User talk:The Devil's Advocate

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello The Devil's Advocate, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

You are right[edit]

Primary focus can mean a third, regardless of what some people think. A focal point is where the eye is drawn, or the attention is drawn. There can be multiple, but the primary is the largest draw. Some people just want to bash others and don't care if they look silly in doing so. 173.153.5.108 03:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Watch Jimbo's enwiki talk page[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=716587261&oldid=716578461

You can thank Rhoark. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am thankful to Rhoark, though perhaps the true credit belongs to StukaLied at WikiInAction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment?[edit]

Any comment on Jimbo's allegation that you sent pages and pages to Arbcom and that you were banned for those emails? I follow (but very rarely post) WikiInAction on Reddit so I'd appreciate it if you'd post your in-depth thoughts there. I was immediately accused by Jimbo of being involved with Gamergate, which sounds to me like he's being manipulated by Arbs like Gamaliel, GorilliaWarfare and Keilana. My assumption is that you may have sent them damning evidence about a certain editor (probably Gamaliel) and that they used that as an excuse to ban you. I've seen similar things on RationalWiki where they ask editors for evidence that they are wrong, but when that evidence is provided it is used as an excuse to ban. 67.42.181.170 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I was away for a bit. My earlier response was before I saw Jimbo's distorted claims about the situation. Check Jimbo's talk page here for a new comment soon. As far as who I presented evidence against, while I will not say exactly who it was, I will say that it was not a current or former member of ArbCom and it wasn't anyone involved in the GamerGate dispute on Wikipedia. That is as far as I will go with regards to who it is I reported.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I hope you reconsider and post your full evidence elsewhere. I was just informed by an Arbcom member that "ilk" was a sexist insult and I deserved an IP ban over it. These people have no shame and I'm convinced now more than ever that they are lying about your case. 67.42.176.110 16:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
There was undoubtedly some deceit involved in this case. GorillaWarfare may be an incompetent and horrifically biased in carrying out her duties, but she's not dumb. She undoubtedly knew well enough that her notification would lead me to believe they took my complaint seriously and would act on it and also that I would have an expectation of discussion if they had any concerns, all the while probably knowing or anticipating that I would be banned without ever having the chance to address anything. Given that, I also think their decision to claim I "harassed" editors plural was not a mistake, but another deliberate act of trickery on their part. They wanted me to be confused about what was happening. I am sure they would justify that as "we didn't want to give him any ideas about what it concerned", but I think that is bull.
How Drmies is responding just seems more indicative of this as I don't think there is any way he could sincerely take the line that I am applying an overly broad interpretation of COI policy on this case. Even absent COI claims the WP:INVOLVED actions and BLP violations I pointed out to them would still be valid and I am definitely not being broad in my take on those actions. Doesn't help that this is not the first time I provided compelling evidence of repeated COI activity by an editor, that also included attacks on living people, only for the Committee to do nothing and there was and is absolutely zero allowance for doubt in that case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I looked up Drmies and found this link. Even my brief interactions with Drmies echo that case - calling "ilk" a sexist slur and deserving of a ban. Drmies has a pattern of grossly exaggerating the actions of others when s/he is pushing for a ban. I would not be surprised if she did the same to you, which makes her description of your charges as "baseless" extremely suspect in my opinion. 67.42.177.76 00:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Drmies is a guy, just so you know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Email[edit]

I've sent you an Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci says that you're wrong about MastCell[edit]

Mathsci says that you're wrong about MastCell:

[REDACTED EMAIL]

He didn't provide me with instruction about what to do with this information, but I'm guessing that he assumed that you gave me your Email address and he wants me to tell you that you're wrong. Unfortunately, I don't have your Email address, since you didn't reply to my message, so I can't forward his Email to you, so posting his message to your talk page is the next best thing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what they say happens when you assume. Mathsci is assuming quite a bit here and wrongly. See my response to the IP above, MastCell was involved in the GamerGate dispute on Wikipedia so he has nothing to do with my e-mail. The admin I spoke to ArbCom about is most definitely the person I identified to them. I can say this with certainty because right after one of my e-mails the individual made edits to a personal site to remove details I specifically mentioned in that e-mail. Another piece of evidence was that mere hours after the admin created an article on an individual, the creation of the page was "discovered" by the person on another site. Other details already provided a very strong circumstantial case about the admin.
Did he just throw this idea your way or something? He should ignore me and go back to testing the boundaries of his race and intelligence topic ban or making cute little edits to bios of people with the same names as his wiki-enemies after they criticize him on another site. That said, I did send an e-mail to ArbCom about MastCell, months after my ban. It was when he was brought up in the context of a GMO topic ban he imposed. That e-mail only made a decent circumstantial case and noted the various times when that would be an issue if it were true. No idea if ArbCom confirmed it or considered it, though I do feel it is strong enough to make it more likely than not that it is true. Cla68 had alluded to that claim about MastCell without stating anything specific enough to identify a specific person as him and the Arbs demanded evidence, so I sent it to them.
Incidentally, GorillaWarfare wanted to use Cla68's comment as cause for banning him for "outing" or some such nonsense. She was really on the warpath from what he told me. Hence I was not too surprised that the moment she (and MastCell) had even the thinnest piece of evidence to use against him they got him banned. I don't know if he mentioned this on a restricted part of WO after his ban happened, even though I pointed out it might be connected to the ban seeing as MastCell and GorillaWarfare were the ones directly involved in his ban. So, Mathsci is barking up the wrong tree as usual with me as the e-mail I sent that apparently got me banned did not concern MastCell and there is not really a chance I misidentified the admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he just threw that idea my way. No explanation or instruction. The Email he sent was also completely unsolicited. We haven't spoken via Email for years. Also, it looks like I'm not the only person Mathsci contacted privately recently. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Now what?[edit]

Your appeal to Jimbo ended, so I'm wondering what you have planned now. I know that you've sent more evidence to ArbCom recently, but since your initial Email didn't convince them, I don't see how their response to your latest Email would be any different. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been busy the past few days and I will probably be busy today as well, but I have been meaning to respond to some of the claims made. Suffice to say, I don't think with all the evidence they have that any claim other than the admin being the person I identified makes sense. The claims that I am taking a too-liberal view of both COI and WP:INVOLVED are not claims that I think would stand up in an objective evaluation of the admin's actions in light of policy and established precedent. Given the context of the case, it is more than likely that there is a significant bias regarding the admin that is preventing Jimbo and the Committee (at least those who have publicly defended the decision) from evaluating this fairly. Some in the community may also have a hard time being objective about it, but I think any sober examination of the evidence would not dismiss my case as "baseless" or as having "nothing to it" nor argue that I am being overly broad in my understand of relevant policy as those familiar with the evidence have characterized my report.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

RevDel[edit]

I've revdeleted the entries with the e-mail text, as there may be legal issues if the sender of the e-mail did not permit its public release. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I am glad to know there is yet another reason to detest the French legal system. Guess Mathsci didn't want anyone to know he was privately trying to spread false speculation about the reasons for my ban. Otherwise I doubt he would have bothered with such technicalities. Nothing against you since you are just acting on a valid legal complaint, but it does annoy me that he can say whatever he likes about me to others in private and then have the evidence erased should anyone leak it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Mathsci has a history of asking Avraham to RevDel stuff. Judging from an Email Mathsci sent me, he requested RevDel'ling on April 24th. Given the response time, I would say that Mathsci contacted a single sysop (Avraham) privately instead of seeking aid from a group (e.g. Meta's Oversight team). Mathsci apparently didn't notice that Avraham was away at the time. Despite the delay, Mathsci apparently didn't seek out a second, active sysop to contact. I guess that the issue wasn't actually urgent ("it can wait"), and I guess that Mathsci perfers keeping knowledge about incidents like these to the fewest number of people possible, people he can trust and predict. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Mathsci thanked you for making the above post. I'm not sure why. Is this his way of saying, "I'm watching you"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems he thanked you not me. Are you just quoting the notification you got? I don't particularly care what his intention is with it and I hardly mind him watching what I do so long as he doesn't mess with me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "me", not "you". He's now "thanking" a bunch of my posts, spamming my notifications. I consider this to be abuse of the thanking feature. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Mathsci_is_abusing_the_thanking_feature_to_spam_my_notifications – I've reported Mathsci's abuse of the thanking feature. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that Mathsci is looking to provoke you. His e-mail to you may have even been a part of that. Given that you are known to be a leaker he may have intended for you to leak it so he could try and get you in trouble, get me in trouble, or both. Now he is just trolling you to provoke you into actions that can lead to a "boomerang" carried out by his buddy admins. Mathsci pulled this kind of harassing provocation thing towards me three and a half years ago to get me one-way interaction-banned and then repeatedly tried to provoke me into breaching it. Incidentally, it was the exact behavior he exhibited towards another editor previously and my criticism of that behavior is what caused him to target me in the same manner.
His thanking activity is just petty trolling meant to provoke you and is best ignored. Mathsci got banned because when people stopped playing his game he escalated until he went over the deep end. I am disappointed that two and a half years of being banned hasn't prompted him to change his ways, but given how he continued to blame everything on harassment after doxing one of his opponents it shouldn't be too much of a surprise. The fact he only sent in his appeal after both I and Cla68 were banned is just further indication of his manipulative tendencies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

New Breitbart article[edit]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/28/banned-wikipedia-editor-asks-jimmy-wales-removed-site/

Can we expect a new interview? What are your plans for the future with regards to your Wikipedia situation? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted them to mention the most recent redacted e-mail since it was, I think, the most damaging in certain respects, so I e-mailed them about that. At the moment there is no plan for another interview. That doesn't mean there won't be more to come, just that if anything does come it won't be an interview. Since my first official appeal to ArbCom comes up at the end of the week I may send an appeal in, though I doubt it will be accepted. They probably expect me to make some false confession of wrongdoing and that is simply not happening. If not that, they'll want to coerce my agreement to hefty restrictions in addition to those I was already under and the bare minimum of what I would accept is a return to the status quo ante with the exception of that expedited ban remedy. Given they used it as an excuse to gaslight me, I have no interest in having such a thing attached to me ever again. Doubtful they would approve of that either as without extracting a false confession they would want to bring me to heel in some other way that just wouldn't be reflected in me coming back with less limitations on my editing than I had prior to my ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I know what you mean by bans being used to obtain forced confessions and submission: [1], [2] (the second link involves an user being blocked for exposing another user's COI). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

For the people at WS, I suppose my redactions made it hard to parse, but the significant part of my most recent posted e-mail would be the second-to-last paragraph and the paragraph preceding it. Also, at the moment, only the members of the 2015 and 2016 Committee have been told this admin's identity. I gave my word to this admin that I would not reveal it to anyone else. When I was doing the interview with Breitbart I did tell this admin that I might reveal it off-the-record, but only if Breitbart made doing so necessary to do the follow-up report on my case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Email 2[edit]

I've sent you an Email. It's unrelated to your enwiki ban, but I'm hoping that you would still be interested. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. In deference to your concerns I won't mention specifics, but your third request is fine, though I may wait to see what happens before I proceed. On the other matters I have no interest.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Infogalactic[edit]

They have rejected you yet again. Have you given any thought to joining Infogalactic? You may email me for additional details. We could use someone like you. --Idrisz19 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my general interest in the wiki game has waned considerably.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand. I won't force you into something you won't enjoy. And please, don't apologize. As I understand it, it is ArbCom who should be apologizing for disenchanting individuals who used to love wikis. --Idrisz19 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Confrontation and consideration[edit]

You and I don't interact much, especially since the other discussion. You can say much about closures of discussions. However, after writing this article for the "far-right" Breitbart News, you are met with this, that, and that. Are you worried what will happen to you and others? Also, out of all media outlets, why Breitbart? Alternatively, why not do original reporting for Wikinews? (You can look at the articles I created if you want, but they are just synthesized articles.) Why not contribute to other sister projects? --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I admit, I'm not overly surprised by the hostility of some. Maybe they wouldn't be as hostile if this had been the first article published or if this one had been written by me rather than me merely being the source. Can't say people badmouthing me on Wikipedia (what else is new?) is going to make me lose sleep at night either way. I suppose you are talking about concerns outside Wikipedia and I am, of course, worried. However, anonymity offers myself and others a level of protection from anything more than mean comments.
Breitbart may have a nasty reputation among some, but their coverage on issues such as GamerGate was routinely better than what I found in most major "reliable sources" we cite, who couldn't get off the same tired false narratives. They also were quite good with writing about my abusive ArbCom ban. I would also say that most news media are not interested in serious Wikipedia criticism and my now-lifted ban from WO didn't give me that option as well as my one experience with writing for them being a serious disappointment. Even though they responded to this piece by lifting my ban, I know I would only be tepidly welcome in the hopes they could use me.
Wikipedia is a powerful institution and far too many active on it do not appreciate the power they have and abuse it regularly to push their own agendas through the site, no matter how serious the consequences. Not being able to edit directly, my only way to have any effect is outside criticism. Wikinews, no offense, is a low-impact site and contributing there would be even less constructive than contributing to Commons, neither of which are as constructive as contributing to Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well... you and I agree to (somewhat) disagree about Wikipedia. I won't say much about Wikipedia right now, but I will say that Gamergate situation is another one of BLP dramas that I'm staying away from for now. If Wikinews is not your ideal, why not Wikiversity, which currently has the WikiJournal subproject, now proposed to be a stand-alone open-access academic journal project? Or why not Wikibooks? Well... you can do what you can, but... I would expect more provoked reactions. Also, I don't think ArbCom would lift your site ban after all that. Good luck on your current path. I won't respond further in this thread or about the Breitbart piece. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
If you don't mind one last response. By "after all that" do you mean the article, the response to it, or my comment here to you?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh... sorry. I meant the article and the responses to it. --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hot off the press[edit]

Sorry, I have nothing to say, and even if you showed real press credentials I'd defer you to the ArbCom mailing list. Best, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I sent the e-mail to the mailing list on the same day as this comment and it is being held for moderation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

unblock request[edit]

For the record, I would indeed like to be unblocked from WikiSource. The reason I cannot request there, is that the nice EncycloPetey person also muzzled me from making any appeal on my talkpage at Wikisource, and nothing to do with which languages I may be fluent in. As several here have noted the unjust nature of this block being used as a technical pretext to ban me, I would be grateful if anyone could reverse that frivolous block, from which EncycloPetey unilaterally stripped me of any right of appeal. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stay off of my talk page.[edit]

I do not want to have any interaction with you on any wikiproject. On my meta talk page I was quite specific is saying "this is not a criticism of anyone who has posted here". You replied with "Outing accusation" and "Fussing about this and making accusations..." I have not accused you or anyone else other than some authors at Breitbart News and Wikipediocracy of outing. Please stay off of my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of this @Guy Macon:, even though it is at the bottom of both pieces, but I am the Breitbart author. As such, you were accusing me of outing and I was addressing your accusations against me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
After posting the above. you once again posted to my talk page. [3]
I was not aware that you were the author of the Breitbart article, but now that I am, and to make sure that you understand me perfectly, let me state this for the record:
In my opinion, Breitbart is a shit website. If anyone doubts this, I would call their attention to the following:
You should be ashamed to be associated with Breitbart.
In my opinion, Your article in Breitbart is a shit article. It has some good stuff (most of which I can get be reading the article in Slate), but you have reposted nasty accusations against a Wikipedia editor and a person working for the Wikimedia foundation, accusations that were originally posted on Wikipediocracy, a site where any anonymous troll can post any accusation they want. And no, I don't care if the information was published elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right.
You have been banned from the English Wikipedia.[5] I have no opinion one way or the other about the ban (I have not looked at the evidence myself), but it is my practice to not interact with banned users on other sites.
I just did a last check of my talk page before posting this, and I see that you have self reverted your comment. Thank you. I was considering asking a Wikimedia admin for a 2-way interaction ban, but now I am thinking that this will not be needed. Let's agree that this is the end of this. I do not want to have any further interactions with you. I will rethink this position if you have a successful ban appeal on the English Wikipedia. Until then, please leave me alone.
On second thought, feel free to respond to this and then leave me alone. it would be unfair for me to say the things I just said and then expect you to not tell me and the world why you think I am wrong. I will read your reply, if any, and then I plan on unwatching this page without responding. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I have seen many publications make errors as egregious as the ones made by Breitbart, perhaps even more egregious, but do not receive the same level of negative scrutiny. Many of the most serious offenders, such as The Guardian or BuzzFeed News, are still treated as strong and reliable sources on Wikipedia. Outside the one retracted article you mentioned, the rest strike me as opinion pieces mixed with a certain amount of hyperbole or satire. Many outlets have had opinion pieces with similarly offensive or even more offensive headlines, but presented with sincerity rather than obvious tongue-in-cheek commentary. Of course, pieces that advance progressive narratives about "privileged" groups may not be seen as offensive, even if many members of those groups would find them deeply offensive and false. I do not take complaints about this so seriously when the New York Times places someone such as Sarah Jeong on their editorial board.
The article I wrote contains, to my knowledge, no actual errors and no one has been able to identify one since it was published and it does not say anything inflammatory. So, I don't like comments like this one you made that can be easily taken as accusing me of writing malicious libel, even if that is not your intent, and ask for a clarification to be made in that discussion. Should your comments be about Breitbart in general, then I accept that as your opinion, but would want that much made clear.
As far as the allegations mentioned in the piece, I think it is pertinent that everything I mentioned was already on-wiki. Characterizing my article as having "outing" and "BLP" issues when it notes an on-wiki conversation that invited a response from the Chair of the Foundation reads like attempting to scape-goat me. It was the Foundation who effectively revealed the identity of a complainant and it was BuzzFeed who first reported said complainant's alleged ties to the Chair outside Wikipedia and criticism sites. The fact BuzzFeed did not name names doesn't matter when they linked directly to a page on Wikipediocracy giving out those names with the accompanying allegations. I would like to make clear that I would only include the allegations if I could independently check that they were based off credible evidence.
Should you be at all interested in the details of my ban @Guy Macon: you can always read through this piece I wrote on it here. A summary is included at the end should you not be interested in reading through the whole thing. Obviously, it is from a personal perspective, but I believe the only objections any of those familiar with the details have raised about my characterization of events have boiled down to interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts themselves. Hope this response proves satisfactory to you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)