Seconding the vote to be careful. The bit about PresN on the talk page is... interesting, but it's bound to look WP:POINTy given the immediately previous discussion. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to make that comment in its own section the moment I saw PresN say he was "mostly uninvolved", but after seeing there was a thread already about his statement I began writing it up as a reply, but opted for a new section because the discussion was moving too fast for my comment to really fit. Now, I am just thoroughly gobsmacked that someone has changed the outing policy to include mentioning accounts editors have on other sites.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's dangerous to go alone, here take this

I probably wont be writing an Arbcom evidence section anytime soon (may do so a few days before the deadline or something), and I noticed you had a section arguing Black Kite is WP:Involved. Thought you might be able to use these diffs.[11] [12] Bosstopher (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni

Could you please elaborate on why those Buzzfeed and Gawker articles are "illuminating" regarding "squabbling over sourcing"? (Also, I find the word choice ironic, given that both articles ran a terrible, shadowy picture of Gjoni at the top.) 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both refer to allegations of emotional abuse.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. And since Buzzfeed and Gawker have been allowed as sources for the article, sauce for the goose, is that it? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as per extensive debate, a consensus was reached on Talk:Gamergate controversy that we'd remove all sourcing from BuzzFeed and Gawker, except those citations expressly used to support the occasions where each became involved: the BuzzFeed "Gamers are dead" article and the Gawker "Operation Disrespectful Nod" thing. So yes, sauce for the goose, BuzzFeed and Gawker are not suitable sources for the page and hence those articles aren't usable there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, any plans (too lazy for a new section) to argue Ryulong's claim that "the community as a whole has supported [him]" regarding Auerbach? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh that. LOL.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What are your goals, IP editor who refuses to register an account?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Standard Limits ArbCom Evidence

The standard limits ArbCom evidence submissions are 1000 words. I count your evidence submission currently at 1581 words (not including Rebuttal). Just thought you might want to know so you can trim it down a bit (or you can request more room). --Obsidi (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You can put your excess evidence in my section. I will open it up and leave a note on the talk page that I gave you the go ahead. Cla68 (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Those pesky word and evidence limits always throw me. I would rather try to get all my evidence into the page then see where I go from there.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the explicit instructions that "You must submit evidence in your own section", I'd have to suggest that Cla68's offer would be best ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I remove something at some point he can add it on his own with his own wording, even if it is just based off my own submission.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And you don't think that that might risk being seen as an attempt to game the system? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguing over wikilawyering nonsense is downright silly and one of the hallmarks of a Wikipedian, isn't it? Isn't it more important that the evidence be presented? If TDA removes some of his evidence, I will just present it in my section in my own words and take responsibility for it since it will be under my anonymous account name. Cla68 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I will reveal it for the first time here...the other night as I walked home I heard a "pssst" from a nearby alley. A shady-looking character wearing a Lara Croft T-shirt beckoned me over, and in a low voice, told me he had some evidence for the GamerGate ArbCom case and told me I could get a free subscription to Video Game Republic magazine for life if I presented it in my section. I, of course, self-righteously told him to begone. I assume, of course, that ArbCom evidence is inadmissable if provided by an anonyomous person from a dark alley. If it isn't, it very well should be. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom and "content"

I'm getting the impression that there's a narrative being established along the lines of RL's "this is a content dispute" proposal, and an attempt to get the whole thing dismissed on those grounds. So I'm worried now that getting into arguments on the Workshop page is taking the bait (apologies for my own involvement in that) :( Recentering seems like a good idea here, but I feel like I'm in over my head with all the wikilawyering. Like, it recently occurred to me that I can probably make a coherent argument about how the sources are being misrepresented in the article, but how do I properly frame that as "editor is doing something wrong" rather than "the article needs to say this instead"? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gonna be pretty hard to dismiss Ryulong's actions as merely a content matter and the same goes for other editors against whom I shall present evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This IP really wants me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the 3rd out of 4 threads on this user's talk page started by the above IP editor in which your input was neither requested nor relevant. Enough WP:HOUNDING. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Western civilization is at stake with the results of this ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is surely correct and we must fight for our very survival.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Timing

Hi. I see that you continue to talk about another editor outside the dispute resolution process.[13] This is impolite, and you should stop. You are welcome to discuss the general issue of paid editing, which I also oppose. The arbitration request was rejected and the issue related to that particular editor should not be brought up again until or unless some new outrage occurs. Okay? Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(Pardon the intrusion. Not the DA). I'm pretty sure we can discuss the behaviour (in good faith) of other editors on user talk pages. I find your assertion that we may not offensive, insulting and dangerous. You need to rethink your propensity to police other people's communication. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No it is rude to gossip about other editors without inviting them to the conversation and it is prohibited to cast aspersions without evidence or outside proper dispute resolution. If you have a problem with an editor, discuss it with her in good faith. If you runaround bad mouthing her, you will get yourselves into trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of badmouthing Sarah - I hold her in the highest esteem (and told her so when we briefly met in Hong Kong). Notwithstanding that, I will discuss other editors, warts and all, on user talk pages. Scuttling about here telling people what they can and can't say on user talk pages while levelling vague threats is very problematical behaviour, and it makes you look like a ridiculous, meddling busybody - which I'm sure you're not. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, "makes you look like a ridiculous, meddling busybody - which I'm sure you're not." Do you really want to put that diff on the record? Type your comment, read it again, and then think whether it adds anything of value before you hit the save button. If you are sure I am not any of these things, why say it in the first place? Back to the point, I wanted to hear from the Devil, but you are doing a fine job of running interference for him. How about you come to my talk page if you want to talk to me, and you let me have my conversation with the Devil without sending it off on a tangent? Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's talk is a suitable high-profile place for discussing issues with admins and what I presented certainly included evidence. My intention was to gauge the assessment of others and see if anyone can find similar issues with her actions. Since that evidence was presented almost immediately before the arbitration request was removed it did not get a chance to be reviewed by Arbs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of treating some user's talk page as special. We should not have a king of Wikipedia. In any event, thank you for your answer. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears likely that the evidence limits will be doubled. However, your evidence section is 2488 words, well over the revised limit. Please take steps to cut it back. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been thinking it would be doubled and noticed my section would be even longer than that. I will try to trim it some time today.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

really?

Are you really going to submit as "evidence" this edit [14] ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the usage of such terminology has been a constant point of contention, I think it is very much a valid piece of evidence. You guys spin it into a BLP issue to not use that word, but the simple reality is that you often try to use the term "false" to include things that have not been proven false as was the case in that edit. One thing has been found false, but you apparently want to make it seem like every allegation about Quinn was proven false. Nobody reading that phrasing in the lede would think the allegations went beyond a supposed review by Grayson that never existed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly discussed, that is the only allegation of professional impropriety involving Quinn and Grayson which reliable sources have deemed meaningful and being of public interest, so for our purposes, they're false. Other allegations do not exist so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Anonymous people throwing shit against a wall on 8chan doesn't constitute sourcing. I'm sure you're sad that reliable sources haven't deemed it necessary to assign an investigative reporting team to dig up dirt on Zoe Quinn's personal life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was gonna say something, but then I saw how you phrased it. Pretty sneaky there stating "that is the only allegation . . . involving Quinn and Grayson" discussed in reliable sources. Seems you tacitly acknowledge other allegations about Quinn have been discussed in reliable sources. As such stating the allegations are false wrongly implies other allegations that been discussed in reliable sources are false, when it is only the one allegation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What other "allegations" would be even remotely relevant to discuss in the article or on any other Wikipedia page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys always pull that, but relevance is not established by your own personal feels on the matter. That reliable sources repeatedly see fit to mention the other allegations suggests they are relevant. More to the point, if we are going by reliable sources, we cannot act as if these other allegations do not exist when reliable sources clearly acknowledge their existence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK we keep bringing up the fact that you keep bringing up unrelated issues because you keep bringing up unrelated issues which is particularly inappropriate regarding living people WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to decide whether it is related or not. These other allegations are mentioned, sometimes even detailed, in other reliable sources and as such you cannot act as if they did not exist, even if that were a thing we do here. We got rid of "verifiability, not truth" for a reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we do get to decide whether it's related, as a matter of editorial judgment based upon what reliable sources are or aren't discussing. Reliable sources overwhelmingly ignore discussion of Quinn and Gjoni's failed relationship because it amounts to he-said-she-said relationship drama between two private people, which is a matter of approximately less than zero public interest. Journalists are not in the business of reporting on failed relationships absent a clear and unambiguous relationship to a matter of public interest. As per the SPJ Code of Ethics: Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect. Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do. Once again, I apologize that ethical journalists have evinced an utter disinterest in Quinn's personal relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's the only allegation involving professional impropriety (as opposed to someone's personal relationship drama) which is discussed in reliable sources. By the way, if you can't even mention the other allegations you purport exist, that's probably a good clue they don't belong in an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly mention them. You guys jumping all over me on my talk page is just not something that inspires me to comply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You were getting baited so hard here TDA Loganmac (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

The statement is a bit misleading as that list is just of the parties to the case, not just those who have not been included in the evidence. At this point, I believe only Ramba Ral, Remorseless Angel, and Retartist have not had any evidence presented against them. It is also technically true of Willhesucceed, though I mentioned a block the editor received in my evidence, but it was regarding the admin action taken. No evidence has been presented regarding PhilKnight yet, but I intend to present it imminently.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You're a good man.

Greetings TDA. I am just dropping a note to say you are doing God's work with your ArbCom request in re the Gamergate Controversy. You are the only experienced editor with the balls to stand up to the progandistic ideologues presently controlling the page. IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 from me.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 03:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In case it's useful as evidence: Ryulong was recently admonished by an administrator for reporting my legitimate edits to the Fredrick Brennan article and talk page as vandalism. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be shocked if Ryulong does not get topic-banned, so I doubt any more evidence will be necessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate and Newsweek's published data analysis

Hi, TDA, how's it hangin'?

I added a piece to the GG talk page about a little-noticed aspect of the body of gamergate tweets. According to Brandwatch, the analysts hired by Newsweek, they were only able to detect negativity in a small fraction of GG tweets. The vast majority were labelled neutral. I'd like to know if, as an experienced editor, you think this might merit inclusion. Bramble window (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Brandwatch study is crap and shouldn't be included at all. Very few sources actually covered it other than Newsweek and it was basically echo coverage.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it was too non-specific. But I also think that if it's fair to paint Gamergate as a movement devoted entirely to the hatred of women it would be strange if even a low-quality study failed to bear it out. Hate speech isn't hard to spot. I doubt that Brandwatch are so incompetent as to systematically mislabel anti-woman tweets as "neutral". Just my 2c and I appreciate your honesty as always. Bramble window (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A basic description of their data would probably suffice. The vagueries used in that material are clearly aimed at downplaying the reality that only a small portion of tweets were ruled to be negative, which in itself is not even very meaningful as negative can mean anything from hateful to critical.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?

(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Governor-General of Australia

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Governor-General of Australia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on GamerGate Workshop page

Your comments in the "Users involved in off-site disruption banned" section are disruptive and do not assist the arbitrators arriving at a decision. If you continue to make comments such as these your participation in the case may be restricted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? I made like two comments with the last being two days ago and both times it was to point out that Ryulong was bringing me up off-wiki while calling for other people to be banned for doing the same.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart source

The question of using Breitbart as a source on the Gamergate controversy article is a long-settled issue, and raising it again and again is tendentious in the extreme. If you insist on reverting this unacceptable, non-starter source into the talk page, I'll have no choice but to open a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude, whether Breitbart is reliable or not is a long-running dispute from what I can tell and, at the very least, there is acceptance for citing it as a source of opinion. There is absolutely zero basis for redacting a link to Breitbart as a BLP violation. The fact you were editing the article on Breitbart and citing the article on Breitbart to justify your action just makes this that much more absurd.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement request

I have filed an enforcement request related to your conduct at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#The Devil's Advocate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)

I think that's happen per WP:BRD once again. There's questionable and unreliable sources anywhere (including MuuMuse, guitarsweepstakes.com). Can you remove and keep an eye that who may doing the same pattern. 183.171.182.160 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No clue what you are talking about. Never edited the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seen this

So this guy gets banned SITEWIDE, for edit warring/reverting someone twice, over a button size, which required 3 admins to come in here [15]

What the hell is going on haha Loganmac (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, they just went Ozzy Osbourne on that guy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just curious, has this been brought forward to the admins? Just heard it was, or to other admins I don't know Loganmac (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

CM

So what's even your opinion on the Cultural Marxism article, they're trying to delete it again Loganmac (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of literary awards

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of literary awards. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The draft

It's not surprising if you missed my explanation. It was a single word, "Weaselling." I'm sorry I should have elaborated on the talk page at the time. I've now provided, on the talk page, a rationale for cleaning up all this nonsense from otherwise straightforward accounts of crimes against Zoe Quinn and her associates and defenders. --TS 22:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy‎

Suggest you re-word this comment. The last sentence seems like a personal attack to me. — Strongjam (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate and HJ Mitchell

I promised to look into an issue involving Hj Mitchell and yourself. Unfortunately, I've been busier than I anticipated; I am sitting in a room preparing for a short meeting, but then I am driving to North Carolina and back (from Connecticut) so will not have the time to fully look into the issue. Short summary – you made some allegation about improper admin conduct. I am a firm believer that improper admin conduct needs to be investigated and addressed, but I also feel that unfounded allegations must not be allowed to stand unanswered. I want to look to see if your allegations are supported by your evidence in the GamerGate arbcom case. If they are, they should remain, but if not, we should investigate a few options. One is removal of the allegation. Another is rewording of the allegation to match the evidence. Another is to leave the allegation but allow posting of a rebuttal (which would normally be a standard approach, but in this case we have to address the fact that the comments are closed.) Another option might be a combination, - my meeting is starting will followup.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to stop by for tea when passing through Connecticut. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged misconduct

You are of course free to post your complaints to other forums (though in that case, you may be susceptible to allegations of WP:Forumshopping). But maybe first you should tell me what the BLP problems were with my edits. I still don't understand your complaint. Steeletrap (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year The Devil's Advocate!

Happy New Year!

The Devil's Advocate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Avono (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Dear The Devil's Advocate,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the Shinji Ikari article talk page

I'm having to once again throw up resistance to the over-categorization of this article, as some editors do not seem to grasp the concept of synthesis. If you get some time, could you look at the talk page and let me know if there is a better way for me to state what I have said? I really don't feel like getting into a months long debate about this. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fredrick Brennan

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fredrick Brennan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (and suggestion)

Thanks for the AE on Steeletrap. I was setting up to do so myself when you intervened. No matter the result, she has taken the honorable course of action by retiring. And I am heartened by the fact that she awarded me a barnstar as one of her closing edits. (BTW, when I came by this page to offer my complement I was struck by its length. An {{Archiveme}} request is in order.) Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it needs to be archived. I is just lazy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Adding_See_Also_section_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Adding_See_Also_section_links. Thanks. 68.7.95.95 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I got topic blocked

Hey man don't you find it weird I got topic blocked from editing Gamergate articles when if you look at my contribution history I have never edited a Gamergate article in my life? Xander756 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What the ever-loving fuck are you doing?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And by your block I am meaning in particular this where you ask for information previously rev del'd from Wikipedia. There is no fixed duration meant by the block.--5 albert square (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked the dude who posted the comment to fucking e-mail me about what he said. There is no violation of policy in that. Not even sure how requesting that someone privately inform me of their recollection regarding their own comments could possibly constitute a matter worthy of any admin action. Could you show me what basis you have in policy for this decision?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What legitimate reason do you have for asking for information that one of us admins have rev del'd? Especially after an admin rightly refused to give it to you. By policy that information is restricted to admins.

In order for you to be considered for an unblock you will need to demonstrate that you will not ask for rev del'd material. If it is rev del'd then that is done for a very good reason--5 albert square (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get involved here, but my question is the same as 5 albert square's: what legitimate reason would anyone have for asking a blocked editor to email them content that has been RevDel'd? Especially considering that the content is a BLP violation and arguably libellous, and after an admin (me) had told you that you couldn't have it and described it in general terms? I can't see one, but if you had one, I'm sure 5 albert square would unblock you swiftly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Maybe they wanted to read it? What conduct are we regulating, exactly? We deleted the content because it was flatly inappropriate for wikipedia. TDA's email isn't wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HJ that there doesn't seem to be a valid reason for the request to obtain a copy of the material, and it was the correct response to question the motives and deny the request, but merely asking about it is far from constituting a blockable offense IMO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see the justification behind this block. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• So do I. I recommend 5 albert square reverts his action and seeks AN/I case if he feels it will be helpful. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE outlines rules about restoring BLP content, but requesting a (private, i.e. off-wiki) copy of it isn't itself a BLPvio (might grow into harassment if left unchecked and it's generally unproductive, but that's besides the point). Providing a copy of said material by using the admin bit to view RevDel'ed diffs may run afoul of some unwritten ethics, and HJ Mitchell has wisely declined to comply with TDA's request. The user who originally posted said content of course has the choice to repeat said content privately, or not, at his convenience. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, WP:BLPDELETE states: "The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive." It may not explicitly state that sending copies of the material is allowed, but it certainly does not prohibit such disclosure. Only limitations I know of concern oversighted material. There is certainly a legitimate reason to request the material as the deleted edit is being used as the basis for sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEL states that "deleted pages are not permitted to be generally viewed." It doesn't say anything about the availability of the information in the deleted material. Does this policy imply that the information from the deleted page is globally censored? Or is there another deletion policy that I've overlooked somewhere? If I were to ask Xander756 what he wrote in person and an admin overheard me, would I also be banned? The line seems to get more and more hazy to the limits of an admin's scope of moderating in and around very controversial topics. TyTyMang (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Weighing in here myself in agreement with the above, this manner of blocking can easily be taken as an act to censor someone else. There was no mention of intention in regards to the requested material nor desire to subvert/troll anything on here. I'd be more eloquent but I believe the people above me have sufficiently stated everything else I possibly could on the matter. This is wrong.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to add. The reason for the block stated in the notice is for "contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." In a summary of WP:BLP it states that: "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." To violate BLP it would seem that an editor would have to, as it states, add material to a page about a living persons. I don't see how asking for information, even regarding Rev Del material, can remotely be considered adding material to a page about living persons. The policy given as violated does not seem to fit the justifications behind the action. So in order to "contravene BLP, it would seem an actual edit with BLP material would have to be made.TyTyMang (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've unblocked TDA per 5 albert square's "If I have erred in one of my admin actions (...) please don't hesitate to reverse it" and the budgeoning consensus amongst other commenters here. He is more than welcome to start an AN/I case if he believes the block was necessary and should be reinstated. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and to be clear on the reason why I was questioning HJ's actions, it is because of the circumstances in which his actions occurred. HJ is currently active with regards to the arbitration case on GamerGate. As I noted in one of my proposed findings there, he had early on in the GamerGate dispute called for banning Tutelary in an ANI discussion, then later blocked a suspected sockpuppet account, and then insinuated at the ANI discussion that the account might belong to Tutelary without any evidence (a subsequent SPI found no connection to Tutelary). His block of the account barred the operator of the account from responding on the user's own talk page or by e-mail. HJ also failed to inform the operator of the account of the other routes for appeal. This effectively prevented the operator of that account from contradicting HJ's insinuation about an editor he wanted banned.

A similar event occurred during the arbitration case as HJ called for Ryulong to be banned from Wikipedia and later on imposed a sanction on Ryulong, which he announced at the Proposed Decision talk page. During the appeal of that sanction, one user argued that it had the appearance of him using his admin tools as a way to prejudice the outcome of the case.

In this instance, Xander appears to have only returned due to him being added as a party at HJ's explicit request in this discussion. Before Xander returned, HJ also proposed a finding of fact to absolve the admin who sanctioned Xander and argued that if he had seen the edits in question first, then he would have indefinitely banned Xander. Now he indefinitely blocks Xander and again goes to the proposed decision talk page and announced his action against Xander. I should note HJ has also proposed a site ban against me, apparently in part on the basis of me questioning admin actions such as the one taken against Xander.

Something else to consider is that this comment by HJ effectively restates one of the earlier claimed BLP violations. Although he doesn't identify anyone by name when restating the content of the BLP violation, he explicitly linked to where I identified one of the BLP subjects concerned, thus associating his comments with that person. I have not found it even remotely difficult to avoid stating anything openly that might restate the claimed violation so the fact an admin cannot manage to maintain discretion regarding BLP even as he defends a BLP action is disconcerting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Having personally (briefly) reviewed Xander's contribution, I find it easy to spot the "BLPvio" that lead to the block. I will read a bit more on the circumstances before responding to the user's UTRS appeal (which I've reserved for now), but unless I'm unaware of some major element here, it seems the BLPvio block itself was justified, and making it indef was a judgement call based on the user's prior history. Make of that what you want. I trust ArbCom's judgement in taking every aspect of these events into consideration but on a purely administrative level I find no fault in HJ's block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Xander, as I noted, is a named party to the arbitration case. I did send additional details via e-mail to one of the new Arbs, the one who responded to my comment on the proposed decision talk page, though I am not sure if that Arb is going to be involved in the final case decision.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that 5 Albert square's permission for other admins to reverse his actions comes with a rider: as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Perhaps a note at his her talk page would be in order? GoldenRing (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkbacks are no longer useful now that everyone gets pings through Echo notifications. I am absolutely certain he is well aware of this discussion and/or will be as soon as he returns. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The square states she is a lady on her user page so, you know, stop talking about her like she is a guy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. GoldenRing (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is crazy, this is the same admin that blocked User Dwavenhobble indefintely over an editr war of a button size, I would please ask for other admins to reconsider that too Loganmac (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What in the world!!! Was there a 1RR in place or something? Or does reverting TRPOD's edits automatically constitute edit warring? Seems like a very bad case of Wikipedia:BITE. No conversation, no guidance, no ignorantia juris. Instead just telling him how he engaged in edit warring in the most vague description of anything I've ever seen, making it impossible to refute, while also disregarding the Administrator Guidance section of WP:WAR. He didn't even have a chance to defend himself. Or more specifically, by defending his actions as NOT having edit warred they could claim that he feels justified in his actions, that they have declared as edit warring, and use this to deny the block appeal. Kinda reminds me of the basketball scene in The Longest Yard.TyTyMang (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That particular admin issued the block, yes. Two separate administrators subsequently reviewed the block and found it justified. If you need to shop for more administrators you can file another appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, though I don't expect you to have any luck there either. ExtraIndividual (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since you insist on trying to undermine my reputation in order to get your way in the whole ridiculous affair that is gamergate, let me be clear: I will not sit back and let either side of the dispute libel article subjects, edit-war, insult or harass each other on talk pages, disrupt the project space with frivolous complaints, or do anything else which disrupts articles, distracts editors from their work in building and maintaining the encyclopaedia, or causes harm to real people. Anybody who behaves in such a manner can expect to face sanctions proportionate to the severity of their disruption. If people want to call each other misogynists and feminazis and libel/doxx/harass each other, that's just fine, but do it on Reddit or 8chan or Twitter or some other cesspit, because it will not be tolerated on Wikipedia, and until ArbCom get their finger out of their arse, it's up to administrators to deal with this nonsense. Now I must insist that if you wish to make further allegations against me, you make them with evidence in the appropriate forum, otherwise I will be forced to assume that you are personally attacking me and will take the matter to an appropriate noticeboard and ask for sanctions against you. Note that none of this makes me an involved administrator for anything that does not directly relate to me or my actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone civilly explains why they think an admin is incorrect in their determination, and they do not do that on an ANI page, you will ban them for it? Sounds more like an emotional decision rather than a well-reasoned one. Poor form chap, poor form. WhatOn (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

^ "don't point out my blatant abuses of power or I'll blatantly abuse my powers on you"

good case you're making for yourself sport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.52.237 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I can't be the only one finding this GODDAMN HILARIOUS. Out of everyone, the bot asks you. This can't be coincidence. I'm sorry... I... I gotta go find my sides. --DSA510 Pls No RE 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're super nice!

I really hope you don't get banned ;( True Kindness (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You Fight the Good Fight

From one idealist believer in the Wikipedia Dream to another, I have been following your actions over the past several months and I just want you to know that your work to combat the corruption slowly ruining this place has been invaluable. It is appalling that they are now trying to silence you forever because of it. I wish you the best.EthicsInJournalism (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't always agree with your opinions or your tactics but I do very much respect your willingness to stand up for what you believe in against whatever odds. That is always to be commended. God knows that you weren't the most deserving of an ArbCom ban... best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just suggested some concessions via e-mail. Not sure if they are going to care.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Harvey

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brian Harvey. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	it looks like Arbcom is putting you on the shortbus out of here...Best wishes, it wasn't the action I thought needed taking but they seem to be in a ban everyone mood for this case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I don't know you personally, but it looks like ArbCom is going to ban you, so have a cookie to feel better.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (talk) Ping when replying 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External Observer

Hi TDA, I've been reading the gamergate and arbcom cases with interest. I just wanted to say that I believe a number of people respect your actions in this case. You were facing a committed and politically adept opposition that had a very obvious agenda in mind. You stuck to your guns and didn't let any of their questionable actions go by unnoticed. Though topic banned, I hope you realise without making further edits, the quality of this article owes a great deal to your efforts.

Best of luck to you in your future endeavours, though I think you've earned yourself some R&R ;) 60.225.181.110 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Farewell

The GG is being voted for closure and it looks like you're going to have to leave for at least a year. I do support a fixed time for banning, but I don't handle such issues so good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.197.100 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 January 2015‎

I don't see the chart showing he's going to be banned, as a lot of those votes are conditional on other sanction's not passing. But if he is banned, Arbcom needs to be disbanded. How much money does Wikipedia take in every year? They can afford to hire retired judges to handle these cases, who will do a much better job and leave their personal biases at the door. A reduced "Arbcom" would only be responsible for deciding which cases go to arbitration.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment there is a majority in favor of a site-ban, but due to preferential voting it is likely the cocktail of remedies will be passed instead.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It still pays to keep track. The other editor considered for banning has now resigned. If you make it, great.

I'm sure you created this name because you watched The Devil's Advocate (film). NK 06:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Square oval

Even if you get banninatified from Wikipedia™, you'll always have a place at Uncyclopedia, packed to the brim with anti-wikia sentiment and injokes. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 08:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Helena Blavatsky

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Helena Blavatsky. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

...

I hope that you would keep out of trouble in the future. Don't violate the rules in your reply either, if you are replying. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:War

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek–Turkish relations

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek–Turkish relations. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Israeli cities

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Israeli cities. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spanish Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spanish Civil War. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Help find additional sources for

G. Edward Griffin

Help with The Zeitgeist Movement sources

Hey I wanted to lately check on the The_Zeitgeist_Movement which is now Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement and I got a list of sources that TZM now lists on their main site, I was wondering how can I use such sources in order to revert The_Zeitgeist_Movement which is said within the talk page "does not exist", the link to press sources is the following: http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press I decided to message you since I noticed that you had a favorable view in the past and may be able to help. I am grateful for any help you can spare. tnx 5.13.192.162 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not harass/bother this editor until his sanctions expire.

Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future., that is the arbitration committee which has made it impossible for TDA to get involved in articles like the one you are asking about which is contentious/controversial. 5.13.192.162 the thing you are asking about is a 'press release'. That kind of material is completely useless on Wikipedia. Its just information released by the group itself and not only primary but particularly press release information can NOT be used on Wikipedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing with http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press_releases they are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.192.162 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in debating that go to the talk page in question but please leave this user alone. You missed my point entirely. Its a press release from Zeitgeist itself. Its not notable. Its primary. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, despite the above flurry of notifications there is a rough Arbcom consensus that participation in these cases would breach your topic ban. If there's evidence you reckon the committee should consider beyond what anyone else presents, please feel free to send it directly to the committee via email rather than posting it on-wiki.

Obviously if there are substantive allegations made against you in the case(s), the topic ban will need to be amended to give you fair opportunity to respond. This seems pretty unlikely, but I suppose you never know. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lift (force)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lift (force). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ale Resnik

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ale Resnik. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Hi. I'm going through the former Cultural Marxism talk archive and inviting people back to that page for a discussion on how to give the article a more npov. Feel free to join. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox basketball biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox basketball biography. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yes (band)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yes (band). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Legobot (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban/noticeboard ban

TDA...posting at arbcom in that case seems to violate two current topic bans imposed by that GG case. You might want to withdraw your comments unless there has been an amendment I am unaware of. I'm not going to AE though about it either way.--MONGO 20:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The only sanctions that would seem to apply are the bans on participating on conduct noticeboards and the ban from GamerGate/gender-related controversy pages. Not sure if all the meta gender gap stuff falls in that pile, but I was specifically citing concerns I had from the previous arbitration case that I feel the committee or a member thereof failed to adequately address and that are continuing issues. I would consider such complaints about the Committee's handling of that case and how issues still persist in spite of it falls within a legitimate exemption in a case regarding two of the people whose conduct was an issue during that case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for breaching WP:ARBGG sanctions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Specifically this edit is an unambiguous breach of remedies 8.2 ("The Devil's Advocate topic-banned") and 8.4 ("The Devil's Advocate: Noticeboards") of the GamerGate arbitration case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:The conduct noticeboard restriction states "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started" and while I was not directly involved in the specific situation inciting this case, the nature of arbitration requests is such that concerns raised about editors could lead to a case examining their overall conduct. Given that I have previously been involved in disputes over the administrative conduct of the two admins I mentioned in broadly the same topic area, that would seem to suggest that, should the case be about their overall conduct it would not be a violation of the noticeboard restriction as I have been involved in situations where they were administrators active in the same topic area.

In the case of GorillaWarfare, she was actually one of the arbitrators who voted for sanctions against me (including the stricter site ban), so I would think raising concerns about her biases in the topic area when they have once more been raised as an issue would fall within legitimate dispute resolution. Given that Black Kite is still allowed to be an "uninvolved" admin on any request filed against me regarding the GG topic area, I also have a legitimate concern regarding the failure of the Committee to take any action regarding that matter. As the topic ban imposed is incredibly broad, it may not always be the case that certain topics clearly fall within bounds of the discretionary sanctions. Should I edit one of those topics, I could run the risk of either of these admins performing rushed actions and perhaps even disregarding the objections of other admins or editors as has happened in this situation.

Should the case be accepted and not be about examining the broader conduct of the listed parties, but limited solely to the specific incident that prompted the case, then I accept I would not be allowed to participate. At the same time, I also accept that I have no legitimate claim to an exemption when it comes to Eric or Evergreen, which is why I left them unmentioned in my statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to prevent you from being blocked...I should have emailed you...sorry.--MONGO 08:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: When you said "The conduct noticeboard restriction states "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started" and while I was not directly involved in the specific situation inciting this case," you acknowledged that you have breached your topic ban. Therefore I don't see the need for any further discussion.

If you feel you have something important to say, that has not been said by anyone else, but are prohibited from doing so by a topic ban then you must email the arbitration committee and ask for an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Given that you yourself stated "No accusations have been made that this is part of a pattern of misconduct" situations in which I was directly involved in the past could fall within the scope of the situation being addressed by the Committee. I also have a legitimate concern regarding my arbitration restrictions as it concerns the conduct of these two admins since my restrictions cover a closely-related topic where these two admins have questionable claims for being "uninvolved" that I have previously raised concerns about. There is a distinct chance that either of these admins could take similar improper actions should someone file a request at AE regarding one of my restrictions as in this closely-related topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)