Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 23 October 2012

Archives

3 December 2007 - 27 September 2008 28 January 2009 - 14 December 2011 25 December 2011 - 10 March 2012

topic Ban

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I mentioned your name here in relation to your participation in a recent edit war at the 9/11 article. --John (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Sosie Bacon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Duff (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) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a question

Though not unheard of, I was wondering why you created this account in March of 2007, yet did not use to to make any edits until July of 2007. Most of the time, when someone creates a username, they start making edits immediately or soon after they create their username.--MONGO 15:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I actually don't remember. That was five years ago so I really don't know why I created the account at that time. Sometimes at a site I start an account because I think of doing something, but then don't. There are a few places online where I have created accounts but have done nothing with them. Some personal issues may have left me pre-occupied, but I really can't remember.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable...I think I may have done that myself like when I registered for a blog and decided to not comment...I think I did that with a newspaper once.--MONGO 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: RfC response

I think you know well and good. DHeyward, The Hand That Feeds You, and Toa Nidhiki05 have laid it out for you. If you choose to ignore what they say that's on you, but I oppose. --Tarage (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion about whether there should be a warnings section, and that was distracting from discussing improvements to the section itself. So, I started a new discussion focusing on the question of whether such a section should be included. Since there was already a significant amount of opposition and it is an article of some significance, it seemed an RfC was the logical tool. I fail to see the abuse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore what they have said then I can't help you. --Tarage (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

All I get them saying is that I should suggest detailed changes, but that is not really appropriate for an RfC. Brief messages on a specific point are the norm, not detailed proposals. There was also a claim that I am trying to lock in my edits, but that is a ridiculous argument as the RfC is not about my edits at all. Anyone would still be free to rewrite the section. It is simply a question of whether such a section should exist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but....

Thank you for notifying me that you nominated The Big Gay Musical for deletion. While certainly further improvable through regular editing, the topic has enough soucing available to meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. And, as these were easily found, I request you consider withdrawing. Schmidt, 01:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch

I raised a question at Talk:Krista Branch. Also, you need to look out for WP:3RR; if you continue to revert you will likely be blocked. --John (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dheyward has been engaged in persistent harassment of me over the past few weeks and I am not about to let him bring his personal vendetta against me to an article I put a lot of work into as he is doing now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are concerns with another user's editing it would be best to raise them in the proper place than to edit war and get yourself blocked. --John (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of doing just that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to a comment you made on the article talk page. When you get a chance, I look forward to hearing what you think. Thanks, Tom Harrison 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NWO article

I've undone your edits because the content (that has had consensus for years) you have reworded without realizing why it was worded that way. The article is meant to distinguish how the term “New World Order” is used in conspiracy theory (New World Order (conspiracy theory)) from it is used in the international politics (New world order (politics)). However, there are some edits that you have done that are good (when it comes to diminishing timeline-style look) so I've kept them. --Loremaster (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply disagree that the caption is too long. However, if you find an official Misplaced Pages that demands it be shorter, it will be my pleasure to shorten it myself. --Loremaster (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Big Gay Musical (2nd nomination)

While appreciating your withdarawal, can you share just which "non-review" source you found that addressed your concerns? Thanks, Schmidt, 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to add it in myself later.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I am working on expanding the article, I'd be happy to do so myself. But if you'd prefer to do so yourself, that'd be super. Thanks. Schmidt, 23:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit.. a very nice source indeed. Unfortunately, an anonymous IP came along and reverted you without offering a reason. I gave your contribution a few tweaks and put it right back. Good looking out. Schmidt, 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Frood! _{What did I break now?} 04:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracies Topic Ban

This is to notify you that you are topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months per this AE report. As you are aware from your prior topic ban violations are subject to blocking and appeals can be made at WP:AE or to the ARBCOM mailing list. --WGFinley (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wgfinley: Did you mean to topic ban TDA for only 9/11 conspiracy theories? I thought the topic ban being discussed was for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, not just 9/11 conspiracy theories. TDA is having issues over the entire topic space, not just conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The case, and the power to sanction, comes from WP:ARB911 which only concerns 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, it is "broadly construed" so while it's not an out and out ban from 9/11 related topics it would be pushing the boundaries of the ban to wade into them. --WGFinley (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wgfinley: I'm sorry, but I believe that you are mistaken. The standard discretionary sanctions apply to "Articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted", not just 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is consistent with the previous sanction against TDA which applied to all articles related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's also consistent with other AE admins said about the sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion and you are splitting hairs. It's "broadly construed", TDA is well aware of what that means. --WGFinley (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

AQFK is right that ARB911 technically applies to all 9/11-related articles, but they are also "discretionary" sanctions so if your discretion is that there should only be a ban from edits relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories then that is obviously free for you to decide.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As you wish, all 9/11 articles, broadly construed. --WGFinley (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello The Devil's Advocate. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Revelation GAR

Wow, thanks for coming in and reviewing it - its been up there for quite a few months now. I believe I have addressed the issues, so please check it when you can. Thanks again. :) Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the input - I've never had an FA on my resume, so glad to see it is close to that status. As for my outstanding GA nominations, I'm not really surprised - based on my past GAs, it takes at least several months before someone is willing to review it. Clearing out the music article backlog is a good idea, so thanks for that advice. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Truth

Dear Sir,

While browsing through pages on Misplaced Pages, I stumbled upon your userpage. I came to realise that there is more to you than your userpage suggests.

It's fascinating, how you value truth over credibility, unlike Misplaced Pages's general policy. Misplaced Pages has always been a restricting and unreliable source of truth for me. I have the impression that you may be able to help me in my pursuit of truth, given the fact that you "want this project to be a great service to all truth-seekers in the world".

I would like to get to know you a little bit better. You may prove to be an invaluable contact.

My contactinformation

MSN/E-Mail: nawid_norouzi@hotmail.com

Skype: PC-Reviver

I am most often available on MSN.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

PC-Reviver (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that once you continue the conversation on my talk page, it's supposed to stick there? Go check it out. PC-Reviver (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Finder

Could you please leave my post up on the finder page for a while regarding the various petitions etc on the web about the finder. I totally agree that it seems redundant, because likely nothing will come of it, but it does seem to be generating some buzz.

After a few weeks, you can certainly remove any hint of me having been here. I havn't broken any rules that I am aware of, and I have not posted links or specific sites.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratchett (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that there's no point in trying to ask that the tiny little info I added be left for a bit, it seems that Misplaced Pages belongs to only certain peple and their opinions. I guess I'll re-think next year when it's donation time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratchett (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal statement

I hope you'll find this explanation acceptable, and if you do, can you please strike through or remove your statement? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

the finder

I understand all that, I really do, and I don't usually even bother with it, because frankly, we both know nothing will come of it, except the money they are raising for American Cancer Society in "Walter Sherman's" name. It is contributing to society at large, even if the show would or would not be saved. It is a valiant effort by many people, and IS worth a mention, and can be verified. People have come to know Misplaced Pages as a great free source of info, and I know when I am looking for something, I come here. People looking for info on the Save the Finder' would start here. I also donate each year when it's time because I like the site. As do so many others. What is happening with the finder is quite large, and is benefiting Cancer research.

Worth a mention......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratchett (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Look up WP:UNDUE. Unless this is covered as a notable aspect of the series you would be giving too much weight to an opinion on the subject. If even just one major news source covers it in detail this would be reasonable to include in the article, though not at the top of the page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

I moved the first paragraph of your evidence to the workshop, where I think its more appropriate.

Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, though I removed the first sentence since that would not really be consistent with a proposed principle.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Looks good. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hey The Devil's Advocate. Thanks for bringing the topic ban discussion to my attention, I hadn't noticed that. I've been thinking about how best to proceed for most of the day. On the one hand, you were by far and away the most vociferous on the RfC and there was clearly a push to have you removed from the topic. On the other, topic bans are generally reviewable after 6 months (and that discussion was 4 months ago), the RfC has been closed by someone with no horse in the race. The fact remains that there now has been an RfC, it's clear how the community feels about ARS - the project is not regarded as a problem by most. I wonder therefore about the topic ban. Either, you can accept the outcome of the RfC, in which case the topic ban is unneeded, but also does no harm, or you cannot - in which case it is preventative and needed. Having read over the ANI thread, I think it is worth leaving some sort of topic ban in place, which you can take to the community to review should you not agree with it.

So, per Collect's wording - You may not initiate anything on any page in projectspace directly or indirectly referring to the Article Rescue Squad. - I hope you find this acceptable, but if not please feel free to discuss the matter. Worm(talk) 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Initiate" in "projectspace directly or indirectly referring" is overly broad wording. Many who supported the ban were under the impression that it was meant to apply only to initiating noticeboard listings and deletion discussions and that is what I said I would find acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not from my reading, no. This specifically stops you initiating further threads, at notice boards, deletion discussions and other areas, such as the village pump. I can't think of any area where this is too broad, but do feel free to enlighten me on the matter. Worm(talk) 08:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the "other areas" that I am concerned about. Projectspace means anything prefaced with Misplaced Pages while "initiate anything" that is "indirectly referring" to the group seems to be talking about more than just pushing for administrative action against the group, which is ultimately what the threads I started were about. "Initiate anything" could just as easily be taken as referring to non-discussion edits on pages in projectspace such as changes to essays or policy and guideline pages and if those pages deal with deletion/inclusion or canvassing it could be taken as "indirectly referring" to the group. Furthermore, if I were interested in working with the group to try and address my concerns it would seemingly prevent me from doing anything to achieve that on the related Wikiproject pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable argument. Given that I don't really see the need for the topic ban, as the RfC result should have superseded it, there was no strong consensus at the ANI, you haven't been recently causing issues, I'm happy to relax things a bit.

You may not initiate any threads at noticeboards, including Village Pump and nominations for deletion, on the Article Rescue Squadron as a group".

I will also say that you will be under close scrutiny on this, I'm sure. If you do refuse to accept the outcome of the RfC and carry on in a non-productive manner, it will likely be picked up quickly, and the consequences will be severe. I will also point out that Arbcom should be an avenue open to you on this matter - though I expect it would not be a useful one, given the RfC. I hope that clarifies things. In case it doesn't, I've got the page watchlisted, I don't need the whisperback. Worm(talk) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

CCI Infringement

Having just returned from helping to organize a Misplaced Pages meetup, I was disturbed to see your recent actions taken against me. I think you were far too careless in your contributor copyright investigation nomination. You have correctly identified a few sentences which were in fact copyright infringement, and which I have corrected. I disagree with your other claims. And in any event, the matters could've been handled by notifying me so that they could be cleaned up, and an encouragement to be more diligent in the future. Let's work to clean up and correct the mistakes you've identified instead of engaging in needless and time-wasting full throttle investigations that will only serve to dampen the Misplaced Pages community.--YHoshua (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement occurs even if you substitute a few synonyms and shuffle the order around. To suggest that said changes are enough to avoid infringement is not understanding the law. It's the Vanilla Ice defense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Brooks & Dunn

Kinda hard to get a GA review done when the servers keep b0rking, isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer • 22:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, well I haven't had too much trouble doing it in spite of that, but I was also off Misplaced Pages for a few hours there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed most of your issues. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the intro further and added a couple more pictures. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:I Am America EP.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:I Am America EP.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is the artist's first EP and contains the two songs she is most known for..." neither of these things are anything to do with the cover. "... and the source for the caption in the article is a review of the EP"- OK, that's fine, but, again, this doesn't demonstrate that the cover has any particular significance. It's up to you to demonstrate why the cover art itself is significant, as, unless it is so, its use is not going to be justified under NFCC#8. No matter how relevant the release is to the article, that does not magically make the cover significant, and does not mean that seeing the cover automatically increases reader understanding. As a parallel, a biography of person A may make significant reference to person B, but, unless the appearance of person B is in some way significant, a non-free image of person B is probably not going to be justified. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that is not what the guideline says nor is it the intended meaning of the guideline. It says: "In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject." Note that it says "related", as in, not the cover art itself. Non-iconic images of people are very different as they would conceivably be replaceable with a free image. There really is no free equivalent when it comes to a modern musical work and when noting that an album is an artist's first EP there are really no ways to identify it other than with an image of the cover.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with my interpretation of the non-free content guidelines, please, feel free to ask on the relevant talk page as to how they should be interpreted. However, I doubt you'll find many who share your views. To reiterate, unless the album cover itself is in some way significant, it does not belong on the article about the artist. I think you'll struggle to find another article on which a cover is used that way, nevermind a decent (such as a featured) one. J Milburn (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking over past discussions was far more informative. It strikes me that no clear consensus has existed for or against such usage in any of the discussions on the issue, though it seems you have sought to enforce your own personal interpretation of the guideline in the past despite opposition. The guideline clearly says that covers can be used to discuss a "related subject", i.e. the content to which the cover belongs, and that is how it is being used in this case. Unless you can explain why that part of the guideline is invalid here I see no reason why your argument for deletion should be accepted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I cannot see how this is the case. However, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". These are both quotes from the policy page, and are unambiguous. The onus is on you to demonstrate, in this particular case, why the cover is significant, and what it is adding to the article. J Milburn (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Visual identification for the purpose of critical commentary is included under that criteria, though I suppose its use in the article had not been adequate as no commentary was provided on the EP itself. Now there is so it meets the standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on the EP's all well and good, but that doesn't magically make the cover significant. To again use the portrait example, I could provide a long discussion of the actions of a particular person (to bypass the replaceability issue, let us say that this is a dead person) on an article about a different person; unless their appearance happened to be significant, then a non-free image would clearly not be necessary. Again, I implore you to take a look at some of the stronger articles on musicians on Misplaced Pages; short of cover designs being particularly notable, you will never see album covers. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the real problem with your example is that you could have ten non-free images of a person that could all conceivably be used for the same purpose without any of them being relevant to the material. Here we have only one possible image that would be inherently relevant to the material. You can't "take a picture" of a song and taking a picture of a disc, if it is even on a physical medium, with all the labels and packaging obscured would be useless. Audio clips won't work either because they do not identify the album itself. The only way you can visually identify an album that is being discussed in an article is to put up an image of the cover. Being the only identifying imagery makes it significant. In this case it actually has an even stronger argument as the EP has the same name as one of her singles so it would allow readers to recognize the EP.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the cover is the "only way you can visually identify an album"- I most certainly do not agree with your unsaid assumption that the album needs to be "visually identified". J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Branch article is extremely well written, and I think she might be inclined to donate something to enhance the article further. You should ask her if she could contribute any media. It's good publicity for her. If nothing else, some low resolution stuff. That's what happened with that cutie Lila Rose. You never know... – Lionel 08:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Revelation

Thanks for the paraphrasing on the article - I couldn't figure out how to get that part paraphrased. Toa Nidhiki05 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: arbitration request

You correctly identified the notice. Unfortunately, I can't understand your second sentence; would you please rephrase it? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am saying the editor who notified you of the current case received the same user talk notice from that sock and Mathsci also removed that comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this RFAR capricious.PumpkinSky talk 02:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so this is a good faith request. Thanks for the pointer! Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong word. Let me be explicit. I meant in the meaning of errant. Especially in naming you. The filer just came off a one month block and files the RFAR, obviously he's pissed and I think he's reaching in retaliation. I find little merit in it and no merit in naming you.PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin, perhaps you didn't see my comment at the RFAR? I thought this was potentially a bad-faith request by a sockpuppet of one of the banned users in question. I too am confused about being named, but at least the account itself is being operated in good faith, regardless of the merits of the case, so I'll participate to the extent necessary. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I find little merit in the filing.PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree this is partly driven out of frustration, it is not without merit. MastCell is a regular in the general topic area of fringe theories, which would include R&I, and a review of his interactions with Mathsci suggests a distinct possibility that he may not be impartial when it comes to disputes where Mathsci specifically is a party. From what I can tell, one of the issues is that after Jclemens raised a concern about Mathsci maintaining a prohibited list of editor conduct issues in the userspace of an alternate account, MastCell deleted the list at Math's request. Seems to me Nyttend is only mentioned incidentally because of the dispute over that talk page notice and the fact Mathsci went and accused him of impropriety on AN with regards to Echigo mole.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Has the filing editor also been involved in fringe theories a lot? I too am disturbed by the user's talk page being protected to prevent him from including text that's not prohibited by policy, but it's not something that needs to go to Arbcom. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The filing editor has been involved in the R&I topic area specifically, though he was subjected to a topic ban and interaction ban due to meatpuppetry i.e. proxy-editing, seemingly because this editor knows a banned editor Ferahgo and they have discussed Misplaced Pages off-wiki. It is nowhere near as serious as the private mailing list cabals that pop up in a lot of these contentious topic areas. His involvement appears to have been relatively minor and sporadic, a few dozen contributions from October 2010 to January 2012, and his interactions with the editors there limited only to discussions on their conduct in the topic area as far as I can tell. Another editor who was given a similar ban in that case doesn't seem to have been involved in the topic since May of 2011, a full year before this topic ban was enacted. Not seeing anywhere that they had any interactions with these users outside the topic area as that would seem to be the only reason to have an interaction ban on top of the topic ban. I certainly don't see the reason for wording that essentially implied they were both under a one-way ban on discussing the conduct of any editor who has ever been involved in the R&I topic area. Basically, Math was free to edit this editor's userspace repeatedly and against his express wishes, without that editor being able to complain about such conduct. Those sorts of one-way interaction bans only seem to make a site ban inevitable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to my post here. The committee actually did not rule I was proxying for anyone, and a few arbitrators (Roger Davies and SilkTork) commented specifically that they weren't ruling that. But the other editor who was topic banned expressed fear that if the claim that ArbCom ruled I was proxying got repeated enough, everyone might eventually forget the committee didn't rule that. That seems to be happening now.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree there is concern on the protected talk page issue.PumpkinSky talk 10:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TDA, you seem to understand the issues here, and that they deserve attention even if arbitration is not the right place for them. Can you give any advice about what I should do about these problems? You suggested an RFCU, but if I start one it would probably be viewed as a violation of my topic ban.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you request an amendment to the terms of the restriction. The limitation that you cannot mention Mathsci's conduct, even while Mathsci is allowed to go to your userpage and behave in a disruptive manner that practically begs you to comment about his conduct seems to be a pretty good reason to request that the restriction be modified to be only an R&I topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant about that suggestion. From MBisanz's comments at AE, I think he's going to block me if I make another effort to pursue a resolution with ArbCom. Either way I'll probably also get accused of making the request in bad faith, as happened when I made the arbitration request.

Throughout this issue, you've helped me a lot by explaining things about the issue that I'm not allowed to explain. I appreciate that. Whatever you think the best solution is, would you be willing to request it yourself? I'm sorry to have to ask for that, but it seems I'm not allowed to discuss how my restriction affects me.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Randi

Sorry. I am not familiar with the template there, and stuffed up the Terzian/Carl Sagan ref, which I hope you can fix. Randi is the author of the article and the other two the editors of the book in which it appears. Bit busy here.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch

Hey TDA, I did a little spamming for your GAN. We'll see what happens. I'd do it myself--but I not detailed oriented enough. – Lionel 07:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That was fast . Good luck! – Lionel 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Having more images would improve the article. I checked Google images & Flickr but nothing came up. I may have a solution. A requirement of Fair Use is criticism. If you create sections specifically on "I Am America" and/or "Remember Who We Are" you will be able to add FU images for identification. Structure it like an abbreviated version of one of our song articles. – Lionel 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you check the recent history of the article you will see I did something very much like that, but the image got speedy deleted, wrongly I believe, as the NFCC perfectly allows such usage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

People don't realize how much POV pushing goes on with images. I've had an image deleted by an editor who used the same rationale to keep another image! Anyway if you create a dedicated section of a couple paragraphs devoted to one of the songs that should be enough critical commentary to pass NFCC#8 and use an image of the song for identification purposes per WP:NFCI #1. You can double check at WP:CQ.– Lionel 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey TDA check this out: Revelation_(Third_Day_album)#Composition. A great example of using an audio clip in conjunction with critical commentary. – Lionel 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you approve of my revision of the lede? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. two new comments, re: your reply to above WB --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA renomination of Krista Branch without any further revisions to address the reasons for its first nomination's failure has been reported for review. Obligatory notice placed below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks

Thanks for your offer to take up my situation with ArbCom. I really appreciate it. Would it be all right if I sent you e-mail first with some additional details about the situation? There are a few details I think it would be helpful for you to know, but I might not be allowed to talk about them in public.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to you sending them the e-mail, if you think that's best.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Krista Branch/GA2

I've discussed the matter with ColonelHenry, and he's OK with me taking over the GAN. I'll take a look over the next few days and leave comments. I don't want to get too far into it at the moment, however, as I'm not sure which version to review. SilkTork 21:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This user helped promote Krista Branch to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

AE comment

I don't want to take up even more space at the WP:AE request, so let me offer some articulation here, in regard to this comment of yours.

As I already said, I did not ask MyMoloboaccount to make any edits or to come to any article. Skapperod also has not provided an even iota of evidence in that regard, but just a whole slew of baseless insinuations and poisoning the well.

MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction and can damn well edit any article he chooses. He has traditionally edited articles related to Polish-German topics, as has Skapperod - and that's what the article on Konigsberg is. One thing that does happen pretty often is that if MyMoloboaccount starts editing an article, Skapperod soon shows up and starts a dispute. And of course vice versa. It's pretty clear the two of them share an almost identical watchlist (which is probably a subset of my way tooo long watchlist). So there's nothing surprising here - they've been editing the same articles since time immemorial. And yes, my sense of it is that sometimes Skapperod tries to provoke MMA by making unnecessarily over the top POV edits.

And even look at this supposed "tag-teaming". MMA has made talk page comments which I don't even agree with (moving Konigsberg to Kaliningrad) or which I don't particularly care about (moving Battle of Tczew to Battle of Dirschau). He made one comment about the fact that there used to be lots of Poles in Konigsbergs at one point which can be read as being "in support" of me. And that's this super evil tag teaming Skapperod is freaking out about? Seriously?

On the other hand you've got Skapperod, User:HerkusMonte, User:M.K and User:Estlandia who have a very very very long history of tag teaming with each other and supporting each other actually EDIT WARRING to support each other. And mutually trying to shout down discussion on the talk page. And playing little disruptive games, where Herkus will add a citation needed tag, I will spend my valuable time finding a source and adding it in, only for M.K or Skapperod to come along and just completely remove the text.

Look at the situation again please.VolunteerMarek 06:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I find that whole section of the article to be rather tendentious. Not sure why there needs to be a subsection specifically about Poles in the culture and people section. You aren't exactly behaving in the most civil and constructive manner there either.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if your opinion is accurate, then that's a content dispute, which is supposed to be rsolved on the talk page or other means of dispute resolution (RfC, which I suggested, or 3O or whatever). It is NOT suppose to be solved by Skapp running to AE every time he doesn't get his way 100% on an article.

I don't know if I'm being "civil" - I try to be honest and say what I think rather than hide behind mealy mouthed hypocrisy or passive aggressive game playing. And YOU try dealing with these people, and see how long your temper will hold.

I was particularly frustrated because of this game of these editors adding tags, me spending many hours looking up sources and adding them in, only to have the same editors simply remove the text anyway, after the source was provided. That's not just disruptive, it's done with the purpose of wasting somebody's time and frustrating them.VolunteerMarek 06:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please read WP:CANVASS and reread this diff. Arcandam (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman should have notified them if he was going to notify the admins who had blocked YRC. I am simply doing what he should have done and would prefer to otherwise stay out of the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If he did something wrong that is no excuse to make that same mistake, right? You broke the rules, my advice would be to revert yourself before someone else notices (especially if you want to stay out of the dispute). That guideline says: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is !vote-stacking. Arcandam (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Had Prioryman actually named all those admins and only notified the blocking ones, I would not be violating the guideline by stepping in to correct his mistake should he refuse to do so himself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical situations are not really relevant imho. In this case you are violating the guideline. You are obviously a goodfaithed editor. If I can convince you to follow the guideline we may be able to avoid some drama. Arcandam (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My actions are supported by both the letter and spirit of policy. I am not going to enable an editor's gaming of the canvassing guideline by reversing those actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand, I am not a native speaker. Why do you say your actions are supported by the letter of the guideline? I don't see a "if someone you disagree with has canvassed you can canvass too"-clause in that guideline. And why do you claim that the spirit of the guideline (not a policy) is supporting your actions? This guideline makes it perfectly clear that what you were doing is not allowed. Arcandam (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The unblocking admins were clearly mentioned in the case as well as their conduct, so the letter of the guideline means they should be notified. As to the spirit of the guideline, do you really think the guideline would require that I leave a second notification at the talk page of the blocking admins? There would be no point in it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, the guideline makes it clear that what you did is canvassing. Would you please be so kind to quote the sentence(s) that you think are supporting your claim? Are you referring to the following quote?

On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).

On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.

That part of the text does not help you, because the guideline makes it clear you need to send appropriate notifications, look at that table, and you did not.

To answer your question: no, but that guideline explicitly disallows what you have done, so you should probably revert yourself. Arcandam (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously dude, the effect of my notifications is that both blocking and unblocking admins have received neutral notices of the case. You are taking the policy far too literally. I am not going to remove my notices and I am not going to discuss this any further.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. And I understand that your intentions are good. You just confused me a bit by claiming the letter and spirit of the guideline support your actions, because they clearly do not. If you see someone break the speedlimit that does not give you the right to do the same thing, even if you think it is "fair". Arcandam (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this too closely, but if Prioryman violated WP:CANVASS, The Devil's Advocate was attempting to notify that admins that should have been notified by Prioryman. IOW, I don't see anything improper in what TDA did. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note

Since I don't care to continue this dispute with Arcandam, I would like to notify you that I replied to a comment you left here. Ryan Vesey 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep on trolling, the chances you'll become an admin will decrease even more. And we all know that is all you are here for. Arcandam (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your topic ban

Your current topic ban on 9/11 articles expires in 2 months, so you'll be able to edit there again in early October. Maybe these two months will allow you the time to reflect on why you have been topic banned twice so that you can avoid a probable indefinite ban in the future.--MONGO 16:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page etiket

Hi I deleted your post = please do not continue to post comments after I close down discussion on my talk page - regards - Youreallycan 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact - as I found your whole positi0on a bit attacking - please don#t post again on my talkpage = thanks and goodbye - Youreallycan 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you took it as an attack. I am just trying to help de-escalate matters by offering some friendly advice.--The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You added your opinionated content comment to a talkpage thread after I had archived it - how doing that is in any way, "I am just trying to help de-escalate matters by offering some friendly advice" is incomparable with your edits - anyway - discussion is over - regards - Youreallycan 01:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, these kinds of comments are not helpful. Having reviewed the comments made by The Devil's Advocate, I can find nothing resembling an "attacking" position. As you have been repeatedly reminded, criticism is not an attack. The fact of the matter is, there is general community consensus that you are misinterpreting BLP while at the same time claiming to read the minds of the BLP parties you are claiming to defend. If I were to make a personal attack, I would say that this kind of behavior appears to be delusional, however, I will asssume good faith and merely observe that you have a problem listening to other editors and taking their criticism under advisement. As a result, I don't think you are compatible with Misplaced Pages and its collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My comments after the discussion were not really article-related. I just think that what you said could offend people and be a source of conflict given the attention your current situation has received. Not trying to be mean, I am really just trying to keep you from providing your opponents with ammunition to use against you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A Question

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

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

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

Grateful

Youreallycan (talk · contribs) asked me off-wiki to relay the following (reformatted slightly for clarity)

"Please let (The Devil's Advocate) know I am so very grateful for his investigations - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#Analysis_of_Rob.27s_block_log "

Nobody Ent 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A friendly notice

...so you will be aware.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua 16:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

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

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

re ""Rape and pregnancy controversy" is not sufficiently clear and descriptive"

The title that you have moved the article to is at least as insufficiently clear and non- discriptive, as the controversy is about Akins claims that there is no such thing as rape-induced pregnancy. Please see the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I just provided sourcing and arguments. His comments were that it is "rare" not that it does not exist, and even if he did claim there was no such thing it would still be clear and descriptive because saying "rape-induced pregnancy does not exist" would still very much be commenting about rape-induced pregnancy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

please revert if his comments were only about rape induced pregnancy there would be no issue. THE salient features are the DENIAL of rape induced pregnancy and the use of the phrase "legitimate rape". -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Except it is all within the context of his comments on rape-induced pregnancy and denying its existence, even if that were anywhere near an accurate description, would still be a comment on rape-induced pregnancy. Detail on exactly what was said is provided later.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

GAN Review, Paul Ryan

Have some cookies!

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer as reviewer to replace me from the consensus that was formed that I have significant enough contributions to disqualify me as reviewer. While the move of the original GAN review was done without my knowledge and before a formed decision was made to move forward with sufficient time for editors to weigh in, I support you as reviewer and if the review should go forward, please do not feel obligated to "Lean on me" or use me in the manner that was proposed. You need to feel free to do this as you would any other review. I will be happy to collaborate with others to address any concerns you may have and hope you enjoy the project. Happy editing and again, thank you for stepping forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and I would be happy to see you involved in helping the article meet up to Good Article standards.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are probably aware that this GAN is a collaboration sponsored by WPConservatism and is composed of 4 editors. I wanted to inform you that due to a recent series of confrontations with a certain editor on the Ryan Team I am reluctantly withdrawing from this GAN. The rest of the team can be found here Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Paul Ryan needs our help!!!. – Sir Lionel, EG 04:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw I would've enjoyed working with either of you--since both of you are fine editors. Good luck. – Sir Lionel, EG 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

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

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

Plotting to have me blocked.

After this comment, I think it would be best if you stayed far, far away from me, including my talk page. This sort of scheming is precisely what makes WP:AGF an ironic joke. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you take it that way, but I am simply noting the facts. Voluntarily stepping away was a less messy option to take and you did not take it. Mind you, I was not the one to bring you up at ANI and that you were brought up is a product of the attention you have drawn to yourself. Certainly do not like the idea of you being singled out on this matter, though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for losing my temper with you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh, no big. Far worse has been said to me I assure you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I'm here, the only reason I put up with all the nonsense, is that I'm motivated by a strong sense of justice. However, every strength is, in some context, a weakness. Here, I responded to a perceived injustice in a manner that was itself unjust. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So true about strenghts sometimes being weaknesses. The flip side can be good to keep in mind too.

"Don't look for the flaws as you go through life

And even when you find them,

It is wise and kind to be somewhat blind

And look for the virtue behind them." FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, I have no mercy for flaws, but I do have some mercy for the people responsible for them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the sources

...and you'll see why this reversion of yours makes no sense. It is about BP and its safety record. The leader of BP is implicated in its strategic goal of cost-cutting which resulted poor safety. The person involved, John Browne (now Sir John) is quite famous, so the WP:WELLKNOWN part of WP:BLP applies. High quality reliable sources can be used to say negative things about the guy. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Except the article is about BP and you are inserting this material about a living person into the lede and other prominent areas of the article. The material could even be taken as implying Browne was at fault for Deepwater Horizon, since it makes no mention of him having resigned from the company three years prior to the oil spill while clearly arguing that he was responsible for the company's poor environmental record.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what you're seeing. None of the sources say Browne was directly connected to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and I didn't say that either. It looks like a straw man argument against my perfectly good text, cited to high quality sources.

If you had simply intended to make it clear that Browne had resigned before Deepwater, you could have added that datum easily. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that still wouldn't justify singling out a living former executive prominently in the lede of an article on a company with over a hundred years of history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. After a recent edit, Browne is no longer specifically singled out in the lede. The "issue" is still there in the lede; it just doesn't have his face on it anymore. I do feel this subject matter deserves summary space in the lede, even if the most notable living figure central to that subject matter isn't given a name until later in the article. I made that edit not because there was any WP:BLP issue (I don't see any violation, although there may be a valid WP:WEIGHT concern), but because it was being cited as a justification to perform mass reverts involving unrelated material. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

New motion made

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

Do you understand why the arbitrators are saying that restoring Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk was a violation of my topic ban? Echigo Mole has never edited R&I articles, his comments that I restored did not mention R&I, and he was banned by the community just for socking, not for anything R&I related. I pointed this out here, but none of the arbitrators acknowledged it. If I get site banned because they think my restoring the posts was a topic ban violation, I don't think I'm ever going to understand the reason. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think unless they approve of my initial request you should avoid discussing Echigo's conduct anywhere but the amendment case. While Echigo's obsession with Math has nothing to do with R&I, his obsession has included going after Math directly or indirectly in userspace and projectspace on matters concerning the topic area so talking about Echigo's conduct would at least fall under the "commenting on conduct" restriction that extends to all of Misplaced Pages. As a result, you could conceivably be blocked for commenting about the non-R&I conduct of this banned editor as absurd as that may seem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My topic ban says that I am prohibited from commenting on the conduct of editors "who have worked in the topic." Ever since I got blocked for violating this the first time, I've thought what it means is that I'm not allowed to discuss the conduct of anyone who has edited those articles. Do you think "editors who have worked in the topic" really also includes editors who have never edited the articles, but attacked other editors who did? That probably includes about half of all the people at Misplaced Pages, and Mathsci could argue that it even includes you. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am saying the Echigo mole has contributed to project pages specifically concerning R&I even if it was just to attack Mathsci's conduct. I don't really know how other admins would interpret it, but during this process (I believe it was at AE) an admin has already suggested that commenting on Echigo mole's conduct would therefore fall under the restriction. Since "worked in the topic" does not mention the nature of that work or strictly state that it is referring to work in articlespace, it is probably safer to presume that it refers to any R&I-related activity.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this means I can never say anything about you either? You've also criticised Mathsci's conduct on R&I related project pages. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My conduct would specifically be a forbidden subject for you as I understand the restriction given my involvement on the R&I issues in this case, especially since I have made an edit to an R&I page during the course of this case. Interactions and mentions of my name are perfectly acceptable under that restriction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I really appreciate the gesture and the effort you've made to help me, but I think the avenue you've pursued probably will only cause more problems for me. Sometimes it's wisest to just cut one's losses. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point they won't close it without reaching a decision on the proposed motions. Withdrawing my request won't do much.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For critically, and neutrally, looking at the history of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech, and commenting about it on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism talk page here, and here, I hereby present to you this barnstar. May you continue this great work on Misplaced Pages.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your new motion

Regarding your suggested motion, doesn't TrevelyanL85A2 already have the right to appeal? His topic-ban apparently contains no restriction against filing an appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Usually there is some mention made of a way to appeal a sanction either in the wording about the restriction or on a section of the case page and appeal is mentioned explicitly regarding Ferahgo and Occam. If the position of ArbCom has been that they can appeal at any time then this should probably be stated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If they put a restriction on Ferahgo and Occam, but not TrevelyanL85A2, that means TrevelyanL85A2 doesn't have a restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

9/11 TBAN Violation

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I'm a bit disappointed you have chosen to violate your ban. Whether you think you are being helpful or not doesn't enter into the decision, you are banned from those pages, broadly construed which means going to my talk page about those pages is in violation. --WGFinley (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please rescind your block. This kind of error is only different from obvious vandalism in that it was unintentional. I don't think any editor could possibly disagree that this was a glaring error in need of fixing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the change DA made; he fixed a neutral problem in the formatting of the talk page and then notified you. This is very clearly a harmless action taken in good faith, so I don't see any benefit to punishing him with a long block.

The reason for a topic ban is that an editor has shown an ability to contribute positively on a topic, but his edit had no bearing on the contents of the article and was entirely inoffensive.

I suggest that you terminate the block and let him off for time served. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that WG probably didn't even seriously examine the edit, if he even looked at it, because his whole mantra is that he doesn't "analyze" content when deciding conduct disputes. He even boasts of it on his user page. It is patently ridiculous to block anyone for any period of time for fixing an obvious formatting error that didn't have any impact on content whatsoever when anyone else would have done the same thing. Had he blocked me for a day I could just shrug it off, but this is absurd.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is counterproductive. At most, you needed a stern warning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This does appear to be a severe over-reaction. Arzel (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, WP:BAN doesn't explicitly say this sort of thing is exempt from topic bans, but I kind of doubt the failure to mention obvious errors that have the same disruptive effect as vandalism is due to anything other than a lack of imagination. Policy just doesn't talk about the appropriate way of dealing with obvious mistakes by editors-in-good-standing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Common sense isn't. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the nature of your ban, and it really is not relevant. What I see is an editor that was trying to fix a problem that had nothing to do with a point of view or edit warring or anything for which a ban would have been put forth. I can understand the desire by Admins to treat these issues as black and white in order to avoid any appearances of unequal application across events, but such an approach puts into question the need for an admin all together. If rules are always bright lines which must never be crossed, then it would make just as much sense to create a bot that does all the dirty work. Two weeks for this trangression IMO is simply not consistant with the purpose of blocks. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thing is I can't even prove them wrong about whether I was "testing the boundaries" because there is no way I can prove my motivations. An admin is free to say that I was just trying to "test the boundaries" and not assume good faith, while I am incapable of proving them wrong because it is inherently an argument about something intangible. If they aren't willing to take my word that I thought an error was little different from the obvious vandalism exempt from topic bans and that, therefore, it was fully respecting the spirit of the ban to correct the error, then there is no way I can refute that claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Offer

In light of the long period you went without any violations to your ban I am willing to lift the block. I only require you to acknowledge your ban (of which you have only a bit more than two weeks left) and that means no edits to articles that fall under your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I will commit to not fixing any more glaring errors on these articles for the rest of the ban if you like, but if something is clearly vandalism or clearly a BLP violation I am allowed to address that per WP:BAN. This doesn't mean I acknowledge any legitimacy to your actions in this case and I always "acknowledged" my topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WG, I think you should also consider that this block is enforcing a rigid adherence to the letter of policy at the expense of allowing improvements to the encyclopedia, which is ultimately what we are here to do lest you forget.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As you wish, the block stands. --WGFinley (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I pretty clearly said I would not repeat this type of edit. The only thing I would conceivably do in the next two and a half weeks, if it should even come up, is revert obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And those were not the terms. Your edit was neither reverting vandalism or making a revert on a BLP violation. Since you continue to test the boundaries of your ban the terms are no edits to 9/11 articles, no exceptions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In the course of the next two and a half weeks I probably won't even see anything like obvious vandalism before it gets reverted so it is basically about the principle. Please, allow me that much consideration and let me get back to actually improving content.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have outlined the terms, you can agree to them (no weasel words allowed) or you can remain blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

TDA, I know you look to me for highly valuable unsolicited advice, so allow me to offer you some: take the deal. Agree not to edit that article at all. I'll put it on my watchlist and if I see vandalism or BLP, I'll remove it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he frames it as "voluntarily agrees to refrain from any edits, exempt or otherwise, related to the topic area for the remainder of the ban save for those involving dispute resolution" then that would be fine. Any attempt to frame this as a necessary restriction to address some misconduct is no good, because I have not done anything that would justify preventing me from reverting obvious vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As to your suggestion to get involved, I'm not concerned about vandalism too much, I just find WG's demands inappropriate and punitive given the circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

One more thing: my usual action for a TBAN editor who violates their TBAN is to block and reset their ban. If this had been an article edit as opposed to a talk page edit that's what I would have done. I haven't done that here and understand you thought you were just helping out. What I'm asking you to understand is that you are banned and you need to demonstrate restraint and come up with other ways to deal with it or just ignore it. That's showing you've learned something from your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You know what, just impose whatever conditions you want and lift the block. Dealing with you isn't worth it anymore. I only got two weeks left on this topic ban anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I am not suggesting an extension of the topic ban. That would simply be unacceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've lifted the block, you are not allowed to make any edits to any article that would fall under your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not able to comment at this point (see above), but I will say I think this is a little much. There are general sanctions on the article and Rtm has been warned about them so you could have just requested sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free covers and such

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

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

Then I stand corrected, though my comment is certainly true of Masem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

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

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

DYK problem now addressed?

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

Thanks for your patience. FYI, I've offered an ALT1 hook at the DYK review page. -- Presearch (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wikimedia UK

On 30 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wikimedia UK, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wikimedia UK was initially denied charitable status by the British government on the basis that providing free access to information on its own was not a charitable purpose? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wikimedia UK. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Zoological conspiracy theories AfD

In a long discussion, most closes aren't going to address every offhanded point. The closing comment doesn't really delve into NOT#NEWS because the policy don't say what it's being used to say (and consequently, it doesn't form a very significant part of the subsequent discussion), whereas the SYNTH argument at least has some merit. And here, unless you're making an esoteric argument I'm missing, INDISCRIMINATE and SYNTH - and NOR - for that matter - are all making the same fundamental argument - that the article is a collection of unrelated material that the editors here have combined into a topic even though no reliable sources do that - which is a sensible argument, but runs into a wall that some of the sources do do that. Which I did address. If you're expecting me to address every comment in a discussion where a few dozen people comment and there's back and forth - you're always going to be disappointed. If there's a specific question you think I should've addressed but didn't, ask for it (specifically). WilyD 16:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the policy says exactly what it was being used to say. The events being cited are just the typical flash-in-the-pan news stories about paranoid villagers spreading bizarre gossip about their supposed enemies. I did not say that the material was unrelated either. My exact words were "tangentially-related" and the sources bear this much out. Basically the sources provided were just news stories about one non-notable event at the time it happened that had a paragraph or a few sentences noting some other non-notable news event that also involved crazy claims about animals and Israel. Sometimes the sources mentioned other claims that had nothing to do with animals just as much or more than they mentioned the claims about animals.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Go and re-read WP:NOT#NEWS, then, since you're clearly confused about what it says. There's a reason that argument didn't gain any traction in the discussion - because it doesn't apply. If you're going to try and apply it so far from what it says and how it's usually applied, you need to make a compelling case (at least, a real case - not just relying on the policy to do the heavy lifting where it doesn't apply). Beyond that - my closing rationale pretty clearly addresses the (un, tangentially)-related complaint - I see where it's coming from, but there's other sources presented are making this connection, which effectively refutes the complaint that it's the result of Misplaced Pages's editors combining (un,tangentially)-related material. WilyD 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I re-read it before you even suggested it and read it before I cited it. Here is what it says: "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." That is exactly how I was using it as that's exactly how one would describe these events. As to your comments about the material somehow not being tangentially-related, the term "tangential" does not mean that a relationship is not claimed. It means the events are only "slightly connected" and this is definitely the case. All that is being used to connect the events is that the events all involve some group of Arabs/Muslims claiming some animal is being used by Israel for something bad. Articles should be based off more than that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A subject where all the coverage exists over a day, or a week, would fail a presumption of enduring notability; every professional sports game is written up in newspapers; often even national or global ones, yet they typically fail because they're written about the day after, maybe the day before, and then forgotten. A subject with coverage over the last three years can't be presumed to just be news merely because most sources are newspapers - maybe it's possible to make that argument, but in such an exceptional case one needs to compile a compelling argument (and realistically, since you're moving so far away from the policy and its normal usage, it's effective an IAR and thus needs a strong consensus - not to be a weakly argued minority position).

Beyond that, how strongly related the cases are is subjective, but where the sources are tying them together, it's effectively the case that the "unrelated-ness" is OR, and the relatedness is V; the opposite of the case where sources don't tie them together (or better, explicitly note they're unrelated). Where editors disagree, as closer, I have to favour the editors who're backed by the sources. WilyD 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You obviously aren't clear on what WP:NOT#NEWS is about or how it applies here. WP:INDEPTH has some more specific guidance on this issue. The article basically just put together routine news reports over specific events based off trivial mentions of one in connection with another to try and circumvent the WP:PERSISTENCE objection. Also, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but my argument was not about them being "unrelated" at all. It was about them being only tangentially related.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should go back and look at the article then - you're either confused about what NOT#NEWS says, or so mistaken about the article's content that it comes across to me like you don't know what NOT#NEWS says. INDEPTH makes the point that trivial mentions of an event don't demonstrate notability (this is just restating N anyhow). I'd say maybe go back to the discussion, but the discussion essentially ignores the NOT#NEWS argument because it's complete rubbish, whereas the SYNTH argument has some merit (though it can't carry the discussion against the sources to the contrary). Routine news reports are things that are reported routinely - hockey scores, lotto numbers, traffic accidents - then forgotten the next day; something that maintains a news presence for three years is far from that - enough that you'd need to build a real argument, not just link to policies that don't make the argument that you want to make.

And yes, using unrelated when you're saying tangentially related is a little lazy language on my part, but the underlying argument remains the same. WilyD 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say you are adhering too strictly to the letter of the policy, but even the letter of the policy is not so obscenely limited. Generally WP:NOT#NEWS also applies to events that only see a brief spike in media coverage around the time the event is occurring. All of those incidents saw nothing other than a brief spike of coverage. No "years" of coverage exists for the manufactured subject or any of these incidents. All we have is coverage in reliable sources of one event where, occasionally, there is a trivial mention of one or more of the past events.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think DRV is better than re-opening the discussion (especially after it's been closed for a while) - although I suspect the outcome will either be endorse with a substantial minority wanting to overturn to no consensus, or overturn to no consensus with a substantial minority endorsing. Neither is a change from the status quo, unless you're inclined to think an overturn to no consensus is a necessary step to an immediate new AfD (which'll just go to the same place - either a weak keep, or somewhere on the keep-y side of no consensus). If you're keen, go ahead, but I suspect it'll just be a pointless mess. Fundamentally, I think it needs a smart plan that makes disinterested editors go "Hey, that's a smart plan" - which neither deletion nor keeping in it's current form really are; but as closing admin, based on the discussion, there wasn't much I could do expect note that there's a POV problem, and tell people to fix it (at least, I didn't see anything else I could do.) WilyD 08:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese

The DRV was closed as no prejudice to having a merge discussion. Obviously, I want to start that discussion, but to what page? I'm leaning toward Mozzarella cheese or Pizza pbp 06:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been thinking that it could be turned into a disambiguation page. Content about analogue pizza cheese could be moved to the cheese analogue article, content about mozzarella moved to mozzarella, and anything left moved to the article on pizza along with a summary of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• DA, I am very concerned to see you attempt to accomplish a merger without having the merge discussion as directed by the DRV ruling. Yes, I will likely be opposed to a merge as I was in the AfD, but your unilateral acts are simply the same as those arguments which failed to gain any traction in the DRV discussion. There's nothing wrong with having a minority opinion and being unable to convince other editors of your viewpoint, it happens all the time. There's always so much else we can do around here. Cheers.--Milowent • 00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Admins are not the arbiters of content. They cannot "direct" how merges are implemented and there was nothing improper about my edits, one way to get consensus is through bold edits. A majority of editors at AfD actually supported a merge, most of these editors being completely impartial, and you and your ARS cohorts gave no valid argument against it, just the typical partisan "WP:GNG!" and "Merge is the same as delete!" nonsense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese and the ARS

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

Second, IRWolfie (with a little help from me) is tinkering with an RfC that is probably going to mention some of the concerns you had on the ARS talk page with CANVASSing (and hopefully, it'll mention the increased vitriol promulgated by Milowent and others) pbp 22:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the "pizza cheese freedom fighter" thing. It is not unusual conduct at all for the ARS. Earlier this year, when I first ran into them, the immediate cries of "censorship" and "deletionist" that greeted me made it abundantly clear that the dominant members of the group have a serious persecution complex. However, IR's planned RFC will not achieve anything if it is an attempt to shut down the group as the broader community will likely not find that to be appetizing, so it would have to focus on how to reform the group to the point where it would strictly comply with WP:CANVASS. You would also have to be extra clear that shutting down the group is not the purpose and be sure to pre-empt any attempts to characterize it differently. At least a few editors who jumped onto the previous RfC to support the ARS were likely getting there from a rather slanted Signpost article that implied the RfC was moving to get rid of the ARS.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the answer is get rid of Template:Rescue list and to topic-ban the one to three most egregious editors (coughmilowentcought). But I wouldn't mind it if ARS went away pbp 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt topic bans would achieve much. For one, there will likely just be more editors popping up to take their place. Getting rid of the list would certainly make canvassing difficult, but many members would rightly see that as effectively killing the wikiproject. Not to mention that the rescue list itself was created just two days after the rescue tag got deleted so that could easily happen again with an editor coming up with some new way to do the same thing the list does. No, the easiest way to sell it is to have their activities restricted to the point where a notification can't sway an editor one way or the other and voting by members at the AfDs of listed articles will be more strongly discouraged.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have one possible suggestion for reform. limiting ARS to working on userfied deleted pages, and working through AFC. This was there are no deletion discussions to canvass for etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that, while the problem may seem obvious to us, it will not be as clear to the wider community who may have had little or no interaction with the group. So, being as conservative as possible in your suggestions increases the chances of success. I have some ideas that I can work on for how the group might reform.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement

There is a discussion concerning an issue you have been involved in here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Paul_Magnussen.2C_Sirswindon.2C_and_InigmaMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.10.133 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U?

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

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

If you have any advice on how to stop this other than an RFC, that would be great too. Zeromus1 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to give Mathsci a little time before pursuing any such action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

At what point do you think an RFC/U will be appropriate? Based on how long these things have been going on, it's difficult for me to imagine they will end anytime soon. Zeromus1 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is appropriate to wait at least until the AE case is resolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

In addition to the current issue involving you and Cla68, I think an RFC/U about Mathsci also should cover some of the editors he pursued before I came on the scene, such as Ludwigs2, Miradre and SightWatcher. In their cases Echigo Mole seems to have had nothing to do with his reason for pursuing them, so they show this whole issue isn't EM's fault. Zeromus1 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Zero, I am really not considering anything at this point and don't think you should be considering anything either. That is not because I somehow think his conduct is appropriate, obviously not, but I just don't feel like the current situation warrants it as of yet and I don't really want to expend much energy on this at the moment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

FYI

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

Interaction ban

Per this AE thread, you are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Misplaced Pages. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a mutual interaction ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Harbor Country wikipage

I am an employee of the the Harbor Country Chamber of Commerce in New Buffalo,MI. I have added more to the Harbor Country page only to have you revise it each time. My understanding is Misplaced Pages is a 💕 that can be added to by anyone with positive intentions and with factual information. Hence I do have permission to update and add to the page as an employee of the Harbor Country Chamber of Commerce. Please revise back to my latest revision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.192.18 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The key there is that it is an encyclopedia, not a travel brochure or an advertising venue. Content should be written in a neutral manner that reflects what is found in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Simply copy-pasting promotional material from a site that is looking to garner business for the region is not appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note also our conflict of interest guidelines. Sædon 20:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are named in an Arbcom request

Here.

World War II: What a story!

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