User talk:Causa sui/Archive14

Blocking policy changes
You shouldn't unilaterally remove that content, there is no clear consensus to remove it - and it was added after substantial support while a WP:CENT listed discussion was continuing. You've just stated silence isn't consent. You need to follow your own principals. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Wikipedia Talk:Blocking policy would probably be the best place to discuss this so others can weigh in. causa sui (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have bought it up for further discussion. Either you can engage in that discussion, or I will revert your bold edit. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to make threats. I certainly don't think anything good can come from edit warring on policy. I'll leave comments there soon. causa sui (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism
For about 10 months now a group of many editors have been trying to complete and stabilize this article and the whole 10 months a few editors have done nothing but disrupt and WP:SHED us to death. I am unsure how to proceed but I've given up editing Wikipedia in any major way after this experience and I've been an editor since 2005. User:Noleander who organized and wrote major sections of the article was topic banned by a coalition of editors who had voted for an outright deletion of the article. That material was all removed and now several months of work is gone back to consensus building language and source checking section by section for restoring. The archives are long and contentious but if you peruse them you will see what I mean about certain editors disruptive practices even in the face of strong and reliable sourcing. There is one editor that is the most contentious and disruptive and will argue till you have to just ignore them. It's only the 3R rule that keeps them at bay. What advise or help can you offer? Alatari (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution, of course! I'd suggest an article content WP:RFC or a visit to WP:DRV. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism protection
Hi. You are an Administrator. Is there any way we can get Bobby Fischer article protected from anon edits? It is boring and disheartening to repeatedly fight vandalism on that page. Thank you for consideration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. In the future, you might want to take such requests to WP:RFPP - not that it's wrong to ask me, but the noticeboard is watched by a lot of admins so you'll get a quicker response there. causa sui (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RFPP noted.  I'm wondering the effectiveness of 3 days protection (is that the standard amount)? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the history and it seemed that much of the IP vandalism was in the short-term. It's usually best to try short-term protection first since many positive contributions to Wikipedia come from anonymous users (which is prevented by protection) and because vandals will sometimes go away for good when they see that someone is watching the page. Regards, causa sui (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. (Thank u.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI oppose
Hi, it looks like your oppose in this section was meant to go two subsections further up. I was thinking of moving it for you but then thought I'd better just let you know and leave it to you. Best, -- J N  466  15:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I came into the discussion late and just wanted to voice my opposition to what was going on without wasting time parsing through it. Thanks! causa sui (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

yo
Alexandria  (talk)  20:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:WebHamster
Hi causa, thank you for your note. I appreciate it, I do, and while I don't agree with your wording (that he signed his own death warrant) I do think that the community had made up its mind. As for your offer, I don't know. The baiting is right there, but whether that breaks any rule of civility is a matter of judgment--and if I were to ask someone who was uncivil to WebHamster to be slapped on the wrist for incivility, that would be ironic or hypocritical. I'm disgusted by it, but don't see the use for any warnings or anything like that. BTW, I have had my own issues with WebHamster, but it's so distasteful to see everyone come out of the woodwork to piss on him. Sometimes there's humans behind the names as well. Thank you again, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only just now noticed you used the word trolling. That is appreciated as well. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

LCV is back
Causa, take a trip down memory lane, by way of my talk page, section Did your talk page enjoy the trip to namespace? Vandalism and socking going back to 2006, and you blocked one of the socks, here. I'm still looking for a documented case, and SPI or a long-term vandal case, but haven't found it yet. Oh, I found something that preceded the first Loyola-named account I saw: this one. Have a look and see if it's worthwhile doing something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalkiing
was told not to interact with me for 3 months, by you diff. I was told likewise, and I kept away from him. Now, as soon as the ban has expired, he wikistalked me to BLPN to post a disruptive, mostly off-topic slur. diff

I ask that this person, who has become a nightmare for me, following me from article to article to post spiteful and barely comprehensible attacks, be blocked from interacting with me in perpetuity, please. Wikistalking is rampant and is the sort of thing (inter alia) that forced me to start multiple accounts, and it needs to be strongly, even harshly discouraged.  Jabbsworth  05:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, that's not me, that's Atama. Maybe you're confused... I don't recall getting very involved in the ClaudioSantos saga. causa sui (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On "Trolling"
I was told to bring this to you by an administrator who issued some personal attacks against me (and believes they are wholly within their rights to do so). If they are, it's a sad comment on how admins are supposed to deal with other editors. Your sweeping endorsement of this editor's characterization of my (and Slatersteven's) comments as "trolling" came with a guarantee to "deal" with other civility issues. Is calling another editor "names" a civility issue? Like, "troll", for instance? I respectfully ask for your guidance in this matter. Doc  talk  07:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) I won't get involved. Get a room you two! ;) causa sui (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction, causa: I never told this person to do anything. My question was rhetorical, and should have been answered with a "no, I'm sorry", since it is obvious that I'm not the only one who takes issue with his behavior. My apologies for (inadvertently) dragging you into this. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Page protection for Bobby Fischer
Hello. Couldn't find the archived version of this topic. Anyway, the same 89.204 anon user is back engaged in the same vandalizing activity today, so obviously the 3 day thing was only effective for a few days. Under what circumstances can stronger page protection be applied? Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much up to sysop discretion. Based on the history this looks like a content dispute to me. Have you tried dispute resolution, especially using the talk page? Anyway, it looks like the IP was blocked for disruption at WP:AIV. It's unfortunate that he uses edit warring to get his way, but it's equally (perhaps more) unfortunate that registered users do the same. causa sui (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I put an entry on Talk. However the anon user is a self-admitted vandal, and name-calls others ("vandals" and "sockpuppets") without any warranted reason.  (You really think good faith is involved here?  Because I don't.) Yes the IP was blocked, for 3 days.  But the 3 days have already expired.  I really don't know by your last statement (re registered users involved in edit warring) is a comment meant for me or not.  Please clarify?  (WP policy does permit immediate removal [without leaving edit summary] of vandalism. I have left some edit summaries for this IP, and other users have as well.  I have also reverted without edit summary subsequently.  Other users have as well.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. The IP is not only a vandal to the page in question, but as you already know has vandalized my user Talk multiple times.  And you suggest to have a rational dialogue with this person?!  (Even though as mentioned I did put an entry for the anon, on the article Talk page.)
 * Sometimes patience pays off. And when it doesn't we can WP:RBI. Basically, I'm disinclined to block before I see evidence of trying to talk it out and the IP being unresponsive. That said, I'm open to the obvious possibility that there is more background that I'm unaware of. If my response doesn't seem to make sense to you, consider that your complaint may not have painted a complete picture of the situation; I'm only going off what you've told me and a quick review of what is immediately before my eyes. Diffs would be helpful, especially of the user admitting to having bad intentions. causa sui (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me recall for you, that this user stated "Revert gets account deletion" both to you and to me, when valdalizing both your and my user Talks. (Does he need to paint a red bullseye on his chest for you?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was a different IP. Must be a rotating pool. Maybe the best place to handle this would be WP:AIV? By the way, in general, it's not helpful to take this kind of combative tone. It is not the shortest path to getting the result you want and in many cases it will only elicit defensive reactions. causa sui (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called: "frustration". (The suggestion to discuss content w/ an anon who valdalized my Talk six times. There is a lengthy Talk point already re how to describe Fischer after Iceland extended citizenship. Also I left the self-admitted vandal a Talk point recently. You protected the article for 3 days as preliminary solution to tougher measures. But the vandal is back.  But now you've changed your mind, contexting my complaint as "content dispute". Plus now you lecture me.) Not a good investment of my time. Should have paid more attention to your User, containing Buddhist refs and soft approach re vandals.  Just finished watching movie The Lady Killers w/ Tom Hanks - Hanks asks his Buddhist crime partner if there's "a middle way" around an old woman proving to be an obstacle.  The reply: "Must float like a leaf on the river of life ... And kill old lady!" Funny! Benevolence is probably good policy philosphically, but the real world?! Clearly it has limits. (Ask OWS protesters, who got their total encampment wiped out in a matter of hours, including a free "power-wash".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Good luck. causa sui (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. Just curious, where does your Talk go after it is archived? (When searching for our first discussion leading to the 3-day article protection, the link for archive discussions on your User took me to a page w/ only two entries, so I gave up - a "dead end".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stadionul Romcomit AfD
Hello! In Articles for deletion/Stadionul Romcomit you wrote "The result was Keep", but you deleted the Stadionul Romcomit article. Which is it, keep or delete? If it's keep, please undelete the article. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I hit the wrong button and the phone rang (I'm at work). I'll undelete it shortly. Thanks anyway for the reminder. causa sui (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Boston University
Dear User:Causa sui, could you please unprotect Boston University and revert to the consensus version in light of the following SPI case? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it an attack page
When all the sources are reputable and well-cited? Are you alleging that Eliza Griswold and Ira Glass have some sort of agenda? They are very much respected journalists in their field. I intend to add more sources from academia, when I have the time. Corporate sources are full of public relations buzzwords and weasel words and are hardly trustworthy. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 05:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your comments. We should confine discussion about articles to the talk pages so that other interested editors can chime in. I'll reply to you there. causa sui (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Laura Ramsey
You've made a great mistake by deleting the article about Laura Ramsey. She had many notable minor roles in pretty popular films, she also played leading roles in movies such as "The Ruins", "The Covenant", "She's The Man", "Whatever Lola Wants", "Middle Man" and "Kill The Irishmen" (sounds familiar, huh?). She is a great actress and she had few accolades for her works, so I really don't see any reason why you deleted her page. She's getting more and more famous and, from other perspective, there are lots of articles on Wikipedia about other actors/actresses who aren't even close to being as notable as Ramsey. So they all should be banned, because they're unnecessary? That's not fair at all. So I think you should restore the article about Laura Ramsey. She's played in a bunch of great movies and she's a fantastic actress.
 * It was deleted fair and square; see Articles for deletion/Laura Ramsey. I'm sure you think she's great, but apparently no reliable sources agree with you. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? me too!
Haha, just kidding. I think you made a good call on Articles for deletion/Historical digging. Now, what to do about Articles for deletion/Privy digging? I looked at both AfDs but didn't really feel comfortable closing them; only afterward did I see the enormous amount of problems in the article itself (besides Sockpuppet investigations/Olesachem). Sock puppetry, organizational spam, soapboxing, COI, etc... Drmies (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I closed that one as a keep. Hit F5 and tell me what you think. ;) causa sui (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Shakinglord
Not that I really want to bring this character up again, but I noticed you were the one who tagged his userpage as "banned", but his name is not in the banned users list. Could this be added to avoid issues in the future? Calabe1992 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of such a list. Feel free to add him to any such :) causa sui (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. FWIW, the list is here. Calabe1992 19:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Xavier Weisenreder III
After learning about Xavier Weisenreder III in my ethics class, I figured I would go to wikipedia to learn more information about him. But the page seems to not exist? It says that you deleted it. Sorry, I was just curious why. Not sure how you can fix it, it just seems weird for that page to be deleted and have no info on him. Thanks, Kevin74.67.178.159 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Troll given snack, but not full meal. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Shivesh Kumar and Shivesh kumar
Ave, Causa sui. Exactly same resume-like text was added as Shivesh kumar. I've now turned it into a tiny but referenced and cat'd stub. Could you possibly move it to Shivesh Kumar? Thanks!
 * 17:34, 29 November 2011 Causa sui (talk | contribs) deleted "Shivesh Kumar" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * 11:57, 27 November 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted "Shivesh Kumar" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * 12:18, 26 November 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted "Shivesh Kumar" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Good work! causa sui (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Music and LSD
Because of your Beatles entry on LSD, and other music entries, I thought you may be interested in thoughts on music and LSD.

The Moody Blues’ “In Search of the Lost Chord” is pure LSD. The Who’s “Tommy” is clearly post-LSD, a Who fan could probably point out Townshend’s first post-LSD song. The Doors’ very name relates to LSD. David Crosby, enough said? Isn’t The Beatles’ “Magical Mystery Tour” a knockoff of Kesey’s bus trip? Did Dylan do drugs? On and on...

Or not. Thanx. Exwheelman5200 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the suggestion(s). In general I am concerned about making this section too long - the article is on LSD after all. I thought the reference by The Beatles was worthwhile since they are in such a Valhalla of notability that anything related to them tends to be worth including. But if we started putting in every pop culture connection, that section might wind up longer than the rest of the article. But that's just my opinion. Maybe you should post these ideas on the talk page to see what other people think? Anyway, thanks. Regards, causa sui (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears I asked the right person, thank you for the reply.
 * There is simply to much, isn’t there? I’ve also been thinking about “politicans who”, but that would also be huge, and probably hateful, too.
 * A lot of it comes down to who is “notable”, doesn’t it? Maybe a section “Influence in music/arts/whatever” with “Established bands like The Beatles and Who, as well as new/cult/specialty bands like The Grateful Dead”? I wish I actually knew something about music.
 * I may try to put something together for the talk page. I appreciate your P.O.V., and really mean it when I say Thanx.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another option is a content fork. Something like List of notable people influenced by psychedelics or somesuch. causa sui (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I agree with and appreciate your answer.
 * I seem to spend a lot of time in the mud, I don’t want to get you dirty. I’m going to leave you alone now, please feel free to alter, archive, delete, destroy, or disappear anything.
 * You have helped me, I’ll remember. Thanx. Exwheelman5200 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

question
Hi Why you have reverted my edit in  Advisory speed limit  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saboh (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite following either. You've used rollback to revert a number of this users edits adding interwiki links. You also left them a welcome message advising them that they could ask you questions on your talk page, but proceeded to revert the question they left on your talk page. – xeno talk 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Wikilink spam; wholesale addition of unnecessary Wikilinks to articles on Mobile phones implying health dangers as the user did here . When I reverted the talk page comment, it was a fragment from I didn't know who: . Interwiki links should be restored; please revert me where I have removed them (I got one already). But the Wikilinks to Mobile phone radiation and health are not appropriate. causa sui (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you wholesale reverted the user's entire contribution history without checking what you were reverting? – xeno talk 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes. Often, it's necessary to stop the disruption. causa sui (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take greater care in the future. This was an inappropriate sequence of events, and you know better. – xeno talk 18:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the way you approach things like this is likely to influence people's behavior in general. I think if we talked about it we might have both learned something. I'm interested in the perspective you have that motivates your opinion on how to handle these kinds of situations, and I would like to know it so that I can take it into account when making decisions in the future. But your normative judgments are not as informative and do not make me a wiser editor. causa sui (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * New editor with less than 20 edits. Some of these edits added some 'see also' sections that were arguably inappropriate and may have been motivated by some point-of-view about cell phones. The rest of their edits were entirely constructive interwiki linking. Tenured administrator reverts ALL of their edits with rollback - failing to explain the reason for the reverts - then reverts their question on their talk page querying about the reverts. Claims that he "didn't know who" left them the message, though by this point ought to know how to use the history tab. I don't see that much more needs to be said about this - you have acted inappropriately, and I did not see a need to beat around the bush to communicate this to you. – xeno talk 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Kingdom Come (EP)
hey, you might delete that one straight away. no reliable sources for the EP avaiable. cheers!--Der Golem (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you were the author I speedied it under WP:CSD. Thanks for the follow up. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Objectivist RfC needs archive entry
To be added at Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive, hopefully by you, as you were the closing admin. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. causa sui (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Nash
The PROD you put on Edmund Nash was removed. I agreed with the PROD and I put my reasons on the talk page. Do you want to do an AfD? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I need your help with Kevin-Prince Boateng lead section
Hi there causa sui,

Please I need your help regarding the lead section of the article Kevin-Prince Boateng. The paragraph (Boateng is known for his strength, speed, shooting and offensive abilities that make him a serious threat for his opponents.) that I MarkMysoe have placed into the lead section of the Kevin-Prince Boateng article is to give a brief summary of what is written in the Styles of play and attributes section, which is totally acceptable according to MOS:LEAD. The paragraph may not be exactly accurate to what is written in the sources because in the sources the paragraphs uses a lot of and sentences containing words that is not universally familiar and don't have a Wikipedia article.

Now the problem I have is Oleola keeps on reverting my correct edit and using the exact paragraphs that are written in the source that is provided not being aware of the and un-universal words because not everyone in the world knows association football terms. I can also see that this editor Oleola has already been warned by you for doing similar actions on other Wikipedia articles on 17 October 2011, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oleola#October_2011. I have also left a message on the discussion page of the Kevin-Prince Boateng article (Talk:Kevin-Prince Boateng), so causa sui if you can please help me because I don't wan't to get into any edit conflict/reverting Oleola's revisions and be blocked. Thanks MarkMysoe (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would definitely suggest you avoid edit warring. I'm not in a position to adjudicate content disputes, however. You may consider requesting page protection at WP:RFPP, and if that fails to get the user on the talk page, WP:DRN and finally WP:AN/I are avenues worth pursuing. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

stephane edelson
Stephane Edelson wikipedia page has-been delated. I was going to write news about him. As he has Performed in a French gallery with pictures of the French president when he suffered an attack based cream pies (last september for the Paris Design Day - Gallerie De Dietrich -). The gallery has undergone such pressure, it had to give up the show. So, Stephanr Edelson made a flip book with these photos. He comes out in bookstores now in Paris. This book will not fail, just before the presidential elections to be a subject of controversy. So could you be nice to send me back the the content of the page Stephane Edelson, so that I complete it and then I return it to you. Regards Malkolinge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkolinge (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted by a discussion that took place here, where it was determined that the subject does not, and likely will not, meet our notability critera for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have moved the deleted article to your userspace at User:Malkolinge/Stephane Edelson. Before moving it back to the main space, please ensure that the improved article thoroughly meets the inclusion criteria I noted above. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

nutcracker redirect
Good luck with that. I already tried, and they reverted. Thats why I went the CSD route, to do somethign they couldn't just undo. Unfortunately, now I think you have "contested" my CSD, so when they revert again we will have to go through something more formal to redirect/delete it Gaijin42 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Worry not. We are not bogged down by such bureaucracy. WP:IAR to the rescue. If necessary, I will protect the page. causa sui (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may channel an administrator briefly. "muahahahahahaha" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your redirect was reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Razed and salted the earth. Thanks for keeping an eye out. causa sui (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

my plea
please see here User_talk:Swarm

Thanks, --POVbrigand (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at it, without promising any level of involvement on my part. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The cartoon vandal
That you recently blocked, may be a sock of a long-time blocked vandal. I'm not sure of the sock-master account, but if you are doing a lot of manual AV work, might be worth knowing about him. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the heads up. Is there anything at WP:LTA? Maybe a page should be started if there is a pattern. causa sui (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at James O'Keefe
Hello, Causa sui. Thank you for pointing out wp:REVTALK to me; I never knew there was such a "policy". (Isn't putting rv in front of all your reverts self-incriminating, though? We have laws in the USA protecting ourselves from self-incrimination, lol.)  I have no complaint about your protecting the article -- I think it helped. But, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't need talk page consensus to remove a BLP violation. I am requesting your opinion as a neutral observer as to whether the phrase "Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive," is a BLP violation, as it is contentious and unsourced. Thanks! --  Kenatipo   speak! 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't contentious statements in the lead in BLPs be sourced in-line, instead of having the reader sift through the body of the article to find which reliable source, if any, actually made the assertion? --  Kenatipo   speak! 17:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On both counts, I can only give you my own opinion. I can protect pages but I cannot "adjudicate" any disputes. You might understand that already but I've found out it's important to have it made clear in the outset after I protect a page.
 * The point of WP:REVTALK is that when complex discussion about why your side is right and the other is wrong is taking place through edit summaries, it becomes impossible to carry on discussion except by edit warring at the same time. The mistaken impression that gives people - that the way to communicate your thoughts to people is by reverting them - does not excuse the underlying edit warring. On the other hand, "rv" means "revert". There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you should revert another editor's contributions, and sometimes they should revert yours. You should be using edit summaries in this way so that people can know what kind of edits you are making, which makes it easier for them to conduct peer-review. So generally, we want edit summaries to say things like "tightening the lede" or "added cite" or "removed some unsourced claims, see talk".
 * On the question of whether we need talk page consensus before removing a BLP violation; this is a tricky question because the straightfoward answer (is) "no" -- but what counts as a "BLP violation" is sometimes a grey area in my experience. Since the standard is so strict, that any user finds it contentious is typically enough to get a review, but that is not by itself a sufficient condition to remove it. My advice would be to bring it up on WP:BLP/N for commentary there. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Causa sui. I appreciate learning about REVTALK, and I appreciate your thoughts on BLP.  PS:  I added a word I think you left out.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A better response
Would have been, "rv, you misspelled rouge". --GraemeL (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. The thought did cross my mind. causa sui (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Misaplication of A7 in speedy deletion
I had already declined the speedy deletion request at Woolcott Chauncey some two days before you deleted it. That was because the article was clearly invalid for A7 deletion, as it claimed facts about the subjects life (naval hero, responsible for significant events during battles, etc.) which are clear claims to significance. I am quite confused. I have no significant problem with the article being deleted via WP:AFD, if, for example, the subject doesn't turn out to be Notable. But there was definately enough to avoid an A7 speedy. Could you please restore the article, and take it to AFD if you wish it deleted. As another admin, you really shouldn't undo my admin actions (WP:WHEELWAR) without discussing it with me first, and in this case, its also clear that you have not properly applied WP:CSD. -- Jayron  32  04:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) How did you find this to delete it, as it was removed from WP:CSD
 * 2) Why you deleted an article as A7 when it does not qualify
 * 3) Why you didn't check to see that I had already deleted it, or if you had checked, why you overruled me?
 * Apparently you view this as a bigger deal than me. I undeleted it. causa sui (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All good! Thanks!  -- Jayron  32  04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: TheOneWhoWalks
Sorry to see your assumption of good faith go to waste before negotiation even got to the table: Sockpuppet investigations/TheOneWhoWalks. Leopards can't change their spots.

 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 23:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy marine
Closed as keep? Please expand on your rationale - issue is hotly disputed - Oh never mind I see you have closed it in reference to a time clause from the first AFD - what a waste of time this project is sometimes all those comments and you haven't even considered them - no sea change you should have done a DRV - completely a waste of time - did you read yesterdays close? - Youreallycan (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you closed it "procedurally" due to the minimal time between the first and second AFD? Youreallycan (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt, no matter how I close it, someone will get angry. Procedural considerations did weigh a bit, though they weren't the only reason. I think it's important that people should not be able to endlessly renominate an article until they get the result they want, especially if the result they want is a delete, since an AFD that closes as keep can be renominated but a delete cannot. The fact that the prior AFD closed as Keep and there was no DRV suggests that there should be some clear reversal in consensus, which there obviously isn't. Finally, the discussion was more contentious this time around, but I don't think a plausible argument could be made that there is a clear consensus to delete. I might be persuaded that it should be closed as no consensus at best, but a delete close seems out of bounds.
 * I usually take your opinion on things seriously since I admire your work on BLP/N and elsewhere, so I won't make an exception to that here. Still, I think you will find that it won't harm your cause if you find a way to cool off a little bit about this. I promise you, it's not that big a deal. causa sui (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken it off my watchlist. I wasn't looking to persuade you I was just looking for a quality close policy driven close, which I don't feel we have got. Toms first close was the right result imo. Personally I would have closed it as no consensus at best - your keep close although primarily procedurally based only strengthens its future existence. No worries. - It just seems such a waste of time bothering to comment, like - don't bother wasting your time commenting here because the admin is going to give strong weight to the fact that it is not long since the previous AFD. Youreallycan (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're looking for or hoping to get out of this, but for what it's worth, I don't view it as a waste of time. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this has nomination had nothing to do with repeatedly nominating the article for deletion. I'm really disappointed that you took that line, as it was clear fom the discussion this was not the case. It was nominated because it was a puff piece from a non-notable group using wikipedia to promote itself. What do we know about this group, well they have a facebook page, they got mentioned in a few articles and they don't answer the phone. And thats it, most of the sources are covering it tangentially. I think you made a bad call here and I'm planning to take it to DRV. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the advance notice. Out of curiosity, I assume you wouldn't be satisfied if I vacated and closed as no consensus instead? causa sui (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly no but I would be satisfied with a merge to Occupy Wall Street, some material could live there but the group itself is clearly non-notable and have been using wikipedia for self-promotion see for example.  They've been hanging onto wikipedia's coat-tails to promote themselves as being bigger than they are.
 * The reason I say no, was the AfD was clearly stacked by canvassing and external lobbying. Look at the number of SPA that appeared, voted keep, then disappeared.  Arguments, like Super Duper Extra Strong Keep must have piqued your concern.  I'm preparing a DRV now but I'll look in before filing.   Wee Curry Monster talk 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppetry complicates the process, so I'll appreciate the second look from DRV. You would also do me a favor if you mentioned that you were disinterested in discussing a no consensus close, in case I'm not around to post a comment before the discussion begins. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure no worries, I'm nearly finished, do you want a peek before I file? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely appreciate the offer but it's not necessary. See you there. causa sui (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I had issues about this close as I had commented ... a no consensus re-close would be something I could definitely support and would make a reassessment easier in a few months - .... Youreallycan (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a diplomatic step I think I might !vote that way at the DRV. You're welcome to join me. causa sui (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm holding off filing for 24 hrs to reconsider. Do you want to have a read while I think about that no consensus reclose offer?  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it. I think you're both making a fair point. I looked at the discussion again, also. I have to reaffirm my view that I can't possibly endorse a delete result for that AFD, but: the concerns about meatpuppetry seem valid, and I'm reconsidering whether it makes sense to 'punish' a too-fast renomination with a "keep" result, which would bias future AFDs or create the appearance of momentum to keep. So at this point, I'm happy to close as no consensus, and might do that regardless of a DRV. causa sui (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. SnottyWoog's suggestion to semi-protect the next AFD has the ring of wisdom to it. causa sui (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While semi-protect might sound good, only 3 out of around 50 editors on the AFD was by IP's. I do not have access to count the number of accounts that was not autoconfirmed, but if that number is not high then any semi-protection looks like unnecessary.Belorn (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was only four ip addresses that edited the AFD but there was multiple votes that semi protection would have eliminated. This person User:Challenging_Duelism wouldn't have been able to create an account and make a single edit that was to make his single vote (at least under that username) - created only to make a single wikipedia edit to vote - Strong Keep - Its clear there was off wiki promotion to keep the article.  Youreallycan (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Its clear there was off wiki promotion to keep the article," alleges user Youreallycan. Clear to whom? Please document your unsubstantiated accusation. JohnValeron (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out to actually check the data before acting on it. It might be right that semi-protect should be used, and there was clearly spa used in it. The question is to check if there was more than normally expected. Off wiki promotion is not a good enough reason itself. It should be also be noted that all IP's and SPA did not vote the same (ie keep). just a quick checking (based on a quick look on the users talk), and the total votes from ip/SPA were: 3 IP keep, 2 SPA keep, 1 IP delete, 1 SPA delete. Based on that, at worst the off wiki promotion gave 3 votes in favor of keep which is about 6% of the total votes. IP/SPA was about 12% of all votes. Like I said in the beginning, this was just a quick check so my numbers might be off by a bit.Belorn (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I would welcome your opinion on whether a DRV would be appropriate given the meat puppetry apparent and the general problem of these articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the purpose of a DRV is to review how an AFD is closed. If you don't object to the closing, I'm not sure whether it would be the right venue. (If you do, then it would be, of course.) That said I don't know that I can recommend anything else. Maybe seeking advice on WP:AN or the talk pages for DRV, or deletion process would be helpful? causa sui (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for your information, the argument is now that article can't be edited by me, as the AfD has "vetted" and approved article content. They're even tag teaming to remove templates and block any attempt to knock it into shape.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not aware of the specifics of the situation, but you can freely quote my authoritative view as the closing admin that my "no consensus" close is absolutely not an endorsement of any particular aspect of article content. It should not, and can not, be read that way. That's not to say that you are right about anything, of course; only that this AFD can have no weight in content dispute resolution. causa sui (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)