User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 2

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

See here for related revision history

Your arrogance and rudeness

Comments such as this fall far short of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You should consider going back and redacting comments on contributors, and focus instead on content. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Q Group nominated

I noticed you recently contributed to the article Q Group. I have nominated this article for deletion and thought you might like to know and perhaps share your opinion on the page's nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Q_Group. --  bsmithme  05:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hello. Recently I noticed your anti-vandal work on the David E. Carter article. The easiest way to clean up vandalism and spam is via the rollback tool. If you are willing to abide by the rollbacker rules (see WP:ROLLBACK), I would be more than happy to grant you access to this function. If, after reading WP:ROLLBACK, you promise to follow the rollback rules to the best of your ability, just drop a quick message on my talk page saying as much and I will update your rights. Thanks again for your help in keeping Wikipedia clear of vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful not to edit-war on North American Union

Hello. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule in regards to edits to the North American Union article. It appears that you have twice reverted ([1], [2]) the article back to your preferred version [3]. Rather than engage in an edit war, please consider further discussion of the issue on the article's talk page instead. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24 h), I have blocked your account temporarily. While you are using the talkpage and making other constructive changes, you are engaging in a long-term edit war against consensus at the talkpage. If you find yourself unable to convince the other active editors at an article of the merits of a particular edit and if following extensive clearly set forth discussion you find that you remain convinced of your original opinion, please moot your edit to the wider community. The several WikiProjects at the top of the talkpage might be watched by editors who could become interested if you clearly, concisely, and neutrally lay out the history of the dispute and the reasons why you maintain your stance. You might also consider filing a request for comment on the matter. Simply inserting or removing the same text repeatedly, however, is nothing more than unproductive edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should really consider who I would be edit warring against. Consensus is not a majority vote. All three of the editors who reverted my changes hold the exact same opinion not only on my edits, but on the subject itself. The first revert came here, then I reverted that. This was followed by another revert by Canada Jack. I reverted it yet again and as you will see in the talk page Canada Jack changes his mind and agrees with my revert. At this time Orange Mike stepped in and reverted me in Canada Jack's stead who has once again changed his mind. I revert this one more time. Orange Mike once more reverts this. I revert it again. Now Kralizec jumps in and reverts me, furthermore he gives me a warning, while Orange Mike and Canada Jack are not given any reprimand. Indeed, though one could find several violations of the rules by at least one of the editors at no point does Kralizec give either warnings. After I revert it again Canada Jack reverts me. Then after my final revert Kralizec steps back in and reverts me. Amazingly after he reports me and me alone for edit warring Canada Jack rewrites the section apparently conceding that it was poorly-written all along. In all they made 7 reverts together and then seem to concede that one of my reasons for the revert was legitimate. I did engage in an edit war, but it only took place because there were three editors who could tag team reverts rather than doing it alone. However, while they consistently sought to return to exactly the same version my last revert only removed that part I objected to rather than reinserting the portion I supported. In fact, I changed that portion other times to try and meet their objections to no avail. The fact an admin was clearly engaging in what he himself called an edit war, which was started by a user other than myself, is quite inappropriate. If he were being neutral he would have edit-protected the page with my last edit, which did not include either disputed phrase, rather than reverting me and seeking to block me and me alone insuring his preferred version remained in place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia war title

Wont happen. For good or bad, Wikipedia has overly conservative rules concerning article name moves. When that vote a while back was successfully rigged in favor of the current title, any reasonable chance of changing it died. I share your belief that the current title is not the best one, but it is simply not worth expending any effort on this. And don't even think of trying without about 20 good sources using a different one. --Xeeron (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it "not the best title" it is the worst title to use because it focuses all the attention on South Ossetia and is the least common name used. The fact so many biased editors favor the current title goes to show it also serves their bias. I can not accept the current title and will continue to seek a change. There is no rule saying the title cannot be changed after a vote or even that a vote is the decisive matter. South Ossetia War is used less and less as time goes by in the major news media, not just in the West, but China, Iran, and even Russia. No argument for keeping the current title has any legitimacy on Wikipedia and neutrality was already shot down by several admins as a reason for not changing the title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War title

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your note

Hi TDA, I posted something without getting too involved in the details. I hope it's useful. Crum375 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Xue Hanqin

The article Xue Hanqin has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Stickee (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

wassup

I don't think weve run into each before except on the current Kosovo status ruling on talk where we agreed. I was just reading your main page "politics" template box and i think we're practically twins (the main page text too if i read it right that you dont support the kosovo thing as is but in theory it could be a-okay). Where have you been hiding? ;) politics and Econ. as an interest...its the ultimate intellectual pursuit. I was wondering where are you from? I see youre probably American. If so whereabouts?

ps- feel free not to answer those q's if you find it too personal. was just pondering cause i was in TX and VA.Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of placement on administrators' noticeboard

You are being placed on the Administrators' Noticeboard for your ongoing POV-pushing and edit-warring in the 7 World Trade Center article. I'm really not interested in hearing you defend your actions again, so please spare us both the time and energy. -Jordgette [talk] 01:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

As a result of an arbitration case administrators can impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at 7 World Trade Center

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at 7 World Trade Center. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Jordgette (Result: 1 week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Devil's Advocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking admin cited alleged edit-warring on my part as reason for my block. I explained why this was not the case in considerable detail on the noticeboard, but there are some details I would add in a shorter explanation here (this request is still a few paragraphs long, but I hope you won't fault me for that as it is a very complicated dispute). As the admin focused on the removal of material I will focus on that. As explained on the noticeboard my decision to remove material was a result of a discussion on splitting the article into an article on old building 7 and one on new building 7 (I implore any admin reviewing the block to read that discussion because it is very important to understanding my motivation, it is really short so it shouldn't be a problem to read it). :Prompted by that discussion I decided to be bold and merge the information on the collapse in the building 7 article over to the relevant sections in the collapse article so as to reduce the size of the building 7 article. Relevant diffs of that merge are here: [4] [5]. Once the information had been fully and safely moved I shortened the section on the collapse in building 7's article consistent with WP:SUMMARY. Immediately after implementing this change I started a section on the article talk page explaining that I was moving information to the collapse article and my reasons for doing so. Other editors raised objections to my changes and subsequently I made changes that kept information they indicated should be kept despite disagreeing with their reasoning on some changes. Along the way I made several efforts to find out specific objections of these other editors, though most of my questions went unanswered. :In spite of those issues with discussion I made a another edit to try and accommodate their concerns while still trimming the article and, unlike previous edits, that one has apparently gotten approval from those editors. After a week of no objections to that change I made another change to shorten the article that has also been endorsed by those other editors. In addition the previous reverted changes included a number of edits that were undone by rollback reverting and those changes that were restored also largely gained acceptance from the other editors. :So what the blocking admin described as edit-warring to push a POV was in fact a good-faith effort to shorten the article (subsequent to a merge of the excised information to another article) and said effort, consistent with WP:BRD, resulted in a consensus version that ended up being 3 kilobytes shorter. The final edit I made before the listing on the noticeboard sought to shorten and improve the article further as well as addressing other concerns that were brought up. Two hours before the listing I started a section to discuss that edit as well, specifically asking for the reverting editor's concerns. In other words, I was attempting to continue the search for consensus that had already demonstrated some success. Although the blocking admin complimented by debating skills, this consistent effort to achieve consensus including instances of consensus that were achieved by my actions, go unmentioned in the block decision. Such actions would have certainly been relevant as they suggest "a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" that is supposed to be encouraged by blocking. :The blocking admin also cited a previous incident where I was blocked in supporting the decision in this case. However, a review of the blocking admin's argument in that case shows not only that the admin considered that my contributions in other respects warranted lighter action, but even encouraged any reviewing admin to be generous in a request at unblocking my account despite it being a fairly short 24-hour block. It is not clear to me if the blocking admin in this case fully considered the very lenient nature of that previous block or my subsequent contributions to the relevant article. Additionally another admin, Magog the Ogre, in the noticeboard discussion concerning this incident expressed the opinion that this matter was too complicated for the edit-warring section and as such the request should be declined, though this concern does not appear to have been addressed by the blocking admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring in an article on a sensitive topic despite being previously blocked for this. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Second unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Devil's Advocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I remain resolute in stating that my actions were not edit-warring nor an effort to push any POV, I no longer have an interest in making major or controversial changes to articles related to this subject without full and explicit endorsement from other contributors to the article. It has been three days and there are other articles, with no connection to the subject of the dispute, that I am interested in contributing to as soon as possible. There are also some stylistic and structural changes, not altering any content, that I would like to make to articles related to the disputed subject. As I said, any changes more significant that relate to content I intend to discuss and receive approval for before making.The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am unwilling to unblock you while you are denying the reason for the block. You several times edited part of an article back to the same or substantially content after others had changed it away from that version. That is edit warring. It doesn't somehow not count as edit warring because you think that your edits were justified, nor because you are discussing or attempting to discuss the edits you are repeatedly making. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Response

I never just assume I am right about something and I look hard at the question when anyone says I am wrong. However, I cannot, from looking at policy, see how my actions can be thoroughly evaluated objectively and still be called edit-warring.

The policy page on edit-warring references the bold, revert, discuss cycle and in that article it says the following:

Edit warring

• Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.

• However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or better yet, considerably less time than that. You want to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best.

The second paragraph describes exactly what I was doing with the shortening of the section. Exactly describes it. I made a change, they reverted, we discussed, I made bold changes during the discussion to try and find consensus based on their objections. I did not just restore the first edit I made. As I said on the noticeboard, the only thing I felt was close to me engaging in an edit war was the dispute over the one sentence. However, even if you count me as making three reverts within 24 hours regarding those three or four words I still went to the discussion page afterwards to present my reasoning and got multiple responses from several editors, some of which were helpful. The subsequent change I made regarding that sentence that the blocking admin counted as a revert was a substantial change not only in the words used (that, in my opinion, were far more convincing than an absolute statement) but in its placement in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

May I make a comment? Even if you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you technically did not edit-war in this case, this is not a court of law. You violated the intent of the edit-warring guideline. You got mixed up in a highly controversial topic, you reverted some reverts, and you made an awful lot of noise. You realize that even if you made a dozen or so solid, non-controversial improvements to the article in question, this value to Wikipedia is far outweighed by the time burden you have placed on other editors and admins over the past month. If three admins tell you the same thing definitively, for example, I don't see how it's in your best interests to keep "talking back" at great length. Here you are blocked and you still can't seem to stop yourself from typing in the last word. This is not helpful to Wikipedia. Just let it go and use it as a learning moment, and next time try to take a hint when people start to get annoyed — and chill out. If you create more work for other editors and admins than your efforts are worth in the long run, there will be backlash. Feel free to delete this comment if you wish. -Jordgette [talk] 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Except I did not violate the intent. There is no special standard for what counts as edit-warring depending on the topic's importance or controversy. All that a topic's importance or controversy might change is how strictly that standard is enforced. As for my "best interest" being to say that I was edit-warring, I could easily do as you suggest, but I would be lying. I am not going to lie, especially not when that means saying something is wrong when I believe it is right. Perhaps you should consider that the disruption does not come from someone who makes every effort to discuss and accommodate your views, but from an individual, or group of individuals, who go around citing every policy but WP:NPOV (except to accuse an editor of violating it when said editor makes changes they do not like) to make statements of absolute fact in an article about a building while openly declaring that they do this for the purpose of preventing potential readers from adopting views for which they express open disdain concerning an issue involving the building while an article on the actual issue has hardly any mention of the building. Exactly how thoroughly have you evaluated your own behavior?

Before I started making changes to the article there was not even a wikilink to the theories on controlled demolition (a change that appears to have occurred a whole month before seemingly without any regular contributors, who supposedly monitor the article, noticing), despite the fact said theories are explicitly mentioned. That same sort of issue is one of the reasons that was cited for stripping the article on the 9-11 attacks of its featured article status. I push for adding information noting that NIST itself suggested they could not rule out the use of thermite (prefacing it with words like "it added" essentially saying "according to NIST") and this is claimed to be pushing a POV. Yet other information from NIST is apparently ok to state as absolute fact (resisting any change that clarifies this is "according to NIST") like the remark "first known instance" that you and several other editors insisted was perfectly ok to treat as unquestionable fact because NIST said it, despite NIST's own uncertain comments regarding one of the prominent explanations given by conspiracy theorists.

The best proof of POV-pushing is the use of a double standard. I insist on an addition stipulating that NIST itself expressed a lack of absolute certainty on one of the more popular controlled demolition theories and I am accused of trying to push a POV, while you insist on unqualified remarks that treat a contradicting remark by NIST as absolute fact and somehow I am pushing a POV merely for suggesting there should be a stipulation that this is what NIST said, as opposed to hallowed truth. Do you realize that you would in fact be the one guilty of a double standard in this case, not me? Hell, do you honestly think stating a major scientific research institute says this is a fact is legitimizing the opposing view? If someone says 99% of climatologists consider anthropogenic global warming the best explanation for our changing climate would you scream that this person is trying to convince people that the 1% is correct?

Your abundance of support, from admins or anyone else, only indicates that your POV is one that more people sympathize with or support. That does not mean your view is not a biased one, though it makes it a loss likely that you will recognize it as such. Go into basically any discussion forum and say "I do not think rapists deserve to be disemboweled, they're people too for heaven's sake" and you are likely to find that the entire community will come down on you like you just spat on Mother Theresa's grave. People will accuse you of having no sympathy for the victims of rape, hating women, and possibly being a potential rapist yourself. Simply because you are the only one not reacting that way does not mean you are the one acting out of irrational bias.

If the tables were reversed and you were up against two to three people blatantly pushing a conspiracist POV would you really indulge any call to fall on your sword for the good of Wikipedia? Anyone who is actually interested in the good of Wikipedia would never accept such a notion, recognizing that providing a precedent for suppressing dissenting views only does harm to Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional point on this is that my proposed change regarding the "known" sentence was consistent with WP:INTEXT.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind then. I was trying to level with you and help you understand why you are being ostracized. But apparently you can't possibly have done anything inappropriate, abrasive, or disruptive, your incredibly long defensive screeds are great for Wikipedia's best interests, and three editors and three admins are just totally wrong. Consensus means whatever you personally think is right, not what the community finds collectively, as indicated by the many lengthy essays submitted on why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Got it. -Jordgette [talk] 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I could go on about systemic bias and tell you why the majority agreeing with a position is not proof of its validity, but I imagine that would be wasted on you. Consensus requires that the people involved be impartial. Can you honestly say you do not feel a stronger level of hostility and awareness as it concerns material that relates to conspiracy theories? You and several other editors involved have certainly demonstrated a lack of awareness concerning anything that serves your POV as I pointed out. Someone removes the wikilink to the controlled demolition article and that change stays around for a month. Someone inserts puffery to promote the official version of the collapse and it goes unchallenged for years. I have seen this in another article related to conspiracy theories as well. The same sort of arguments are used even, including by admins who frequented the page. Your whole "it is cited to a reliable source so I can have Wikipedia say anything that source says without qualification and not violate NPOV" defense on some issues is identical. Unfortunately, while that obtuse kind of reasoning might be called for what it is in most other cases, when it comes to a subject that is of any interest to debunkers such standards fly out the window. Suddenly you have people using Wikipedia as a soapbox to debunk conspiracy theories and locking out contrary discussion with complete impunity.

Look at the scenario I gave below. Do you think the same arguments you have made here when made against removing in-depth details concerning OJ Simpson's murder trial from the article on OJ Simpson and having that information instead be in the article on the trial would be perceived as neutral efforts to maintain an impartial consensus? I don't think a single admin on all of Wikipedia would give your talk any serious consideration or think for a moment that you were doing anything but disrupting Wikipedia to push a POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What the email said

To make this discussion easier to follow for the block reviewers here is the email I had sent to The Devil's Advocate on 12 November:

There is nothing confidential in your email, so please make any arguments on Wikipedia on your user talk page. Off-wiki discussions of blocks should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Your claim to be only making stylistic and structural changes would be more credible if others agree with you that they are merely stylistic and structural. The fact that you ran into so much opposition ought to make you think twice about the neutrality of your proposed changes. I have your user talk on my watchlist so I should see any comments that you make.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the e-mail I had sent before that:

I would like to dispute your statement that I was pushing a POV, but first I would like to present a more brief summary of my edits. An editor started a section on the article talk page suggesting a split (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Split) and I endorsed the idea he presented. Then I state that size is one consideration supporting a split, though stipulating it could be achieved by moving information on the collapse to the article on the collapse, which had hardly any information on building 7. I then preformed this move (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&action=historysubmit&diff=457065325&oldid=456582780) and shortened the collapse section in building 7's article. Within minutes of the change to the building 7 article I started a section on the talk page (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Trimmed_9-11_section). Look at the the dates and times on the discussion closely and on my edits to the article. You will see that each subsequent edit kept material they objected to me removing as part of summarizing the section.

Now as to the accusation that I was pushing a POV you should look at this discussion directly relating to 9-11 conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Q_Group

As you brought up the NAU article I think you should also look at this comment I made in that article's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Union&diff=358325656&oldid=358314720

Compare that remark to this one in the edit-warring noticeboard concerning this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=459769322

Consider, if you will, that this had nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Say it was about a notable murder case like the murder of OJ Simpson's wife Nicole Simpson. Imagine that every argument and comment was essentially the same with the exception that it was about OJ Simpson and the murder case. Were I moving information from the OJ Simpson article that concerned the murder to an article on the murder and summarizing the information on the murder in the article on Simpson, arguing that the article on the man should not contain so much material on his alleged act when there was an article on that very subject, would my changes be considered good-faith edits or edit-warring to push a POV?

The fact the section in the building 7 article has a See Also wikilink to the page where I moved information, with me changing said link to go directly to the section in said page concerning the collapse, makes the claim I was attempting to hide or conceal information damaging to conspiracy theories seem rather silly.

--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to EdJohnston e-mail

In the above when I say "stylistic and structural" I was talking about edits I want to make, not ones I have already made. However, if you want to know what kind of changes I am referring to see the changes I made before the block here and here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The first of the two examples just above of "sytlistic and structural" edits includes changing first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires to was believed to be the first instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires - one of the changes that was opposed. Moreover, his structural changes were a big part of the problem. The Devil's Advocate wanted to move the material about 9/11 to another article. This was not generally supported. Structural changes to a stable article in a controversial area should not be made without consensus, let alone against consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not including the change to that sentence. What I specifically was referring to are the section headings. However, it should be noted that the change to the sentence replaced "it is remarkable because it is the first known instance" not merely changing the one word. Amazingly that obvious bit of puffery I highlighted had apparently been in the article unchallenged for over three years. Just another one of those bizarre oversights by the motley crew of "skeptics" roving the article that I noticed within minutes of editing said article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also add this claim I was going against consensus is absurd. A "consensus" of biased editors disputing a change is no different than one biased editor disputing a change. For consensus to be a legitimate claim it must be reached by impartial editors. This case involves editors who make their disdain for conspiracy theorists clear, as well as their desire for using articles to counter conspiracy theories. As far as moving the information, the only thing that was disputed is shortening the section in building 7's article as part of such a move. Claims that I was "giving people the run-around" or somehow looking to conceal information damaging to conspiracy theories are the only real reasons given for opposing that action, despite said information being in an article directly linked from the collapse section of the building 7 article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration enforcement

I have requested enforcement [6] of the arbitration case relating to September 11 for your edits on the 7 World Trade Center article. Your account is subject to discretionary sanctions as a result of this request. -Jordgette [talk] 05:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there The Devil's Advocate, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:The Devil's Advocate/Sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

This is to inform you that, as the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban is through 30 December 2011. --WGFinley (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting to my talk page about issues in the 9/11 topic space[7] would be a violation of your 9/11 topic ban. As it states above you are banned "from any discussion of that topic on other pages". Your previous block was 7 days, I have made this one 7 days as well. I have so noted the 9/11 Sanctions block log[8]. I really wish you would reconsider your actions in this regard. --WGFinley (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This would fall under an exemption from the topic ban. I was explicitly informing you, the admin who topic-banned me, of what the filing editor appeared to be using the topic ban to achieve. This would fall under addressing a legitimate concern about the ban, specifically the way the filing editor seemed to be using the ban as an opportunity to revert several uncontroversial changes on the article without having to face serious opposition from the editor who made those changes. The point was not to make an argument about the topic, but the AE action itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What "exemption" are you referring to? --WGFinley (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I explicitly referenced the exemption. The page on banning policy covers "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" and that is what I was doing. That the editor who requested enforcement used the subsequent sanctions as an opportunity to revert uncontroversial changes without serious discussion, doing so in a rather deceptive manner, is certainly a legitimate concern about the ban, especially since one of the concerns I raised was about not being able to discuss the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are free to raise questions about the scope of your own topic ban without penalty. Inquiry into the behavior of others who you feel were not adequately sanctioned is not permitted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The banning policy explicitly mentions inquiring into the conduct of another editor under ArbCom after a sanction has been imposed as an example of an exemption. In that example it talks about violation of an interaction ban, but the list of examples given on the page is clearly not meant to exhaustive. The problem with regarding this as a violation of a topic-ban is that it would seem to set the precedent that an editor who has been topic-banned for edit-warring can be blocked for pointing out to an admin that the other involved editor is using the topic ban as an excuse to continue the edit-war without being challenged. I was not pushing for any editor to be sanctioned, even in the AE case I explicitly said I did not wish to see anyone sanctioned, but instead I was pointing out how the editor who pushed for the topic ban was using it to sneak in a revert of uncontroversial changes I had made to the article. My hope was that WGFinley would inform Jordgette about the impropriety of the action and/or reconsider his reasons for the full topic ban in light of the filing editor's actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The interaction ban is listed as an exception because such a ban is a 'ban for two.' You are not under an interaction ban so you don't benefit from that exception. Sanctioned editors very frequently blame others and admins generally tune that out. The effect of topic bans may be that the other editors 'win'. This does not mean they are free to do whatever they want; they still have to follow policy and accept consensus. You are not welcome to give any feedback on what other editors may do on the topic of 9/11 until your ban expires. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with how Ed has explained it. The entire point of a TBAN is to stop the disruption on the article, if you were free to continue but just in another venue there would be no point to a TBAN. You are free to address the TBAN itself (i.e. request the terms or length of the TBAN be changed) but that is it. Complaining about others not a good way to go about reducing the length of a block or ban as referenced in this section of the ban appeal guide. --WGFinley (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You cited the wrong article there. I believe you meant this article. However, that clearly refers to an instance where someone argues that "this person acted badly so I should not have been blocked" and that is not what my comment was saying at all. You said you acted per Jordgette's AE report and so that editor's potential bad faith in filing that report is certainly relevant to my ban. More importantly it bears no relevance to the question of whether it is violating a topic ban to raise concerns about another editor's conduct being a violation of policy. Perhaps I should have expressed my concerns differently or communicated them in another venue, but that is all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

First, interaction bans are provided as an example, like I said the list of examples are clearly not meant to be exhaustive. Second, you are misrepresenting what I said. I was not blaming anyone in my comment to WGFinley, nor was I merely "giving feedback" on "what other editors do on the topic" as you claim. This specifically concerned the actions of the editor who filed the report after it got the desired result. More specifically, it concerned that editor's attempt to revert long-standing edits I had made on the very article the dispute was about in a manner that deceptively implied it was something other than a revert and when the editor knew full well that the editor with whom this "compromise" was supposedly to be made would not be allowed to express any position on whether it was a legitimate compromise. That kind of conduct screams WP:GAME putting the editor's AE request in a completely different light.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant WP:NOTTHEM. Your complaint is common among users who have been TBAN'd. It's quite common for editors that have gotten embroiled in disruption to the point to earn a TBAN to have difficulty letting go of it for a time. If you are going to instill any confidence in anyone that you can edit harmoniously there you are going to need to. --WGFinley (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not bringing up old issues here, but new issues. Do you not see any impropriety in Jordgette's action after the topic ban? Do you really think such impropriety would have no relevance to the topic ban that Jordgette requested? Consider less the letter of policy and more its spirit. The whole idea behind allowing editors under a topic ban to request action on someone violating an interaction ban is, in my opinion, because it inherently invites the other editor subject to the ban to violate it. Essentially an editor is not supposed to engage in behavior that is likely to incite actions that would result in a block or ban. Jordgette undoubtedly knew the proposal was essentially a revert of changes I had made and that these changes had been standing for a while without objection. It stretches credulity to presume that Jordgette was not already aware of these changes well before proposing a revert given comments endorsing several of those changes. It similarly stretches credulity to presume Jordgette really thought this legitimately fell under "seeking compromise" over disputed content when it was essentially just reverting edits from an editor who was not able to voice an objection. Does it not make sense that Jordgette should have been aware that such an action could be seen as incitement or baiting? Is the perceived existence of such baiting really not a legitimate concern for an editor who has been topic-banned?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you WG, since the topic ban I have seen several problems sufficiently close to the subject that I was wary of getting involved even when the change itself would be uncontroversial. However, I was and am willing to wait out a topic ban even with the associated ban on discussion before making or proposing such changes. Jordgette's proposal with its elaborate deception that came off essentially as vindictive to me, on the other hand, left me frustrated to a point where I felt I had to say something. So, I made the comment to you under the belief that it was a legitimate concern to raise about that editor's behavior and that raising it directly to you on your talk page would avoid any appearance of attempting to secretly influence a discussion on the subject. My intent was sincerely respecting the spirit and letter of Wikipedia banning policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You may have intended to follow Wikipedia's banning policy, but in my opinion you did not succeed. WP:TBAN has been refined to address the problem of banned editors continuing the dispute on talk pages. That's what it's there for. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How did I not succeed, specifically? You made a number of misleading claims about my motivations and actual comments, but have avoided the more general argument I am making. I was raising an objection about the impropriety of an editor's actions to an admin who was fully aware of the topic ban. Are you to have me believe that the topic ban means I am not able to point out violations of policy and attempts to game the consensus-building process? That works all well and dandy if there is reason to believe someone else will actually say that this editor is blatantly disregarding Wikipedia's policies but I had no reason to believe anyone else would recognize this was a proposed revert of edits I made or understand that Jordgette was knowingly proposing a revert of long-standing and generally uncontroversial edits made by someone who would not be able to object within the timeline for discussion given. You are apparently telling me that I should not only "let it go" when it comes to the general dispute, but "let it go" even as it concerns blatant violations of policy as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I spite of your amazement, that is just what WP:TBAN implies. It means you are 'not able to point out violations of policy and attempts to game the consensus-building process.' Your presence on the 9/11 articles was found to be disruptive and the admins at AE ruled that you should not participate on those issues for a period of time. If you are hoping to return to active editing on 9/11 when this ban expires I urge you to stop digging. EdJohnston (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does not imply anything in that respect, but that is not completely relevant as these violations directly concern the topic ban. It is not like I pointed to some random act of incivility, though if said incivility was directed at me that would reasonably count. To insist this decision is correct is, in essence, to say that editors can bait banned editors into violating a ban without the banned editor being able to point out the baiting to an admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I should add that another exemption provided is the revert of blatant vandalism and obvious violations of BLP. So, in fact, blatant violations of policy in certain circumstances actually are exemptions to making direct edits to an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not in need of clarification, let me lay things out:

1. Your TBAN is very specific, you violated your TBAN and hence were blocked for a week.
2. Notice the exemptions mention blatant vandalism and obvious violations of BLP - that's a very narrow exception.
3. You really need to go and read (or re-read) the Guide to Appealing Blocks, honestly, there is some great stuff there that should prove helpful to you!
4. After you have finished go back and read the WP:NOTTHEM part because even after I advised you about it each and every one of your responses has made reference to the other editor. As Ed noted, you are digging a deeper hole for yourself, you need to put down the shovel.--WGFinley (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not even the policy page on banning is sufficiently specific to cover all scenarios. That you keep focusing on what the policy specifically says rather than what it means is a bad case of wikilawyering. Banning policy clearly accommodates situations where an editor is concerned about blatant violations of policy and clearly accommodates raising concerns about user conduct relevant to an AE case. The spirit of the topic ban being extended outside the article space is to keep someone from trying to secretly manipulate the editing process or secretly targeting editors they disagree with. It should be clear that I was not doing that at all. Also, I should note that an editor requesting action from ArbCom can have their request denied if they are found to be making the request in bad faith. Should such bad faith not be clear until after the sanction has been imposed it would be unreasonable to expect the editor to not bring it up in an unblock request. As such, information that could suggest the request is in bad faith would be a reasonably legitimate concern about the ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AE unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Devil's Advocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting community discussion per WP:AEBLOCK using the form below. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Received, I will post your appeal to WP:AE. WGFinley (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)}}

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Block logged at

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The policy on topic bans indicates there are exemptions to topic bans where the editor is addressing a legitimate concern about the ban. I believed the concerns I was raising fell under such an exemption. Other than the concerns obvious from my comment, like the editor who pushed for the topic ban apparently using it to game consensus to revert uncontroversial changes on the disputed article, I provided several more concerns on my talk page. My understanding is that one reason a topic ban provides for exemptions in the case of notifying admins about violations of interaction bans is because a violation on the part of one individual inherently invites a violation by the other individual. In other words, one editor should not be baiting another individual into violating a ban and an editor under a topic ban should raise concerns about such baiting to an admin. Here I went to the admin who had specifically imposed the topic ban, indicating I had no intention of violating the topic ban. Given all of this, I believe this was not worthy of a block. Even if one argues that it was a violation, the circumstances were sufficiently ambiguous under the policy that the imposition of any block seems inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Response to WG on block appeal

While I understand the concern about a comment about a user's conduct becoming a discussion, this would be true for any exemption. Mentioning an editor's actions in violation of an interaction ban, for instance, may cause the other editor to respond in a way that leads to further violations, but the point is where the comment is made. An admin can hardly argue that he would not be able to control what is occurring on his own talk page. That is why I made the comment there. Perhaps it would have been better to send an e-mail, something I considered, but when using e-mail there is a concern about it being perceived as an inappropriate effort to lobby in secret.

I further feel I had to mention why the action was of concern and that required some specificity. To be clear, it was not a general concern about an editor continuing to make contributions to the article, but the attempt to undo uncontroversial contributions of mine that had been standing for weeks and the way that attempt was being portrayed. The editor who filed the request leading to my topic ban was using the topic ban resulting from that request to revert changes of mine and give them the illusion of real consensus by implying that it was a compromise being put up for discussion, even though the editor knew the person who was being reverted was not going to be able to provide input on the "compromise" over those edits. Since the topic ban ten days ago this proposal has been the editor's only action on the article.

That, from my perspective, is quite a serious concern about the ban. Editors using AE to game the system is certainly a problem and goes straight to the question of whether the request was made in good faith in the first place. One impression I got from the proposal was that the editor was being vindictive and attempting to hound me by undoing as many of my contributions as possible until I stopped contributing to the article altogether. It should be added that this specifically concerned an issue I raised with WG about the topic ban being extended to talk pages as it seems unlikely the editor making this proposal would have done so knowing I could quickly chime in to point out all the deceptive language being used.

Finally, despite what WG says, I have no real animosity towards any of the editors contributing to the article. On several occasions I have sought the opinions of these editors on changes to the article and have specifically sought to accommodate their concerns. Sometimes I have found them cooperative, and other times I have found them to be the opposite. After the edit-warring block issued by EdJohnston it appears the latter response has become more common.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think something does need to be clarified for you: when you have been topic banned, you are no longer allowed to participate in the topic. At all. This means no editing, obviously, but also no commenting on the articles, or other editors involved in the topic. This especially means no raising "issues" about other editors' editing in the area you were banned for; that is simply perpetuating the misbehaviour that got you topic banned in the first place.

The very narrow exception allowing you to discuss the ban itself does not extend to other editors' behaviour. What happens to the topic in your absence is no longer your concern; your perspective on what is or is not a concern "about the ban" notwithstanding. — Coren ^(talk) 20:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, there seems to be a failure to comprehend that I was raising a specific issue. Are you to have me believe that an editor can file a request to get someone topic-banned and then, after said topic ban is imposed as desired, is free to comment about the editor who was topic-banned and go after that person's uncontroversial edits to an article while deceptively portraying it as something else without the topic-banned editor even being able to say to an admin, "I think this behavior is inappropriate"? If you conclude this is in fact the case then it effectively gives editors who push for topic bans carte blanche to bait opposing editors repeatedly until they violate a topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that actually is the case. That's what a topic ban is. — Coren ^(talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear you are replying in the affirmative to me asking if a topic ban leaves the filing editor essentially free to "call out" the topic-banned editor. Is that what you really mean? This was not a case of me raising a concern about new edits, a revert of controversial changes, or raising an opinion about a general discussion concerning the article. I was concerned that the editor who pushed for the topic ban was exploiting it to push a deceptive plea for reverting uncontroversial changes. The exploitation was in pushing for it in the discussion page to make an otherwise illegitimate revert appear to be a "compromise" decision reached through consensus. Using a topic ban to game consensus on an illegitimate revert of the topic-banned editor is certainly a legitimate concern over the ban. It is just as serious a concern as someone violating an interaction ban. I was not under a long-term topic ban, nor were any of the edits matters of urgency. The only reason the editor would have had to push such an action so soon after the topic ban is to avoid my input, effectively gaming consensus by using a topic ban the editor pushed for to create the false impression of agreement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) You're not getting it. You may not comment on the content of the articles you are banned from. No matter what the edits may be, or who did them, or why they were made. — Coren ^(talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I get it, I really do, but I am telling you this interpretation does not serve Wikipedia well. Any editor with an agenda against another editor, looking at a case like this, may conclude that all they have to do is get an editor topic-banned and they can start carefully undoing that editor's improvements to an article with impunity, since the topic-banned can't even object to an admin, in a way that can drive the editor away from the project altogether.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was reminded of this quote...

...while perusing your talk page: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. When you moved The Walking Dead to a new title and then changed the old title to redirect to a disambiguation page, you overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, or to move an existing disambiguation page to that name), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "The Walking Dead" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that a lot of those links incorrectly linked to the comics page before -- the editors meant to link to the TV series page -- and now they incorrectly link to the disambiguation page. I'll fix a chunk of the links. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)