Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui

Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui


In a Nutshell: Sysop Causa sui abused his sysop tools, and says he would do it again. He also refuses to edit in accord with consensus. Two other sysops involved in this matter indicated that an AN/I would be the appropriate place to address his behavior.

As background, he was heavily involved in editing an article. He was criticized by a number of editors for edit warring and failing to follow consensus, and he responded by threatening to use his sysop powers in the article dispute. He was apprised of WP:INVOLVED.

He ultimately deleted clearly relevant, RS-supported text from the article. The text indicated that the article subject had been accused by a U.S. official of "working actively to kill Americans". He deleted it with the unhelpful edit summary: "Trim". I criticized him for this on the article talk page. Causa responded by using his sysop powers to block me and to topic-ban me for two weeks.

In lifting the block and the topic ban, Sysop Jac16888 wrote: "Causa sui is clearly not an uninvolved party here, and this block is highly inappropriate regardless of the circumstances." Sysop Xeno had similar and additional criticisms, as did the broad consensus of editors commenting below the block.. Causa was somewhat short of contrite, and somewhat less than sensitive to the consensus criticism of his actions, replying: "what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances."

I recommend that Causa be censured, and that he undertake to uphold WP:INVOLVED and respect consensus in the future.

Even as late as April 20, however, after much discussion at this AN/I, Causa refused a request that he undertake to uphold WP:INVOLVED and respect consensus in the future.
 * 1) April 8: Editor/sysop Causa sui (formerly "Ryan Delaney" and "Malathion") deleted large amounts of relevant text and refs, and an image, at the Anwar al-Awlaki (AA) article.  Including entire paragraphs.  Without any talk page discussion.  And without edit summaries providing a reasonable basis.
 * 2) Causa then edit-warred. Sometimes vaguely saying "BLP", but without providing any diffs or other substantive evidence of real BLP issues.  Supertouch saw 5 reverts by Causa in just a few hours, and opened this 3RR discussion.  Sysop Xeno commented there that sysops are not exempt from 3RR, and that BLP is only a trump card if BLP concerns are legitimate.  Causa continued to delete against the consensus of Supertouch and three other editors who communicated their disagreement with him.
 * 3) By April 12, Causa abandoned most of his deletions. For the first time, he engaged in substantive talk page discussion.  He raised 5 points.  Some were, at best, trivial.  For example, he deleted a sentence in the lead, which was repeated with refs in the body-—because the refs were only in the body. Others were odd.  For example, he  repeatedly deleted, and then reduced to what he admitted was half the MOS size, images of the 9/11 hijackers.  Despite the fact that they are mentioned with AA in 130,000 ghits. His rationale:  "images of the hijackers might be less relevant to the article subject than just about anything else related to his life, such as say, the place of his birth".
 * 4) He cloaked himself in "BLP". But even his 4-days-later, reduced-to-top-5 "issues list" failed to support his assertions of highly troubling legitimate BLP issues.  His views were also  non-consensus.  Still, he continued deleting.
 * 5) April 14: Causa twice threatened to "use sysop tools" in the dispute.
 * 6) It was pointed out to him that it would be an abuse of his sysop powers, for him to use them in a dispute in which he was heavily involved.
 * 7) WP:INVOLVED was even quoted to him. It says: "editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to .... In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion."
 * 8) April 15: Causa opened a discussion on the AA article at the BLP noticeboard.  Alleging he was "detecting serious problems".  He failed to provide any diffs, or descriptions of text/refs/images that he had in mind.  But acknowledged that it was "a dispute in which I am a direct participant."  It attracted no comments, other than one from me, to which he failed to respond.
 * 9) I tried to discuss one of his edits with him on his talk page. He wouldn't.  Instead, he told me to: "confine discussion of article content to the appropriate talk pages."
 * 10) April 16: He deleted the highly relevant mention by a U.S. official that AA was "working actively to kill Americans", sourced to The Washington Post, with his unhelpful one-word edit summary: "trim".  I wrote him on the AA talk page, criticizing his deletion (and reverted it).
 * 11) His response? He blocked me for 48 hours for alleged "abuse of editing privileges", and topic banned me for two weeks.  He provided no further insight as to how in his mind my revert and my criticism of his edit constituted such abuse.
 * 12) Sysop Jac16888 immediately unblocked me. Writing:  "Causa sui is clearly not an uninvolved party here, and this block is highly inappropriate regardless of the circumstances."  Causa's block was also criticized by a number of other editors.
 * 13) Sysop Xeno wrote: "causi sui peculiarly left a rationale for this block at Talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki, with the unhelpful comment that they are 'not interested in discussing this matter with [Epeefleche] (or anyone else) on this page anymore'. I commented there to them: 'Given that others have debated your application of BLP here and you are involved in the content of this article, do you really think you should be the one taking administrative action? imho ... you should recuse'"
 * 14) Sysop Xeno also wrote him: "Your interpretation of BLP and its applicability to the current issues was questioned by other editors, and it doesn't seem you attracted much support for your position at the WP:BLPN thread. Your statement that you are 'not interested in discussing this matter ... on [Talk:Anwar al-Alwaki] anymore' is uncollegial, and seems to run counter to Administrators ('Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed')."
 * 15) This was not some rash action by Causa, in a heated moment. Rather, it was premeditated. He blocked me two days after he threatened me, and two days after WP:INVOLVED was quoted to him.  Furthermore, his disregard for the blocking policy is apparently a long-standing approach of his, as even many years ago (while editing under the name Ryan Delaney) Causa said in another matter: "I did wilfully ignore ... part of the blocking policy".
 * 16) WP:ADMIN, which Causa breached, states: "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor).... With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin...."
 * 17) Nor is Causa contrite, or sensitive to the consensus criticism of his actions. He replied to his critics: "what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances."  Nor has he reigned in his editing issues since.
 * 18) I raised my concerns to Causa on April 17.
 * 19) This is a serious matter, and I'm troubled that Causa blocked me two days after he threatened editors—and was told that such behavior would be an abuse of sysop tools. I recognize Causa is a very intelligent and articulate person, and a talented editor. My purpose is to ensure that such an incident doesn't happen again (thereby protecting the community and the project), and that the good reputation of admins is reinforced by due process being applied here. I suggest that Causa: (a) be censured for his misuse of sysop tools; and (2) undertake to uphold WP:INVOLVED and respect consensus in the future.
 * 20) I would also ask that my block record be amended, either by removing reference to the block or by explicit reference to the fact that the block was, as the unblocking admin said: "highly inappropriate".

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The block does seem inappropriate, and I would second the suggestion that Causa Sui disengage from using his admin tools in this content dispute. Although Causa Sui has since said he's willing to discuss it and reverted his removal, he's since removed the information again, which seems odd (unless I'm missing something). There seems to be agreement, at least on the talkpage, that the action was inappropriate; despite further discussions that indicate Causa's interpretation of BLP is considered doubtful, Causa Sui has since said he'd do it again. I think it's obvious Causa Sui needs to stop using his admin tools here and also receive a rather large troutslap; beyond that, consensus forming on his interpretation of BLP would certainly be helpful in resolving the wider dispute. Ironholds (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if this were a gross BLP violation, which it does not appear to be, an admin who is so deeply involved should not be placing blocks. Causa_sui has made 75 edits to Anwar_al-Awlaki, and another 75 edits to talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki in the past two weeks. He placed a block template on user:Epeefleche's talk page saying that he had been blocked for vandalism, which is sloppy and misleading. The edit that Epeefleche lists as the cause of the block appears to follow the source very closely. It cites a Washington Post article that says, "He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him."  Epeefleche wrote "According to an unnamed U.S. official al-Awlaki is "working actively to kill Americans", ...  I don't even see how that's a BLP violation, much less one that requires an immediate block. In addition to blocking Epeefleche, Causa Sui also unilaterally topic banned him from the article for two weeks. This all seems inappropriate and I look forward to reading Causa Sui's explanation. Causa Sui may be in need of a topic ban himself.    Will Beback    talk    07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If only Causa sui had agreed that perhaps it would have been best to recuse in this case and similar future instances, this thread would not have been necessary. Other than the thing from 2005 (when protection was still in the "blocking policy"!); this appears to be a very isolated incident so hopefully no action is required except some clarification to Causa sui about appropriate recusal. As I commented to them, despite the mixed messages being delivered via "Exceptional circumstances", there are hundreds of active admins, so [one] should recuse to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. If [one] feel[s] further administrative action is required, post to ANI and see where the chips fall. As for Epeefleche's request to amend the block log, I see no reason to annote further than the matter-of-fact statement by Jac16888 ("Inappropriate block"); which, along with a pointer to this ANI, should be enough to exonerate Epeefleche from this block if any questions arise in the future. – xeno talk 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not any breach of WP:BLP here, from what I see. This appears to be a case of a content dispute which Casa poorly handled. A flimsy excuse to block someone who happens to disagree with him and challenge his 'authority', his actions were totally inappropriate. I understand but disagree with Xeno that we should allow this 'isolated incident' to pass because of Causa's record. Whatever the right or wrong of the edits by Epeefleche, I find Causa's action to have been premeditated, flagrant and deliberate, and in violation of WP:ADMIN, in particular WP:UNINVOLVED. His explanations and justifications so far are less than convincing. Such an abusive admin act, such bullying, is inexcusable and ought to be made an example of. His unrepentant stance in itself suggests that Causa should take a break from editing the article in question, as doing so seems to be seriously affecting his judgement. Issuing block threats on the article talk page was NOT appropriate – because of the nature – and already in violation of WP:ADMIN. Actioning it himself, without a formal warning on the user's talk page, is an even greater fault. I would say that an unreserved apology is due; a one month recusal from, or ban on editing, the Awlaki article would not, in my view, be inappropriate. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd second that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The admin in question has been here almost 5 years, and should know better than to block someone with whom he's in a dispute. Even in the worst case, a blatant and gross policy violation, he should get an uninvolved admin to review the situation and take action (or not) as needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If there was the slightest sense that an apology to the wrongly blocked user was in the air, I might be inclined towards taking no substantive action. But there is no such sense; rather, an attempt at self-justification. This will disappoint all who want the good reputation of admins to be maintained. Tony   (talk)  15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the gist of what he's saying is that he is right and everyone else is wrong, and Arbcom says so to so there. DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. At this point, I'm trying to explain my confusion over this matter since mixed messages in policy and Arbcom rulings seem to justify what I did. In my opinion, what I did was right, yes -- but I'm willing to change that opinion, if someone would explain to me why it is wrong beyond finger-wagging. A lot of energy is being expended on the least productive topics possible here. Having a conversation about why the BLP policy page is wrong to authorize administrators to use sysop tools to enforce the policy in articles they are involved in editing would be productive. Can we do that? --causa sui (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed all the editors above suggesting that you weren't enforcing BLP policy, and that the material did not qualify for your gung-ho approach. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says they may; but I think that was written in there for clear-cut emergency situations where removal is necessary. Where there is a dispute between yourself and other users over what is BLP-problematic, I think you would do well to recuse and report for other administrators. – xeno talk 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

causa sui's reply (and responses)
Hi all. I want to say right out that I don't intend to use sysop tools on this article in the future. I find 's reasoning sound: Given the number of eyes we have on this article now, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it would be better to let other sysops moderate this dispute (which I think, as far as actual article content goes, is winding down anyway). I think the confusion is a result of some mixed messages being delivered between the WP:BLP and WP:INVOLVED policy pages and Arbcom rulings. I made an earlier reply to 's talk page, which I've largely reproduced below, but I made some changes to fit the updated circumstances.

Now, to the policy as it stands: My understanding of the Biographies of living persons policy is that users who repeatedly re-introduce contentious and poorly sourced material into biographies of living persons are to be blocked.

Further, the burden of proof is on those restoring the content to win consensus that it does not contravene the BLP policy. Note well that the question is not whether the material is actually BLP compliant, but whether the users restoring the content have won consensus on the talk page that it should be restored (my emphasis):

Most importantly, administrators may enforce the provisions of the BLP policy by any means necessary, even if they are involved in editing the article (my emphasis):

Now, we can have an honest debate about whether the policy should be this way. But in point of fact, it is this way. We usually do expect administrators who are involved in content disputes not to use their admin powers to advance their own positions in the disputes, but both the blocking policy and the BLP policy unambiguously state that this expectation does not apply when the content dispute is about potentially libelous or defamatory information about a living person.

That was the case here: the article was riddled with poorly sourced information that the user in question seemed determined to restore without discussion no matter how many times we took it out. The relevant policies are again unambiguous about what should be done here: the content should be removed and the user should be blocked immediately. If this is a test case that shows the BLP page is in error, then we should amend the policy.

Also, consider the following recent ArbCom ruling. Some interesting findings:

The user was then commended for cutting through the red tape (and even objections of other editors) to get BLP-noncompliant content out of the project:

Much more extreme than anything I'm accused of here; this was a case of not only blocks following edit warring over BLP-related issues, but actual wheel warring. It seems quite clear that we are to handle BLP problems with urgency and not wait for discussion or procedures before getting dubious content out, and arbcom has ruled that use of sysop tools to interfere with BLP cleanup is the incorrect behavior. If my understanding of this is wrong, I'm open to having my mind changed in honest discussion; but there are a lot of mixed messages being delivered here. --causa sui (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Will you undertake, in any article in which you have significantly edited, to seek the help of other admins (we do exist, you know) to enforce such policies rather than doing it all yourself?  (there are big hints in that question to show that I am really hoping for a "yes" answer).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point, the answer is yes, though I believe it's my duty to inform you that that's mostly motivated by a desire for self-preservation rather than ideological agreement. Note that prior to blocking, I had made a post on the BLP/N page, which attracted some attention in favor of my cause, but not the interest of any uninvolved administrators. I would be much more satisfied, and I think you should be too, if we could have open discussion about whetherWP:INVOLVED applies in cases where a user is persistently re-introducing poorly sourced contentious material to a BLP and the administrator has failed to attract attention of neutral admins on the BLP noticeboard. It remains my opinion that ArbCom was absolutely right to exculpate an administrator who cut through the rules to get BLP-problematic content out of the project and I think the precedent it set is perfectly appropriate and applies to this case as well. We really ought to set about changing my opinion on that matter if we want to get final resolution to this, and I'm fully open to having it changed. --causa sui (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it obvious that WP:UNINVOLVED is there to minimise potential conflicts of interest, even if it was not explicitly declared, which it is. By simultaneously editing and acting, you are by definition wearing two hats at once. Therefore in conflict. I would say that I would probably not cite an unattributed comment which appeared in a RS, but there is inherently nothing non-compliant with BLP - the comment in question was not libellous, although it may be disputed. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP/N is for soliciting editorial voices about the disputed content. Use ANI to solicit uninvolved administrators when you feel a block or other administrative act is necessary. And if none act, perhaps the action was not warranted in the first place? – xeno talk 15:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see-- that was a misunderstanding on my part then. We still aren't addressing the substantive issue here. --causa sui (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This thread is about your involved action and whether it was warranted. The substantive issues do demand treatment, but probably at WP:VPP. – xeno talk 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, maybe we should start a thread over there then. I can't say I'll be the one to do it though, since I think the policy is as it should be, but I will participate in policy-amendment discussion if someone begins it. --causa sui (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As do I, I just think you're misinterpreting it beyond what it permits. – xeno talk 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please start a thread then, because the vagueness badly needs to be cleared up. --causa sui (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Causa sui: the information is clearly sourced to an article by the New York Times. Is that somehow an unreliable source now? Yes, admins have discretion to enforce WP:BLP until someone says otherwise. But at the same time, your interpretation of WP:BLP is so far off it's at ED. Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the content wasn't that it was attributed to unreliable sources, but that the statements in the article often ran well above and beyond what the sources actually said. Bringing the content of the article into alignment with what the sources actually say was the #1 issue in this BLP dispute. If you would like to discuss any of my particular opinions about the content of the article, that should probably go on Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki. --causa sui (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the particular bit under dispute here (the Unnamed American Offical (tm)) was perfectly referenced, and didn't in any way go above the source. Ironholds (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I suggest we allow time for people to vent, but at this point, I wonder how much more we have to do here. We aren't desysoping Cs, he's promised to bring other people in, in similar situations, and the content matters can be argued elsewhere.  Self preservation is as good a motive as any, it is how society works.  But there's no more administrative action called for.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – xeno talk 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having followed this for a while, I agree with this too. It seems the original edit was well sourced, so this BLP provision did not apply, and this just got a bit out of hand. Given the almost universal agreement for this (apart from Cs), I suggest an apology for the stress this action caused the editor might also be helpful, while Cs considers the reasons for the majority view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the reasons for the majority view, what reasons? I haven't been presented with any, and the principled refusal of everyone involved here to even have a substantive discussion on policy content and interpretation, as I've repeatedly invited everyone to do, is quite frustrating. I would love to consider the reasons you guys disagree with my interpretation of policy, as I outlined above. Can we please have that conversation? Pretty please? --causa sui (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the weight of evidence from independent admins, you may like to have the discussion after you have apologised for the stress you have caused Epeefleche. Your inability to understand the reasons is not, in my mind, a reason for failing to reduce the level of ongoing friction. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Causa, Notwithstanding the fact that it appears no one else agrees with you that there was a blockable BLP violation here, it is clearly explained at WP:INVOLVED: "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." [emph. added] There was no pressing need here for you to take action. – xeno talk 17:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying to this. The WP:INVOLVED policy is definitely contradictory with the BLP policy and the Arbcom decisions that I quoted above. It should be amended to be more internally consistent -- in my opinion, the bit you quoted should be re-factored or removed from the WP:INVOLVED policy, though the result of a wider discussion could well swing the other way, and I would respect that decision if it did. Considerations of 'best practice' fall into the category of recommendations or wisdom rather than compulsion or obligation, and so if this bit is the part that I've run over, the high-volume reaction to this seems to be out of line with what the policy requires. If I incorrectly perceived BLP problems where there weren't any, that should have been handled via the talk page rather than bald reverting. --causa sui (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong, don't you? – xeno talk 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an assessment of my personality, I wouldn't say so -- though I doubt many people would admit that about themselves. Really, I don't want you to give up so easily. :-) I have my opinions, and I'm really struggling to understand how they aren't right. --causa sui (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what more I can say. Several users called into question your interpretation of BLP and whether BLP was being violated with content you were removing. Another user restored this (apparently well-sourced) content. Though heavily involved, you blocked that user. This was a bad block. You should apologize, and recuse in future. You can juggle policy all you want, but essentially you've made a bad call, even in light of the policy. As I've commented several times, this does not appear to be a pattern for you, and all you need to do is admit that you might have not thought this through, apologize, and be on with your life. No need to dig your heels in! We're all human, and administrators are not expected to be perfect. – xeno talk 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point, I think everyone has a result they're happy with since I've agreed to stop using sysop tools with respect to Anwar al-Awlaki. I don't want to dig in my heels or be defensive; I really, honestly, just don't understand the other viewpoint. Maybe with some distance and reflection I'll be able to understand your point of view in time. So unless others decide to escalate, I'll consider the matter resolved. Thanks for trying, anyway -- I know we still disagree about this, but everyone here is really trying to do the right thing. --causa sui (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're also hoping you will recuse in similar future situations, not just on Anwar al-Awlaki. With over 800 active admins, there is no need to be a lone ranger. Report to ANI instead of (or at the very least, before) taking administrative actions on an article with which you are heavily involved in a dispute with other users. – xeno talk 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Causa sui, this thread is about your behaviour as an admin. It isn't the venue for a policy discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I'm responding to Stephen B Streater's suggestion that I apologize, which I can't do in good conscience without an understanding of where my understanding of policy went wrong. Pending that, I'm inclined to agree with Wehwalt and say that no further progress can be made here and we should move on. --causa sui (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are going to be let off the hook that easily. A bit of grovelling would not be amiss right now, methinks. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "grovel" you mean "lie", I see no call for that. He made a mistake.  He is also an admin of long service to the project.  He is not losing the bits over this.  I think he's gotten the message that proceeding in this way is not worth the consequent hassle.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems Causa sui did genuinely think it was the right thing to do, based on all the policy stuff he has cited above, and he is honestly surprised that other folks are disagreeing with him. I think if he could just acknowledge that Epee is upset because he genuinely didn't see he was doing anything that warranted a block, so the position is the same on both sides, that's all that can be called for really.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: there is no disagreement about the policy per se, or its interpretation. Causa sui appears to have overlooked the point xeno makes above that using BLP as a reason to overcome WP:INVOLVED requires some kind of pressing need, which seems not necessarily to have been evident. This is mitigated by his use of WP:BLPN to seek involvement from others - though, as noted, that's more for editorial involvement and he should have come to ANI. On the factual point, it seems people generally disagree with Causa sui's interpretation of whether there was actually a BLP issue arising from the facts. Mistakes were made, and it would be nice if Causa apologised to Epeefleche (if he hasn't already), but really, this seems about all there is to it. No policy issues really arise - just a reminder to be cautious about INVOLVED, and to remember that BLP issues can be in the eye of the beholder. Also, a reminder to everyone concerned that the talk page should be used appropriately, and especially where BLP issues arise that may mean leaving content out while it's under discussion. Perhaps we can get out a pen now to draw a line under this? Rd232 talk 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Causa sui)

 * Comment - Well, I for one disagree that a highly charged and otherwise slanderous statement about a person can be considered "well-sourced" when it is attributed to "unnamed sources". It doesn't matter who published such allegations, it is indeed an unattributed statement, and an encyclopedia should not be repeating it point-blank, the way that it has been in this article; in particular, the selection of the "killing Americans" allegation is unnecessarily sensationalistic, and we already know that extraordinary facts require extraordinary verification. I think Causa sui would have benefitted from seeking other parties to examine this situation, but the foundation on which he based his actions is quite correct. Risker (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Risker beat me to it. Whilst I wouldn't have blocked Epeefleche myself in such a situation, the removal of such a vaguely sourced contentious sentence in a BLP was quite correct. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This may indeed be the case, and I actually encouraged causa sui to continue "striving for balance and compliance with BLP on the article" but suggested he "do so as an editor". To avoid even the appearance of impropriety on the part of administrators, it is important that we have checks and balances on things like this. – xeno talk 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Xeno, we now have a situation where there is indeed at least one (and probably more) BLP violation in this article (repeated in both the lead and the body), and it has been repeatedly placed there by multiple editors, who claim that consensus trumps hardline policies. I hate to say it, but this is exactly WHY administrators have a wide range of tools. Repeated insertion of BLP-violating content is grounds for a block, particularly after multiple warnings. So now, can we have some admins step up to the plate and actually enforce this policy through use of persuasion, warning, editing and/or sanction?  That unattributed allegation needs to come out, as does any other unattributed allegation present in the text. Risker (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Risker. You’re argument seems to be predicated that the wisdom of admins is flawless and that justifies their doing whatever they please. Causa sui’s actions were baseless and contravened many, many guidelines and policies. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Risker, you have the exact same tools that I do, and more (along with the added deference given to a sitting arbitrator). Please take what actions you see fit, or initiate a separate ANI thread seeking administrators to take action. – xeno talk 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into this content matter (that's what the BLP question is - it is a content policy), but if consensus among reasonable good faith editors is that a particular statement is not a BLP violation then any administrator who thinks otherwise should not be unilaterally using tools to enforce his / her position. There are plenty of avenues to resolve this kind of dispute without unilateral recourse to tools.   If it's truly a BLP violation despite a local consensus to the contrary then bringing it to BLP/N or RfC should resolve the matter.  But if the community as a whole decides there is no BLP violation then that is the policy outcome, not a single editor's opinion to the contrary. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I've looked into it, I see a minor technical BLP violation. Repeating an unreliable source by saying "according to X, Y is true" is asserting an unreliable thing.  The correct way to say it is that "X said that Y", and that would have to pass relevancy and weight concerns. In this case, if the belief of the unnamed source that he is "working actively to kill Americans" is related to the kill-order then it's probably relevant; if it's just the opinion of a random government official or something the government is leaking to influence public opinion, it is not.  In any event, it does not serve the purpose of BLP policy to enforce it here - we are not avoiding harm or avoiding litigation here.  The person is already the subject of a death order, and nobody could be sued over this.  This not being the place to discuss policy, what it boils down to is that if there is a BLP violation it is neither severe nor urgent enough to justify IAR-type administrative action.  I would work it out as a content matter on the article talk page.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with an admin getting wound up in an editwar and making an unjustified block; Epeefleche’s block was reversed soon enough. The deeply troubling issue here is Causa sui’s persistent and continued insistence that what he did was absolutely right, and … would do it again. The text Epeefleche insisted on restoring into the article was a quote from a U.S. government official that Al-Awlaki is actively trying to kill Americans and is cited to this article in The Washington Post. It is a critical bit of germane and encyclopedic information necessary for the reader to appreciate the unprecedented move by the U.S. government for targeting one of its own citizens for direct military action. Causa sui had been deleting that text and Epeefleche had been restoring it. The last time Causa sui deleted it, his edit summary was “(trim)” so it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Causa sui was really alarmed by the inclusion of “poorly sourced”, “defamatory” material. This was simply a case where Causa sui was being frustrated from getting his way on the article, and simply wanted to add more exculpatory information without another editor adding text such as the U.S. government’s basis for their unprecedented move. Causa sui, who was clearly an involved admin here and was biased beyond all reason. He 1) Blocked Epeefleche for two days, 2) Provided no explanation for his block as absolutely required by clear policies Causa sui had to have known about, 3) Left a block tag where the words “abuse of editing privileges” linked to WP:Vandalism, which wasn’t the case here by any stretch of the imagination, 4) Left a threatening note on Epeefleche telling him to consider himself topic banned from that article for two weeks as Causa sui busied himself to do as he pleased on that article with impunity, 5) At the same time, announced that he was perfectly free precisely as he pleased and didn’t have to consider other editors because he wrote “I am not interested in discussing this matter with you (or anyone else) on this page anymore”, and 6) refuses to take advise from other admins who are trying to bring him to reason here. It is obvious to me that this is just a matter of a regular editor who ran afoul in a “contempt-of-cop” situation with an admin. What is unique about this one is that Causa sui’s position is baseless, he flouted clear rules of conduct in his block, continues to insist he is absolutely right, and insists he’d do it again. I truly honestly think Causa sui is incapable of serving as an admin to the betterment of Wikipedia. I truly think the project would be better off if he is de-sysoped. And, regardless if he is de-sysoped or not, his persistent bias and editwarring on terrorism-related articles indicates to me that the best way to ensure harmony in a collaborative writing environment is for Causa sui to be topic banned for six months. Epeefleche’s writing on terrorism-related articles may be far from perfect, but another editor and I have had zero (zilch) problems coming in afterwards and cleaning it up to make it more balanced and encyclopedic. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously not saying that this is the case here, but you seem to be insinuating that any reliable media source could print absolutely anything, credit it to an "unnamed official of X government", and we'd take that as a reliable source to repeat something that could effectively be slanderous? I think not.  Unidentified anonymous sources aer not reliable for such quotes, regardless how reliable the source is that they're quoted in. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Causa had effectively moved the spotlight from the purpose of this AN/I. Which is his misbehavior.  To a policy discussion that is a red herring.  "Admin" brings with it greater responsibilities for appropriate behavior, not lesser responsibilities.  "Of long standing" addressed the question of -- is he just a newbie who didn't know better.  That certainly was not the case.  Both of those make his misbehavior starker.  His abuse was deliberate.  He threatened it beforehand.  He was informed that it would be a violation of applicable guidelines.  He was clearly editing against consensus.  He did it anyway.

The key here, is that there was no emergency. There was no BLP violation. Nor did Causa -- with two days between his warning and his block, and despite many entreaties, ever make even the slightest effort to articulate where there was an emergency BLP violation. The edit that he reacted to with a block was certainly not a BLP violation. Causa's entries here all serve as misdirection, to turn the focus away from his misbehavior.

It was Causa who was clearly edit-warring, editing against consensus, and deleting relevant material without justification. He didn't "overlook" WP:INVOLVED -- he was pointed to it, and it was quoted to him before the block. He wasn't unaware of the need for a pressing legitimate BLP issue to invoke the emergency clause -- it was pointed out to him days before the block by Xeno, and many times before the block by various editors who noted that though he was waving the BLP flag -- he was not providing any evidence of a serious BLP violation. And the "BLP" violation that he reacted to? A revert of his deletion of a highly relevant reference in a top-level RS? Come on. Is anyone in this string really buying that this intelligent sysop just "missed" that little detail that required that his assertion of BLP violation must have at least the slightest semblance of legitimacy?

After the dust settled and umpteen editors informed him of his mistake, he said he would do it again. And his editing on the very same article has raised concerns even after his block. And his comments in this thread exhibit, yet again, his rather curious "I am right and everyone else is wrong and I won't edit in conformity with consensus" attitude. Which, of course, is part of the problem. It is for that reason that one of my suggestions was that he commit to edit in accordance with consensus. "He got the message?" Just the opposite, it would appear. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Epeefleche, but that is most certainly a BLP violation. Consensus does not override core policy.  Risker (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus that BLP should not apply, so there is no consensus to override policy here. There is, apparently, a consensus that there is no BLP violation.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker -- you're statement above, without any semblance of effort at reflecting a cogent supporting rationale for it, is akin to the editing style that Causa has exhibited. If you are going to make a controversial point like that one, and we are to accord it any weight at all, it might be helpful if you were to explain it.  The focus is on reliable sources, and in the event of certain situations (which this may or may not fall into ... actually, it probably doesn't) we ask that those sources be not only reliable but also high-level.  The sources at issue were clearly both reliable, and high-level.  That's my analysis.  Other than you're balk, unsupported statement, what is your analysis?  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment (edit conflict with several above): No policy on earth overrides the expectation of using sane judgement for any issue. There are several levels of errors being alleged: 1) using admin tools at all while involved in an article => per BLP, this is justifiable under some circumstances, but try develop a sense of what situations it was intended for.  I'd say using them here was an error of judgement of a type forgiveable as long as the admin action is minimal for the situation, and there's no appearance of an attempt to bias the article.  2) Blocking Epeefleche=>clearly unnecessary here under the principle of minimizing admin action while involved.   The purpose of emergency BLP admin action is to keep bad stuff out of the article regardless of other WP processes, and page protection would have done that.  Blocking was only justifiable if Epeefleche was going nuts re-inserting the same info into multiple articles or something comparable. 3) Blocking Epeefleche as a vandal instead of describing the actual issue => obvious error, don't do it again. Causa, if you felt admin action was really necessary in the situation, it would have been better to just protect the article noting in the protection log that you were protecting due to a BLP concern while involved in editing, and that you wanted an uninvolved admin to take over the situation and unprotect at their discretion.  Then immediately disengage from the article and start an ANI or BLPN thread seeking help.  66.127.53.162 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Protection is not a bad idea. Risker (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is if you are going to protect the version with Causa's 75 edits, some of which have been severely indicated, as reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The other admin can deal with that when releasing the block and sorting the dispute. Or if there's really an issue of disputed material inserted by Causa Sui that other editors were trying to remove, one approach is to just blank the article and replace it with a protected info message saying the content is temporarily unavailable pending editorial review.  That is pretty clearly not protecting anybody's preferred version and giving it temporary undue prominence.   66.127.53.162 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Black Kite: With regard to this post and your 17:50, 20 April 2010 post (“Vaguely sourced”), I don’t think you understand much about how the government get’s its policies explained to the public. It is regular practice for U.S. government officials to ask that they not be personally named when explaining something to the press. That’s why we rely upon the WP:Reliable source-test; so we don’t run afoul with WP:NPOV and WP:OR and don’t have volunteer wikipedian’s throwing out half our citations to “an unnamed government spokesperson” (because The Washington Post is an *unreliable* secondary that can’t be trusted to quote reliable government primary sources). In the Post’s article Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill, the Post was, for certain statements, quoting CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano by name. We can trust that the Post quoted either Gimigliano but omitted his name at his request, or that they found an equally authoritative spokesman. Clearly, this was not “vandalism” by any stretch of the imagination, as Causa sui indicated. The text Epeefleche added  is topical, germane, encyclopedic, properly cited, it explained the rationale underlying the government’s targeting of al-Awlaki, and is properly in the article today. I suggest that if you don’t like “unnamed government spokespersons”, that you work to achieve a consensus on our policy pages that Wikipedia should no longer look towards sources that have a long and distinguished record as a WP:Reliable source if they ever dare to quote “unnamed government spokespersons.” I doubt you’ll achieve such a consensus. Clearly, the place to argue this nuance is not here. It is obviously the height of absurdity to think Causa sui’s calling Epeefleche’s edit “vandalism” is accurate. Turning the *Common-sense-O-meter* past 25%, is is clear this is nothing but a “contempt of cop” problem with a rogue admin. Methinks too many apologists are trying to defend Causa sui by hiding his conduct behind the apron strings of BLP, which wasn’t violated in the slightest with the inclusion of text cited to The Washington Post of all places.  Greg L (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the business of helping the US government get its message out; it is in the business of writing an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if it is the Washington Post or TMZ publishing allegations attributed to unidentified sources. This is what falls under the heading of an "exceptional statement" and thus requires exceptionally stringent sourcing. This is not just WP:BLP, it is also WP:V and WMF policy as well.  Risker (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline refers to "high-quality sources". The source in question -- one of our highest quality RSs, I would expect, is just such a high quality source.  The entire concept of RS-hood is that we determine if a newspaper has a good reputation for fact-checking.  If it does, we rely on it.  We don't require an audit history at that point of every fact it checked.  Clearly, we can rely on RSs such as the Washington Post and the NYT to be reliable here, and clearly they are high-quality sources.  As the BLP policy says, further "Public figures... In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."  Again -- this is documented by a reliable third-party source.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't become involved in this article until it was posted to the BLP noticeboard, about the time the block was issued by Causa. I therefore won't offer an onion on whether it was warranted. However, I will say that the article did have severe BLP issues when I first visited it. Most were of the nature of source overreaching....a newspaper report would say something like "unnamed sources believe al-Awlaki may have done xxx", whereas in the article itself it would be translated to something like "al-Awlaki has done xxx". There was also excessive material with little to no direct connection to al-Awlaki, which appeared to be thinly veiled poisoning the well against the subject. Finally, there was severe oversourcing, with some claims having 4, 5, or even 7 inline citations, most of which did not support the claim at all, complicating verification.
 * Comments by FellGleaming

I didn't look through the log to see who was responsible for these, nor will I comment on whether there was any edit warring taking place. However, at the time the block was given, the article contained numerous BLP issues. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is the article as it stood before I began editing it. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

convenience break 2 – al-Awlaki BLP concerns

 * Yeah… I see, upon reading my post, Risker, you deleted that quote and locked the article down. Impressive. I feel your power. Do you think that allows others to see how you must be right? I had never previously gone back to check the reliability of the citations on the *other side* of the argument so I just went and looked. And what do I find at the very first exculpatory piece in the lead? Why, I discover that you and Causa sui had no problem leaving in place, this bit: “and some analysts have said the alleged ties to the group are ‘more speculative and assumed than concrete’ ”, which is cited to an oped piece written by college student with a masters degree in Near Eastern studies, and who quoted no one else but himself. Now there’s a “reliable source”. I’m sorry, I find the biases here to be astonishing. Moreover, I find the tactics being used here by certain editors as they circle the wagons to be utterly reprehensible and will no longer dignify any of this by pretending certain admins are acting here in good faith. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, potential misuse of administrative tools by an arbitration committee member in the middle of a discussion on the subject. That's rather bold.  I suggest we clearly establish what consensus is on the article talk page and go through appropriate escalation after that, if anyone believes the content is not BLP violation and is truly important for an encyclopedic presentation of the subject matter.  If not, let's not fight over a moot point, but I would admonish Risker not to try to override consensus, outside of proper dispute resolution channels, based on a disputed personal interpretation of policy.  – Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is poorly sourced material is right in the two sentences that I removed from the article – "anonymous" is not a good enough source for a highly sensational negative statement about a person. That the statement seems to appear in only one source further points to its violation of BLP policy. And consensus does not override core policy or WMF policy. Risker (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the UPI, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, etc., are fine sources for a point that is identical but for a slight wording variation, namely that the U.S. believes he is plotting further attacks and has justified its assassination order on that belief. We can argue content here or on the talk page, but decisions on content are a community matter, not an administrative matter.  BLP was never intended to give administrators exclusive power to determine what the policy means. – Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What was removed was a contentious direct quote of an anonymous source making an extraordinary claim with only a single reference point. That's pretty well the definition of a BLP violation that needs to be removed immediately. Risker (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What was removed was a statement that the US believes that a person they consider a terrorist was actively plotting to kill Americans.  That is not an extraordinary claim, and there are quite a few reliable sources for a nearly identical statement that does not involve anonymous sources.  This is the sort of thing that can easily be rephrased with proper sourcing, and there is absolutely no emergency in this case calling for use of tools in a way that derails normal editing process.  – Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon is completely correct. As I say below, Risker -- we need you to step up and quote precisely what language in BLP you are referring to.  As it stands, simply waving a large red flag with BLP emblazoned on it isn't as convincing as it might be.  Spoon-feed us a little more, please.  It may be obvious to you, but clearly some of us don't see what you are seeing.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to be moving away from the real question, which is "given that there are 800 active admins on the project, is it appropriate for Causa Sui to intervene in a way prohibited by policy, with the justification that another policy trumps it?". To me, the answer is "no". There was no attempt by Causa to mention that this was some sort of emergency, nor query other admins for a block. If there are other admins who could have blocked (and there are) and there is no emergency (and none of his comments at the time indicates there was) exactly what justifies an involved admin blocking an editor and then saying he'd do it again? Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clearly a bad way to go about things – the question, I think, is what to do about it. Nothing more to do is the likely answer.  Also, I think a block on different grounds would have been okay – edit warring after proper warnings to stop.  Perhaps it is even a good block with a weak rationale, in which case this is all a little much. – Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, after what may be too brief a review, causa sui and Risker are probably (mostly) correct. The content at issue (as most recently again removed by Risker,, ) cites a reliable source which cites an anonymous source as saying that the article subject kills people. In view of WP:BLP, which advises us to "beware of sources that ... attribute material to anonymous sources", it is probably correct to consider a statement of this exceptional nature, even if related by a reliable source, to violate WP:BLP. As such, admins may and should use all available means, including blocks and protection, to enforce BLP compliance, any previous involvement in editing the article notwithstanding. However, reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes a BLP violation. For this reason, admins should not simply impose their assessment of whether a BLP violation exists on everyone else, but should follow consensus if consensus is that the content at issue is not in fact a BLP violation. (I've not followed the sequence of events in this case and so cannot determine if the admins under discussion here acted in that way.)  Sandstein   21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes a BLP violation. That's why we take the content out immediately if there is any doubt, and then talk it out – see the bit I quoted from the BLP policy where the burden of proof is placed on those wishing to restore disputed content. When a user restored the content repeatedly without significant (or any) changes, despite several invitations to discuss it first and then finally warnings, that's when I hit the block button. --causa sui (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable.  Sandstein   22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus far, you seem the be the only one who thinks it was reasonable to block someone with which they were involved in a dispute. If an involved admin absolutely had to take action in this case, I think Risker's approach (page protection) is more reasonable. – xeno talk 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, we try to avoid using page protection to prevent edits to an article by a single problem user. --causa sui (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And generally we try to avoid blocking users with which we are involved in a dispute... – xeno talk 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...unless it's a BLP dispute. We're going around in circles a bit here. :P --causa sui (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed... I'm getting dizzy, so I'm going to get off this carousel. I still think you should take my recusal advice in future, if only to avoid giant ANI threads =). Best regards, – xeno talk 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Been following this for a while – This is going completely off track. It doesn't matter what the issue was, what matters is that someone abused the tools given to his/her advantage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Supposing the anonymous source had been "named". Would anyone check his name, or that this person even existed? The point of reliable sources is that you don't have to check – we trust the source. In the UK, the government often uses anonymous sources, but mostly to allow plausible deniability later if needed. Is that the case in the US? My understanding is that Wikipedia BLP policy is moving towards levels of proof for controversial claims more akin to those in a criminal court. Even reliable sources are not infallible, so multiple independent sources or sources which are beyond question may be required. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the problem here is not that we don't believe that the Washington Post did indeed talk to a government official who said this. They seem to have a good reputation for this sort of reporting. The problem appears to be that the inclusion of this anonymous claim, with its somewhat sensationalist tone, violates the policy's requirement to "write conservatively" and to avoid spreading "titillating claims about people's lives". That is subject to discussion, though, and I've not really looked at the article itself...  Sandstein   22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * coming at it from the same perspective as Stephen B Streater, it is certainly common in the UK to hear the BBC say "according to a government source....", "a source at the Ministry has said..." In the UK, there is a specific reason for this behaviour (other than that we're all repressed) – Civil Servants are supposed to be anonymous, and therefore the name should not mean anything. The statement "according to a government spokesman..." carries as much weight as "according to Tarquin Wim-Bim, Under-Under-Under Minion to the Secretary of State".  So to a Brit, Auntie or The Thunderer reporting that "according to a government source, they're all mad, don't you know" would not of itself be any reason to doubt that the government actually said this.  Whether it is true is another matter entirely.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are several problems here. I have a suspicion that a lot of people are confused because they're looking at the article and saying it's not that bad – when it's not that bad largely because of the efforts of Fell Gleaming, myself, and now Risker. Please use this diff when discussing BLP problems with the article, as that is how the article stood before I began editing it. That said, a compounding problem is that the article would do things like this: The citation said "According to an anonymous US official, investigators suspect that al-Awlaki may have X." The article would attribute to that citation the statement that "al-Awlaki did X." This is disastrous from a BLP standpoint for many obvious reasons. --causa sui (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it is true is not even pertinent. The New York Times reports that the accusation was made; wikipedia is simply repeating this, and not saying that the accusation is either true or false. In absolutely no way is this a BLP issue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the article says "according to a government source reported in the NYT on tuesday, this guy eats babies...". The problems start if you say "the government has confirmed that this guy eats babies..." or even "this guy eats babies...".  Not having the energy to dig out how it was represented at any point, I can see that it could easily have been overstated.  I think it's important to report, as it does seem to represent the mainstream view of the US government, but one has to be careful with the wording. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the US Government wishes to confirm it, then it knows how to do it. There are several quotes from named US Government representatives within this (and many other) articles. The fact that the US Government has *not* confirmed it, and that it has not appeared in any other source, is a salient point here. Nobody is suggesting that the subject of this article is a nice guy; simply put, an egregious BLP violation has been removed from the article, and that information can be returned if a non-controversial source for it is found. I rather doubt that we'd be accepting a Yemenese newspaper's word quoting an anonymous Yemenese government worker to have made a similar statement about Billy Graham or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Risker (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How would it be a BLP violation to state: "The Yemen Times has reported that the Yemenese Government believes Billy Graham is working actively to kill Yemenis"? The only objection to this passage would be that it is not notable, not that it is a BLP violation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, why then did Causa Sui "trim" the information rather than reword? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might try asking him. I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you. --causa sui (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Causa sui, why did you "trim" the information rather than reword? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to answer for sure without a specific diff, but I'd suspect that the reason I removed it was because of my belief that the spirit of the BLP policy requires that we remove dubious content will all possible haste and by any means necessary, and sort out later what and how it should go back in. With an article so rife with BLP problematic content I felt that it would be better to get the article to an acceptable state as quickly as possible and work out later what should go back in, and how. Recall that articles are not ever "finished" and restoring deleted content is easy; but undoing the damage, legal and ethical, of libelous or defamatory information in our articles is not. --causa sui (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as more than a little odd. The edit summary Causa used ("trim") suggests an edit that was of no substantive importance.  That is wholly inconsistent with Causa now maintaining that the material was so heinous and of such nuclear toxicity that it required an involved sysop to not just revert the edit – but to most importantly block an editor, and topic ban him.  It strains credulity.  It erodes AGF.  If I were to remove an edit because I honestly believed (correctly or incorrectly) that it was a BLP violation of such extraordinary explosiveness that it required my removing it – despite the fact that it was in one of the world's most highly reliable sources, and was completely consistent with other material already in the article that suggested the same thing (such as the Christmas Day bomber saying as much) – there might be many words I would use in an edit summary.  "Trim"?  No, that wouldn't be one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here, is having biased editors like Causa sui who think they are doing the right thing by declaring that The Washington Post article is poorly sourced. Curiously, Causa sui seemed to have had zero problems with a citation that was complementary to al-Awlaki that was cited to an op-ed piece by a college student stating his personal beliefs. Why did he have no problems with that bit and the associated citation? Because he liked the outcome and didn’t look further into it. This is why—unless there is a genuine emergency such as someone putting in obviously defamatory and false information—(highly) involved admins need to go seek an outside, uninvolved admin to use sysop powers. Without this method of reigning in rogue admins, the result is extreme bias in our articles. Now we have Risker, reserving for herself, what Causa sui tried but failed to do: decide all by herself what she thinks is the right thing to do without that bothersome detail of community input. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What did you expect? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Methinks, Risker, that you should dismount from your tall steed, for you are blocking the sun down here. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was Fell Gleaming who added this “balancing fact” citing an op-ed piece written by a college student expressing his opinions on al-Awlaki. Causa sui welcomed Fell Gleaming’s edits and focused a critical eye disproportionately upon Epeefleche. I think we allowed Causa sui and another admin or two here to successfully divert our attention from the critical point here. Causa sui had lost all semblance of even-handed, unbiased approach on that article and wildly abused his sysop powers (shortly later reverted by other admins) by impugning Epeefleche’s edit as “vandalism” (shear nonsense) while blithely turning a blind eye to egregious shortcomings in the contributions of another editor who was working in consort with Causa sui because that editor’s work changed the tenor of the article in way that was to Causa sui’s liking. This is precisely why—short of a genuine emergency or obvious vandalism where there would be a community-wide expectation for any admin to fix the problem, all involved admins must stop behaving as if they have some sort of unique wisdom that is above that of the community’s purview and forfeit their admin status while editwarring. Greg L (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Greg's characterization of my balancing fact as an "op ed by a college student", this was from an opinion piece in Newsweek, and the author is, "a former Fulbright Fellow in Yemen, and currently a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.". More importantly though, the source in question was already being used in the article, but being used for a statement against the subject.  I only found the piece when fact-checking that claim.  Why did Greg not object to the negative use of the source, but now derides the balancing, positive quote from the very same article?   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the diffs presented here, it is my opinion that the content removed was a borderline BLP violation and that, in such cases, it's better to err on the side of caution, especially given that it only appears to be present in one source and it therefore should not be in the article. However, this is not a case where the material is so egregious that highly involved administrators should be issuing blocks and threatening other administrative actions and the block, in my opinion, was out of order. Causa sui, if you find yourself in that kind of position again, this noticeboard would be an appropriate forum to raise your concerns. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well put. Say "resolved", someone!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If – based on this discussion – it is agreed that Causa is censured for his highly inappropriate block and topic ban, and Causa undertakes to uphold WP:INVOLVED and respect consensus in the future, I would be happy to have this closed as resolved. I recognize that a number of editors have called for more draconian steps to be taken.  But if the above can be met, I'm willing for the matter to be closed with that censure and those undertakings.  --Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no call or need for a symbolic victory here. Your block is lifted and it's clear that many editors disagree with the way the block was handled.  Causa got the message, whether or not he (?) agrees with it, and knows that doing it again would meet opposition.  At the same time you were risking a block for simple edit warring and for ignoring the BLP admonition not to re-add material people had challenged as a BLP violation without meeting the objections and establishing consensus.  I'm not sure if you were adequately warned, but this is far from a clear case of admin abuse.  Why not look to the future and see how this and other articles can be improved rather than worrying too much about what admins did in the past?  – Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it that everyone is ignoring Greg L's rather good point about Causa allowing in a sentence that is sourced to a college student, while disagreeing with talk page consensus about a sentence that is sourced to The Washington Post? It's like everyone is purposefully ignoring it, which is suspicious and doesn't at all detract from the validity of his point. Silver  seren C 01:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because "college student" is a rather inaccurate way of describing a former Fulbright Fellow who has written on the subject for multiple mainstream publications, including scholarly journals, whose analyses have been cited in newspapers and scholarly books, and who has recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as an expert witness on situation in the Yemen. --Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you know as well as I do what would have happened if Epeefleche quoted a “Fullbright Fellow” (but still a college student) who opined that Anwar was a nasty fellow; out it would go for not being a WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. This proceeding hasn’t—and isn’t—about dueling citations. It has been about an admin being exceedingly one-sided in applying and enforcing the requirements of BLP, and of being a high-involved admin who unjustly used sysop powers to block the opposing editor, and is about that admin—after all of this—still being unappologetic about it all. I predict we will be hearing more in the future about Causa sui (but look forward to being proved wrong). Greg L (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And it was archived in the middle of my edit...where should this go then? Silver  seren C 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ":::*And you know as well as I do what would have happened if Epeefleche quoted a “Fullbright Fellow” (but still a college student) who opined that Anwar was a nasty fellow; out it would go " -- This is one of those "foot in mouth" moments.  Greg, that source was already in the article, and being used to drudge up something negative about Anwar.    When fact-checking, I found numerous cases like this -- someone had gone through each source, cherry-picking out only the most negative portions, then (in some cases) further distorting those beyond what was actually said.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 05:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've closed the thread; I think it's reached its' natural end. Your question is a good one, but deserves treatment at the article talk page – as do the BLP concerns (though there may be a wider venue needed for that). If anyone feels there is more to be discussed for ANI, please feel free to unwrap the thread. HJ Mitchell's statement sums up the thread succinctly. – xeno talk  01:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Silverseren nevertheless raises an important point. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very troubled, that at this late point in time, after all the above input, Causa would write that he is unwilling to commit to following wikipedia core policies relating to wp:involved and not editing against consensus. That accords, of course, with his above-cited comments that what he did was absolutely right, and he would do it again in similar circumstances. Isn't it a basic requirement of being an admin that the sysop commit to upholding wiki policy? Furthermore, responding to Wikidemon, there seems to be a consensus agreement above that Causa abused his sysop tools by blocking me and topic-banning me for an edit that was so mild that when he took it out he didn't say "toxic emergency BLP violation (even though it is written by a highest-level RS and accords with other information already in the article)" – but rather reflected the mildness of what he was deleting by using the edit summary "trim". It's not perhaps the best form to turn on the victim, and ignore Causa's clear abuse of sysop tools and his clear refusal to follow wiki policy in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He did self-revert that last comment. I think Causa sui has been given a suitable amount of input as to how the community feels an administrator should comport themselves with respect to BLP concerns of this nature. In his defense, the policies and expectations for administrators with respect to BLP have been evolving fairly rapidly. The apparent discord between some of the various policies needs to be examined at a wider venue. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 01:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that there is consensus here that the block and topic ban for reverting a "trim" was inappropriate and an abuse of sysop tools. Without that being reflected in a formal close, it's not clear to me that Causa accepts that.  All Causa has said on this subject is that he was correct in blocking me and topic-banning me, even though he was involved, and in the same situation he would do it again.  If he is posturing, it is still unacceptable.  We would not let a police officer say he was correct to abuse his powers, and respond ... no worries, mate, I imagine you are just posturing, let's give you your billy club and let you out on the beat, and see if you pummel another citizen.  We would assume that he is honest, and that he tells the truth as to what he would do, and that if we were to send him out on the beat without clearer communication we are approving of his position.


 * Similarly, Causa said moments ago that he would not agree to follow wiki policies on wp:involved and consensus. He then deleted his statement.  But did not replace it with a statement agreeing to follow wiki policies.  Why did he delete his statement?  Because it was not true?  Nope.  Because, as he explained in his edit summary, it was "not helpful".  How can we allow an admin – even if we would like to imagine he is just "posturing" for ego purposes – to say "I refuse to commit to follow wiki policies"?  And say, that's fine.  No worries.  I'll just assume that you don't really mean that, proceed ....--Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then consider my below motion an invitation to a suitably uninvolved admin to prepare a closing summary in wrapping this up. (There is of course, Causa sui's offer to self-certify an RFCU if you desire to take this to further dispute resolution, but I would advise against it...) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 02:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s time to pick your hat off the dusty road between the saloons, Epeefleche, and mozy on back to the camp site for some harmonica music. Causa sui’s refusal to admit wrongdoing is something that speaks to his shortcomings. I predict he will toe the line now. If so, you win. If not, you win. The community is watching him now and his record will reflect these proceedings—at least, until he changes his wikipedian name again. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

motion to close
I tried wrappping the thread (it is unwrapped now), but still second Wehwalt and motion to close. If this comes up again, an RFCU may be in order, but there doesn't appear much left to do here. The BLP issues and conflicting policies need wider examination untangled from this thread. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can a non-admin second the motion for closure? If so, you got it with this post. I heard a distinct (*thiph*) sound as two fingers slapped across Causa sui’s wrist. Notwithstanding the natural desire by some for the ol’ Batmobile to drive over Causa sui, reverse, and do it again three or four more times, I think we’ve gone as far as we can reasonably expect to go with him this go-around. Greg L (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me get this right: no apology from Causa sui. No admission of wrongdoing. No closure. But you want to close. I believe substantive action needs to be taken for such a flagrant breach of WP:ADMIN. Tony   (talk)  02:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really must say, the nearest thing to an *official*, consensus-view conclusion came from HJ Mitchell in his 23:17, 20 April 2010 post. Which was as follows:




 * No rational reading of the consensus view here is that it supports Causa sui’s use (abuse) of sysop powers in this case or under similar circumstances. I too, find it wholly insufficient that Causa sui continues to act defiant in this matter and refuses to admit fault—or at least pledge to accede to the consensus view here. I think it appropriate expect a pledge from Causa sui to not do it again and see a modicum of contrition. I would be disappointed indeed, to find that anyone thinks this a paradigm showcase for how rogue admins are dealt with on Wikipedia. Failing clear evidence that Causa sui has taken any of this to heart, I suggest this matter be marked as unresolved rather than resolved. I accordingly strike my seconding the motion to close. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it is not fully resolved, but a consensus has emerged and this discussion has reached a natural conclusion. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still of the view that use of admin tools per se wasn't such a big deal--it was specifically the use of blocking that caused all the drama. If only page protection had been used (even in error), and ownership of the protection had been relinquished immediately, nobody would be anywhere near this upset (unless it kept happening).  So what if editing an article stops for a little while.  As the saying goes, there is no deadline. I'd like to know per the above if Causa Sui still thinks protection without blocking was somehow insufficient in this incident.  We want to leave open a strategy for admins to deal with this kind of situation in the future without fear of getting clobbered afterwards, taking into account that they know that their judgement won't necessarily be perfect.  The idea is if you're going to make a mistake, make one that's easy to undo.  Blocks cause drama because of how the record of a wrong block stays attached to a user.  By contrast, a day after a wrong brief article protection, nobody will remember it.  66.127.53.162 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally agree that if an involved admin must take action themselves (though this should rarely be the case), page protection should be preferred to blocking an established editor with whom you are involved in a dispute. This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Staying on point -- This concerns the use of admin tools to both block and also to impose a two-week topic ban. For an edit so uncontroversial that it was a revert of an edit the blocker had mildly termed "trim".  And it related to information consistent with other text already in the article about AA and the Christmas Day bomber -- this wasn't explosive new shocking BLP information, where some time-sensitive emergency required the sysop to ignore wp:involved and both block and topic-ban one of the editors with whom he had been edit-warring.  Abuse of sysop tools is a big deal per wp:admin, and this is a rather stark case of it, where the sysop refuses to agree to follow wiki guidelines even now.

The BLP exception to wp:involved does not permit a sysop to block and topic-ban an editor. It only allows for deletion of information, and even then only if it is not BLP-compliant.

The emergency exception to wp:involved is strictly limited to emergency situations that cannot be adjourned for discussion, and states quite clearly: "An administrator should not claim emergency unless there is a reasonable belief of a present and very serious emergency (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a user if not acted upon with administrative tools), and should immediately seek to describe and address the matter, but in such a case the action should not usually be reverted (and may be reinstated) until appropriate discussion has taken place." Well, that certainly was not the case here either. There was no reasonable belief of present and very serious emergency, by the revert of the "trim" edit, that required a block and a topic-ban. There was no effort by Causa to describe any such present and very serious emergency. There was an effort by Causa to chill discussion, not engage in it. Any effort to point to these two exceptions is completely baseless, as they are wholly inapplicable to the facts here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on recent developments, it would probably be best to take Causa sui up on his offer to self-certify a user conduct RFC. No new voices will appear at this subpage now that it has been swept under the rug. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That offer is still standing. At this point, I hope it gets escalated to Arbcom so they can clear up the confusion either way. --causa sui (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An arb case over this is complete overkill. I think discussion (here and at WT:BLP) is going in reasonable directions without such escalation. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As indicated in my above post, the wp:involved BLP exception authorizes only reverts (and even then, only in highly specific situations not present here). But this AN/I is not about Causa's revert.  It is about his block and his topic-ban.  There is no "confusion" that, for the aforesaid reasons, those actions on his part were wholly improper.  Let's not let him create a red herring argument to divert us from the issue at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree that it's overkill. I've already agreed to conduct myself differently in the future; what it seems that various people here want above and beyond that, and that I'm not willing to give, is an admission of error and an apology (or else voluntary relinquishment of my admin bits). Since various users criticizing my behavior (aside from you) seem to be unwilling in principle to engage with me in discussion about my confusion over the mixed messages in policy and Arbcom rulings, it seems that an Arbcom case is the only way to get that remedy. For my part, I want Arbcom to rule once and for all on the contradictions between the policy and their own rulings, so that this never happens again -- not just from me, but from anyone else who might have been similarly led astray. --causa sui (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the ArbCom doesn't set policy there is a limit to what their rulings can determine. They can say that BLP trumps all other policies, but their statement does not make it so. OTOH, as they are essentially the only body that can desysop an admin, they do effectively set the policy about which behaviors will lead to the loss of that status.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's correct, then I suppose there's not much use to an arbcom case here. --causa sui (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Motion in the matter of Causa sui
For misuse of administrative privileges by 1) an involved editor, 2) on a borderline BLP violation, 3) Issuing a block without appropriate warning, and 4) failing to admit the error of his actions, Causa sui is to be desysopped asked to relinquish his administrative tools:


 * Support
 * 1) Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I've made an amendment as a desysop motion at an ANI subpage is surely not binding. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whichever. If it educates the admin in question that he was, in fact, judged by the community to have abused the tools, and serves as evidence in a future ArbCom case should he ever be tempted to pull something like this again, that's as good an outcome as I reasonably expect. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per X!, this motion will likely be as effective as a chocolate teapot (it may make sense to change the final bit to "Causa sui is asked to relinquish the tools" or something (✅)); but if someone is unable to self-reflect and realize the error of their ways - despite about a dozen editors trying to hammer the point home, they should not hold the tools. Parties who have been following along at home will note this is a fairly marked change from my initial comment  when this started, where I suggested Causa sui would just need some counsel on appropriate recusal. But it unfortunately seems he is unwilling - or unable - to accept that there was a mistake made here. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per, he may be slowly coming around, it's just unfortunate that so much breath had to be expended. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd call that coming around. Blocking someone in retaliation and then hiding behind BLP is not a "procedural concern". Gigs (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I was just about to come here to tweak that. Not so much "coming around" but at least agreeing not to use the block button for similar situations. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While it took longer than I would have liked, along with their earlier commitments not to use blocking in similar situations is sufficient for me to withdraw my support for the motion. This still appears to be a very isolated incident in an otherwise productive administrators' history.  – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) He clearly does not listen to reason (is immune to social pressure) and appears to exhibit the hallmarks of a loose cannon. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I've made an amendment as a desysop motion at an ANI subpage is surely not binding. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above.  This needs to be in a more public place if anyone wants to claim that it represents consensus. Gigs (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Representative government at work. Let’s first see how the editors and admins who have laboriously suffered through the detailed blow-by-blow feel and then submit it to the wider Wikipedian community if the consensus here is ‘support.’ Greg L (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I've made an amendment as a desysop motion at an ANI subpage is surely not binding. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes: there are valid points on both sides. I would not have blocked, and would have apologised for the stress and disruption caused even if I was right to block since there are less disruptive ways to achieve the same result. OTOH Causa sui has maintained consistency against strong opposition, which shows character - which is available for productive uses; Causa sui has participated in the debate; Cs has been shown to have not been completely isolated on the underlying policy issue; the notorious trim edit does not disprove a BLP motivation underlying all these edits; I feel that policy will shift over time to support a much stricter BLP policy here, which Cs is picking up the vibes of; I think that all or nothing solutions are destructive and a clear decision from an authoratitive body criticising Cs would be just as effective. However until Cs understands the cause of the flare up, a voluntary suspension of sysop activities would be worthwhile. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe the block was a rash mistake that clearly was influenced by personal feelings and not just policy, as the user was deeply involved in the matter. However, this alone would be fixable, except the user refuses to apologize or take any responsibility for their actions and has even stated that they would do it again if the same situation arose. This lack of understanding about what they did wrong makes me feel like this user will make further mistakes in the future and abuse their admin tools, perhaps in an even worse way. I feel that it would be better for this user to relinquish their tools now and continue editing as a normal editor. They work well with Wikipedia, I just don't feel that they work well with the power given to them and I do not want to see a big mess form in the future that ends with people being permanently blocked or leaving the project, because that would hurt all of us.  Silver  seren C 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you would have gone before me. I would have written “per Silverseren.” Greg L (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) (ec) Silver seren pretty much sums up what I was going to say.  I'm reluctantly supporting this, as I feel that User:Greg L, and to some extent User:Epeefleche has a serious misunderstanding of the BLP policies, and Greg L seems to behave in a quite uncivil manner at times, which did not help the situation.  That said, the fact that causa sui refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong is very disturbing. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm revising this - "serious" is far too strong. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Revise again, with apologies to Epeefleche, after fully reading the exchange on the article's talk page, he seems to have a good grasp of BLP. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) For all the reasons stated above.  I would add (and suggest the proposal be amended to add) that Causa admitted his involvement, the "BLP violation" exception in wp:involved only allows (in legitimate cases; not ones such as this) reverts (not blocks and topic bans), Causa did not only abuse his sysop tools by issuing a block but also by that same day issuing a 2-week topic ban, and Causa has after all this community input also refused to commit to edit in accordance with wiki guidelines of wp:involved and consensus in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I would not be so concerned if there had been an understanding by Causa sui of why there is such a problem, or an apology to the editor he abused. But we have neither of these. He is therefore manifestly unsuitable as an admin. If he does not voluntarily relinquish adminship, this should go straight to ArbCom or to a steward for that purpose. Tony   (talk)  00:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support barring an apology from him to Epeefleche and a recusal from the AA article for a reasonable period. Reminder that this is about Causa's flagrant breach of WP:ADMIN. His offence is compounded by his continuing to hide behind his 'It is still unclear from my reading of WP:BLP what I've done wrong', which I find unacceptable.   Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Clear abuse of tools; whether or not there was a BLP-issue is a completely different question. Involved admins should never take any action (if necessary, ask a different admin). Failure to apologize or admit the mistake made things worse. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Clear abuse of tools and BLP rules. I've seen this use of BLP and throwing away perfectly good sources to cover for up for murderers before on WP. This precisely the sort of obvious deletion of an opposing (and dominant in mainstream news coverage) POV that should justify a ban rather than using bans to enforce his POV. WP is not the place to delete statements published by the New York Times and Washington Post because he believes they might not be correct. He seems oddly more concerned about protecting the good name of a man that Obama felt dangerous enough to sign his death warrant even if he doesn't have the spine to call Awlaki a terrorist, and a man who obviously advised Hasan to shoot as many soldiers as he could get away with in the name of Islam. Causa should be perfectly capable of quoting Islamists who doubt US intelligence officials rather than just deleting their statements in the mainstream press. Many people out there are sure (or ar lying when they say they are sure) that Islam and Al Queda had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and that Nidal Hasan was a patriotic American who was never interested in politics and guns (which for the rest of us is a red flag that they're just symphathetic to terrorism and lying about it) It's not a matter what an editor's point of view is, it's whether he can quote reliable or at least notably unreliable Al Queda sympathetic sources such as Al Jazeera and Revolution Muslim to establish whether claims from mainstream US press or government are exaggerated or mere "propoganda" to cover up that Mossad and Israel were really responsible for "false flag" operations such as 9/11, USS Cole, Fort Hood, and the Underbomber, currently filed in WP under "conspiracy theories" and "9/11 truth" . Perhaps there should be an "Awlaki truth" section to better document the statements of Awlaki supporters which are all over the web and youtube, but they should not be allowed to delete sourced, reliable statements from his detractors. Bachcell (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Clear misuse of sysop tools. Maybe he did it because he believed that all of his actions were done as part of his adminship, as other pointed in the "neutral" section. But thats just mean that his judgment is totaly flawed and he's not qualified to continue as a sysop any longer.--Gilisa (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. The action was doh-inducing, but I wrote it off as temporary pebkac. The complete refusal to admit that he's wrong or understand there's even a problem? I simply can't trust his judgment. Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI cannot desysop an admin. ( X! ·  talk )  · @875  · 20:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (Striking due to amendment)
 * Oppose
 * Disclaimer: If the proposal is changed to "asked to relinquish tools", I will reconsider my vote. ( X! ·  talk )  · @913  · 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure we can--while the various processes to do so have been being debated for months, it's clearly within ArbCom's purview to review and act upon community consensus, should such be forthcoming in this case. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that the results of this straw poll could be useful to Arbcom in the event that a case is opened with respect to my admin conduct. --causa sui (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I've made an amendment as a desysop motion at an ANI subpage is surely not binding. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Premature and excessive. Causa sui is continuing to engage in reasonable discussion about alternative approaches to this sort of problem. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)  Added: I am satisfied by this. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — 66.127.53.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note I've made an amendment as a desysop motion at an ANI subpage is surely not binding. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I've been looking at the article since before all this started, and have been saying all along that Causa's action was unwise. But it doesn't rise to the level of desysopping. I agree with most of what Stephen B Streater says above. As he too noted, the extent and nature of Causa's prior involvement in the article is unclear.  If everything he did is considered administrative enforcement of BLP,  WP:UNINVOLVED does not arise.  Causa now has said in his second comment  that the action was pragmatically wrong and he will not do the same in the future.  Enough for me.John Z (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what he said at all. He said that he'd use page protection only to not have to go through the headache of ANI. That's not a change of heart in the slightest. And he then said "so in the future if I find myself in similar circumstances, I probably won't hesitate to use sysop tools to enforce BLP". He hasn't changed his mind in the slightest with that comment, all he said was, 'I suppose next time i'll protect the page to make sure i'm not reported to ANI and then i'll still make my changes. Oh, and i'll still use my tools to enforce things, even if the BLP concern is debatable, since I have policy and other admins backing me up, because they do it too.' How is that a change of heart, of mind, or anything even close to an apology? Silver  seren C 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. You might have misunderstood. I didn't intend to communicate "I'll protect the page so I don't get reported to ANI." I meant to communicate "I'll protect the page, remove the offending content, and go to ANI for second opinions/blocks." As for my state of mind, you're more or less right, though I wouldn't have put it quite that way. I'm currently engaged in discussion with our anonymous friend, who is making a heroic effort to help me understand the error of my ways. --causa sui (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, I did not say that Causa had a change of heart, or apologized - that is really his and Epeefleche's business. I am more concerned with what will happen in the future, and he seems to agree that protection would be a better use of sysop tools. Causa replied to two people in that diff, I was referring to the second reply, to 66.127.53.162.John Z (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardoning my French, this is utter bullshit... locking the page on 'his version' and working on it to his own liking would equally be a breach of the policy (WP:UNINVOLVED) which Causa is under fire for. He has learned squat and should relinquish his tools until he has written out the full content of WP:ADMIN one hundred times. ;-) Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You’re pointing to the *naughty* part, Ohconfucius. But I don’t believe that’s why this motion was advanced. Because after Epeefleche’s block was reversed and the admin community slapped the offending admin upside the head, nearly all other editors in that position would have admitted their boo-boo and everyone would have rolled up their sleeves and gone back to what is supposed to be a fun hobby. The part many of us are having great difficulty with is Causa sui’s intransigence and insistence he’d do it again under similar circumstances. Really?? Why is he not listening? I believe Causa sui feels his sysop powers are effectively an entitlement and he doesn’t need to listen to his peers. His exceedingly biased enforcement of the rules and his inability to see anything wrong with his recent behavior presages deeper problems here. Doing nothing about it would violate a worldview of mine that leaders shall govern only with the consent of the governed. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you know the "I'd do it again" statement is a bit out of date at this point. --causa sui (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oh pooh. The only admin who has never made a mistake on Wikipedia is me. All others are perfectly fallible. You can draw any kind of curve you want through one data point, is there a pattern of problems? If not, no request to relinquish is necessary, Causa sui can surely craft a much better noose all on their own. Franamax (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This is idiotic. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't think this is idiotic and the unwillingness to take feedback gracefully is concerning but proposing to demand an admin's bit on a subpage isn't going to fly as subpages don't get the traffic and wider scrutiny that the main page gets. Personally I think an admin RFC is a better way of handling this. Spartaz Humbug! 05:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Count this as a weak oppose. I have not looked into Causa sui's other administrative work, the details of of contrition in this case, or the claim that CS is being disingenuous about what happened.  Rather, I would give every administrator - like every editor - the benefit of the doubt that they are competent, well-motivated, and trying to do the right thing.  And some room for mistakes and disagreement.  The specific matter at hand, a bad block, is nothing to lose sleep over.  Bad blocks can be undone, as this one was.  Everyone makes mistakes.  CS does not believe it was wrong but agrees to avoid this in the future.  Why is that not enough?  Collaboration here requires only that we honor consensus and agree to abide by policy, not that we have to agree in our heart of hearts that the outcome is right.  It's like speeding on the road.  If I pay my fine I keep my license... if I don't speed again I don't get another ticket.  I don't have to pledge that I think the speed limit is right, most of them aren't.  Put yourself in CS's position, I think they've dealt with this more than enough.  If this comes up again soon we can revisit, but for now, unless there's some deeper issue that goes far beyond the obvious facts of this matter, I don't see anything to be gained by a de-sysop or prolonged debate.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ' Oppose' - He was overly involved as so should not have used his tools, although policy was perhaps in support of him removing the content at that time... Striking my oppose and moving to neutral as I do think he should not have used his tools. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Acted as he thought policy allowed him to.  The very fact that policy had to be changed argues for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As indicated in the above discussion, the record reflects that he acted in a way he thought policy did not allow him to act. Also, it is clear from the discussion that the consensus is that policy did not allow him to act that way.  The policy did not "have to be changed".  It was changed to squeeze out the possibility of further baseless assertions that it allowed a sysop in an edit war, who admitted to heavy involvement (and noted how that impeded his use of his sysop tools), to block and topic ban an editor for reverting the sysop's "trim" of a quote from an article in the Washington Post that was in accord with other material already in the article (and therefore not controversial).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * 1) Though I believe that Causa sui has abused his administrative privileges, this motion overlooks the real problem, which is the policy that enabled him.  Rami  R  21:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've touched on a key point - being an administrator is a privilege ie not a right. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now. Causa sui lacks understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Coaching or mentoring about this and any related issues might be appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) -- Elaborating: Causa sui appears to believe that everything he(?) did with the article was as an admin, that he was never editorially involved. See, and .  Maurreen (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) -- Update: Now that I have further information from both sides, I see that Causa sui's stance about WP:INVOLVED is inconsistent and confusing at best. Regardless, I agree that he has shown poor judgment in multiple ways. Even if he says he might act differently if a similar situation arises in the future, it's not clear that he would recognize a similar situation. On the other hand, as far as I know, this is his first abuse or misuse of the tools. If it were up to me, at this point I would put him on some type of supervised probation. Maurreen (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd. He misleadingly implies in those diffs that his only "involvement" was in talk page discussion.  While the truth is that he was heavily involved in rapidly editing the article (so much so that a 3RR string was brought discussing his edit warring and 3RR violations, and the talk page discussion that he was involved in was about his non-consensus edits).
 * Furthermore, and even more important, is his incredulous suggestion that he did not realize he was involved. Consider the following.  He had wp:involved quoted to him, and was told that if he were to use sysop tools in the editing dispute that would be a violation of the guidance.  The next day, he seemed to have a fine understanding of the applicability of the guidance to the matter, and did not suffer from any confusion at all as to the fact that he was involved--and it's relevance to using sysop tools.  For he wrote: "I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant". (emphasis added).  The following day, he used his sysop tools to block me and to topic ban me.  And on top of that, he has had the "guidance" of various sysops and other editors on this page and the block page over the past week on this issue.  Given his statements, this doesn't appear at all to be a lack of understanding.  It appears to be a refusal to follow wiki guidelines, which is consistent with his past statement about willfully refusing to follow them, and his more recent refusal to commit to following them.  I don't see how we can tolerate a sysop who willfully violates and refuses to follow wiki guidelines.  That would seem to be the barest minimum requirement to wield the mop.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to Maurreen: Even if we AGF (but I think he already passed this point) and even if he was acting out of strong believe that he's only doing his work as an admin-there is still a severe, and lasting, problem of judgment. Wikipedia policy regarding admins consider it similar to misuse of admin power when it comes to a discussion of taking sysop tools away.--Gilisa (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have both probably misunderstood the nature of my discussion with the anonymous editor. I don't have any confusion about whether I was involved in "any capacity" in that dispute. The question I was discussing was much more technical, ie, the distinction between involvement in an editorial and an administrative capacity, and where the line is drawn. I think it was more academic than substantive, and does not bear directly on this issue. --causa sui (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are straining credulity past its breaking point. You stated, the day before you applied both the block and the topic ban, that you were hesitant to do so because you were directly involved.  Had you only been involved in an admin capacity, that would have caused you no pause.  That statement reflected your clear-eyed recognition that to do so would be contrary to policy.  Furthermore, your heavy editing of the article -- which had yielded a 3RR discussion about your edit warring and editing against consensus, and a talk page discussion of same -- reflected clear direct involvement as well.  Your suggestions at the BLP talk page discussion that this was Kafaesque for you because [you imply] what you were involved in was talk page discussion is, quite frankly, duplicitous.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen. Clearly an admin should not use a block to further his side in an edit war. In this case, he should seek arbitration from another admin. Epeefleche has shown only the highest integrity as far as I've been able to see in what appears to be a continuing cyber-jihad being waged against articles which expose jihad and its warriors for what they are. Given the serious nature of the crimes this Awlaki has been accused of, and likely committed, we should err on the side that will save the MOST lives given that this character is already indirectly responsible for his role in the deaths in Fort Hood, 9/11, attempted underbombing, and countless plots. If they want to say that the US government and Zionist-dominated press are wrong, then quote notable sources which say that. Don't simply erase statements by the government (and Awlaki himself) that this guy is almost certainly a terrorist. Bachcell (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral both the initial actions as well as further comments cause me concern about this editor continuing to have the tools. However I'd be more comfortable measuring community consensus in a reconfirmation RFA, or at least an RFC.  --Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement
I did what I did because I sincerely believed the policy explicitly authorized me to do it. I was confused by the massive response that I got because the policy, and some arbcom rulings, so explicitly authorized it that I assumed that everyone criticizing my behavior must have been mistaken about the policy. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the policy was simply out of alignment with community expectations, and so I have amended the policy per the suggestions of others to bring it into alignment with those expectations. I agree on those grounds, because my finger was more on the pulse of the text of the policy and not the wider community expectation, that my beliefs about the policy -- which motivated my action -- were in error. Consequently, my action was in error. Therefore, I agree to abide by the policy as it now stands amended. --causa sui (talk)


 * Very sad, admin who is not willing to admit or see his mistake and ranting about his self rightness. All of the rest is not new. I think you don't only misused your sysop tools, but that you abused the policy. Strange that you didn't even bother to leave edit summaries after you repeatedly removed content from the articles. It just show your confidence that if you have an admin tag, so you don't even have to bother about adding edit summary. Fortunately, the polishing you gave to your actions wasn't that good-and anyone could see the trick. I believe that wikipedia have to be harsh in such cases of sysop tools misused. So far, it failed to do so.--Gilisa (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * AGF is a rebuttable presumption. It does not survive, even after an editor demonstrates bad faith.  Causa's duplicity here is troubling.  Contrary to what he now would have us believe, he did not believe policy authorized him to do it.  How do we know?  Because policy was quoted to him 2 days before the block.  And he was warned that if he used sysop tools in his heated edit war it would be a violation of policy.  Did Causa respond by saying: "I believe that policy authorizes me to do it?"  Absolutely not.  Precisely the opposite.  He wrote:  "I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant". (emphasis added).  And then, the next day, for my reverting his "trim", he blocked me and topic banned me.  Even in the most recent discussion at the BLP page yesterday, and despite the above, he duplicitously said that he did not realized that he was "involved" in a manner that bore on whether he could use sysop tools.  Plus--for reasons discussed on the BLP talkpage--in no way did the policy as written exonerate his block and topic ban in a heated edit dispute over a "trim" that did not involve controversial facts, but rather statements that were in line with what was already in the article.


 * He is again seeking to mislead with ex post facto balderdash. His non-apology apology still maintains that he was right, and everyone else was wrong.  Ugh.  He has completely lost my trust, and I find his efforts to mislead the editors here to be unsavory.  His actions and statements after the block have only reinforced my going-in impression that his low opinion of consensus and the requirement that he follow wiki rules are incompatible with his wielding the mop.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can do much better than admit error and agree to do it differently from here forward. If you still want your pound of flesh, arbcom is the place to get it. --causa sui (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon? Pound of flesh!? do you imply something?--Gilisa (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Causa. Well, you haven't admitted your error.  Admitting your error would read something like this:  "I admit that I erred in not editing in accordance with wp:involved and in accordance with consensus, and I commit to doing so in the future."  It would be helpful to hear you say that, without any misleading or untrue qualifiers.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have no interest in any sort of a "pound of flesh". I do want to see administrators fundamentally understand that blocking established editors for borderline and debatable violations is never a good idea: the "punishment should fit the crime" is a core principle of justice, and "blocks are not punitive" is a core principle of Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I should mention that I did not consider the violations to be borderline. That's problematic, because it's difficult to establish in policy where exactly to draw the line between "clear" and "borderline." If that gives you an uneasy feeling about my judgment, I think my agreement to use page protection in lieu of blocking should help. --causa sui (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Aw gee, given that this discussion has been going on for days without reaching a conclusion, it is difficult to say that Cs was totally out of line. I suggest we close this.  The point of taking action against people here is not punishment anyway, it is to prevent disruption to the project.  Cs has indicated he will deal with it differently in future; no one likes three or four days of your behavior being under the microscope.  That's a fine deterrent.  Let's end this, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion has in fact yielded broad consensus that C violated wp:admin. He still denies that.  And has made stark misrepresentations in an effort to sway editors.  Those characteristics:  brazen refusal to follow wiki policies, refusal to admit violations of policy, engaging in misrepresentations -- are all ones that are not on our "I hope my admins are like this" list.  The conversation at this AN/I has turned from consensus disapproval of his breach of wp:admin, to consensus loss of confidence in C as an admin.  As to what C likes or doesn't like, we can't pretend to know.  But certainly an editor who has a problem agreeing to uphold wiki guidelines has motivations and "likes" that differ from most of us.  I imagine every other editor here would have said "of course", if asked that question, rather than -- days later -- saying no.  Who knows; perhaps he is a philosophy student who enjoys Plato's-Republic-like debates.  Anyway, that's irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Agree with Wehwalt. There's no consensus here, and no real pattern of behaviour.  Given that 1. Cs has agreed that his actions were out of line with community consensus; 2. The BLP policy has been strengthened to be more in line with that consensus; 3. Cs has agreed to abide by the new wording of the policy; I say we let this drop.  If Epeefleche (who was blocked improperly) feels that this is not adequate, ArbCom should be where this is continued. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, keep in mind that had an uninvolved admin come in, he still might of blocked Epeefleche, not saying he would have, saying it is possible. I would say that continuing this discussion does not benefit the project in any way.  Time to end it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Keep in mind as well that I might be a cross-dressing purple kangaroo leaning on a keyboard.  Not saying I am.  Saying it is possible.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While it would have been better if we'd got here a while ago, we're here now. The lesson has been learned, Causa sui has recognised that consensus is not with him, the policy is amended. I think we should wrap this, there's only dramah to be gained by keeping going. If the affected party wants to take it further, that's up to them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm almost ready to agree now. We've had a thorough explanation. Causa sui has proposed a new course of action which will avoid problems like this in future. One important thing missing is an apology from Causa sui for misjudging the disproportionate effect of his actions on everyone here (and in particular Epeefeche). Otherwise I suspect it's Live by the sword and Die by the sword, and we'll end up in Arbcom. As a fresh Admin candidate today, I doubt community approval would be forthcoming. WP:IAR only annoys people, as I've found for myself. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in forced apologies; a forced apology and three bucks buys you a latte at Starbucks. As for the RFA argument, any admin who has made a controversial decision that attracted opposition would be in the same shoes.  Probably I would be.  Probably half the admin corps would be.  There's nothing left to discuss.  Let's wrap it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehwalt, there is no need to press or demand an apology from Causa sui if he is not ready to offer it of his own volition. His statement of culpability above is enough for me (though I understand that Epefleeche may be left wanting). Sometimes best to move on, though. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm vegetarian, not looking for any pound of flesh (sorry for disappointing Shakespeare). I hope that CS have internalized something from this AN/I (although I doubt it).--Gilisa (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: I've never demanded an apology from Causa.  A number of other editors suggested that he apologize, and he has not done so.  So be it.  If he were to apologize, anyway, it would likely be watered down to where it would mean nothing.  I'm (still) not demanding an apology.  I understand that for him to apologize would cause him more pain than it would cause me pleasure.  So I've not put him in a position that he would find so difficult.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokes Causa sui. Quoting you: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the policy was simply out of alignment with community expectations, and so I have amended the policy per the suggestions of others to bring it into alignment with those expectations. No, it is not a matter that everything you did was per Wikipedia guidelines. You flouted the rules to have your way and now offer up a lame explanation about how the community just didn’t understand the rules that you had keen insight into. OMG!

Epeefleche wrote that you deleted the text in the article mentioning that AA was noted for actively working to kill Americans. His last significant edit was to restore text you deleted (your ∆ here) and his reversion made a paragraph read as follows:

According unnamed U.S. officials, "Christmas-Day" bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab implicated al-Awlaki in some elements of planning or preparing for his failed attack. According to an unnamed U.S. official al-Awlaki is "working actively to kill Americans", and President Obama has authorized his targeted killing.

References

So let’s go look at the Washington Post citation. Why, right there in the Washington Post it says precisely that: "He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." Accordingly, "working actively to kill Americans" is factual, germane, notable, and properly cited. Though it could reasonably be argued that it was not BLP-complieant, it clearly was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.

BLP at Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material at that time stated that Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material

Also, Administrators states that In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

Clearly what Epeefleche wrote can not be considered blatant vandalism. And why do I focus on that word, “vandalism ”? Because 1) You coyly removed that text with an edit summary of “(trim)” when you last removed it. Then, when Epeefleche restored it (contempt of Causa sui), 2) You blocked him, leaving a tag where the words “abuse of editing privilege” linked to Vandalism. Then…

You ignored a clear requirement of Wikipedia blocking policy, here, which requires that “Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked.” Far from it, you only left a threat on his talk page stating I am not interested in discussing this matter with you (or anyone else) on this page anymore. Well, I’m sorry Your Highness, I was hoping you might not act so imperious and—you know—enlighten the little people as you reserve exclusive right to decide what goes and stays in the article. You see, you had also told Epeefleche he was topic banned for two weeks.

Now… I don’t believe you have yet served up an explanation to the community to these two questions:


 * 1) If the offending text was “vandalism” per BLP (in your view), why did you hide your deletion of it with a coy edit designed to not draw attention “(trim)”, and not something like “this is blatant vandalism, final warning”?
 * 2) Why is it your attentions were focused exclusively on Epeefleche and saw fit to “trim” (later characterized as “vandalism”) a quote from a U.S. government official that was cited to The Washington Post, yet you saw no need to “trim” a contribution from Fell Gleaming (which was also prominently right there in the lead) which falsely characterized a quote from an op-ed piece wherein that author was trying to make a case for how the U.S. government’s targeting of al-Awlaki was unwise? Why this extraordinarily selective attention to the contributions of just one editor?

Please answer these two questions. Lots of electronic white space is provided below.

I personally think your protestations here, where you say you were right to do what you did and would do it again, and how Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies—which you so religiously followed and have such keen insight into the true meaning that somehow escapes the comprehension of your peers; and how it is “becoming increasingly clear to” you “that the policy was simply out of alignment with community expectations” is all quite telling. It tells me that you deserve no assumption of good faith here because the WP:COMMONESENSE answer to points #1 and #2 above show that you were A) simply editwarring with Epeefleche, B) didn’t appreciate his “contempt of cop” wherein he was persistently reverting you to do what he thought was perfectly appropriate, and C) you thought you could ignore rules about even-handed enforcement of our guidelines by focusing only on Epeefleche, who was the only editor there adding content that was at odds with your wishes, and D) thought you could ignore highly inconvenient rules pertaining to blocking and explaining yourself because you you believed you could abuse Epeefleche, and E) you could do this under the ‘color of authority’ and do so with impunity.

Please explain to me why the above-mentioned impression is false. And please also explain why the community must should be required to suffer through a long-term “pattern” of this behavior from you before you are de-sysoped. It seems to me to be quite clear from your continued defiance and misrepresentations that you are wholly unsuitable to retain sysop powers. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * tl:dr, except for the last sentence which is pretty outrageous. What pattern? This is one incident, based on Causa sui's (mis)understanding of a new policy, and his persistence in applying it (he does seem to be a persistent soul). Everyone is entitled to make a mistake from time to time - this one didn't result in a massive pileup on the Ventura Freeway, and nobody died in the OR. Time to give it a rest I think.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read instead of saying tl:dr the allegation of a pattern is explained. Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Extremely experienced editor who is also under the obligations of a sysop and still edit this way for 3-4 days, removing content, avoid discussion or explenations and so forth. Even if it's all the result of misunderstanding and severe lack of ability to acknowledge this misunderstanding, is still expected to be able to apologize -and to do it fast. If he/she didn't, then this is surely a negative indicator--Gilisa (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I didn’t mean it that way. Now clarified. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, I have struck comment above. I disagree that it warrants extreme measures for one 'offence', but I appreciate that your view varies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I got edit conflicted about 650 times. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The AN/I (which, admittedly, is long) provides diffs reflecting a series of independent misrepresentations and misstatements by Causa, in the wake of his block and topic ban, including yesterday at the BLP page and in his non-apology apology above. If you would like me to provide them all in one place (either on this page or another), I'll be happy to.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do believe that this isn't much of an apology, more of a "I'm sorry that I followed the rules" apology. But, this discussion has gone on long enough. If Causa had agreed to follow the policies as they now stand, I suppose that has to be good enough. The community should still keep a close eye on him now and my advice to Causa is that you should either stay out of intense debates on articles about content or go into them fully understanding that you are going in as an editor and not an admin. The tools are not there to be used as threats to get your way and what you believe to be right over everyone else. The tools are a gift, a gift that can be taken away, so please try and use then in a wiser manner than you have shown so far. If other people feel that there should be more community-wide involvement or discussion in this matter, please take it to the proper venues. Silver  seren C 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is no established litmus test defining the threshold for de-sysopping. I see that some editors have written here—as if it is etched in stone—that there must be a “pattern” of misconduct to merit de-sysopping. That might be their feelings, but that is not a requirement of any sort. The best description of the proper metric meriting de-sysopping comes from Requests for de-adminship. That page begins with this:

I find that to be the key here: “ensure that admins have the continued support of the community ”. The Wikipedian community simply doesn’t have to labor with Causa sui editing with sysop powers if it doesn’t feel he is up to the task. The community granted him his sysop powers and the community may revoke them if it has lost confidence in his abilities to properly discharge his duties. It’s simple: leaders shall govern only with the consent of the governed. Greg L (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I expect Causa sui to answer my two questions, enumerated in my 17:55, 22 April post, above. We have yet to hear from him on these uncomfortable truths, which are exceedingly germane to this discussion. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary should have been more descriptive. As for the vandalism template, that was likely a result of me hitting the wrong option on a pull-down menu in Twinkle; a mistake I didn't notice until now. As for why I removed dubious negative content but not dubious positive content, I think that is in line with the BLP policy -- it's the negative content that gets the strongest scrutiny. If you want to talk about that further, I think we should do it on the relevant talk page. --causa sui (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the quote from the Washington Post wasn't dubious. Or controversial.  It was in line with like information already in the article, re the Christmas Day bomber.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to details without a particular diff (it's hard to keep track of what exactly we're talking about, since there were so many), but my general thinking on the subject was to get everything questionable out and figure out later what should go back in and how. At the time, what I was expecting to have happen was that some people would probably object, we'd figure it out on the talk page, I'd eventually be shown to be wrong about some of them, and where I was wrong the content would go back in. Instead we wound up stuck in a revert war and the rest is history. --causa sui (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest, Epeefleche, that you not get bogged down on a technical point that can be argued over. The issue here is Causa sui not listening to his peers. To Causa sui: your excuse for leaving an innocuous edit summary of “(trim)” belies the clear reason for your having done so. Yes, you should have left a more descriptive edit summary. The most common-sense explanation for your conduct is enumerated in A) through E), above. I see no evidence to suggest that your clear pattern of behavior is simply the product of the keen insight you had into Wikipedia guidelines and policies that magically escapes the rest of the community; particularly that your application of the policies was so magically selective. Many of us here are grandfather-aged adults who’ve been around the block a few times and didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. It is clear what was going on because it is simply impossible to connect the dots from the available evidence in a way that points to any other plausible scenario to explain your conduct. The only satisfactory explanation from you is that “I’m sorry; I got wrapped up in editwarring and abused my authority and won’t do it again.” I don’t think you have the capacity to muster that one. And short of that, I don’t think the notion of allowing you to retain your sysop privileges receives the “continued support of the community”; not this piece of the community, anyway. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've made your opinion abundantly clear. --causa sui (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting I should cease doing so here? Greg L (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure that keeping on saying it is doing you any favours. In my experience, the more and longer texts that an editor puts up, the less others read.  I don't think this is going to go anywhere, it is likely that people will just stop responding. I think you or others need to start an action elsewhere if you want something to happen.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting you: I think you or others need to start an action elsewhere if you want something to happen. Yes. You are clearly correct. Causa sui is not going to voluntarily relinquish sysop powers; I think most of us knew that going into this straw poll once it began. However, the views of the community that suffered through the details of this blow-by-blow will likely factor significantly into further proceedings. Note too that I wouldn’t be starting any of those future proceedings, just as I didn’t start this ANI or the straw poll imbedded into to it; someone else will have to take that initiative. In the mean time, my view is that the poll should continue until it there is no further interest in it. As for this particular thread, which was started by Causa sui to explain his conduct, the effort didn’t, IMO, serve him well. So… back to Motion in the matter of Causa sui so we can be done with this. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't we all calm down and have a cuppa? Causa sui, your interpretation of the policy is not necessarily incorrect as pertains to the content of the article and, as I said above (before this was moved to a subpage), it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. However, what everybody here is taking issue with is your use of administrative tools in a situation in which you were involved. Let's ignore the specifics for now. There is (or was) a content dispute on the article and its talk page in which you were involved ("involved" is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of your actions). In that kind of situation, no matter how certain you are that your action is justified, you should be aware that other people, in this case the recipient of the block, might not be so certain. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, you should seek wider input, for example at ANI where administrators who can see things from a 3rd part point of view can take the appropriate action. If you'd just agree that you were mistaken and undertake to hold to the above in future, then we can close this down, courtesy blank it and all move on to doing something more productive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What does “courtesy blank” mean? Greg L (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To replace the text of this page with courtesy blanked (leaving the history in place). – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm… Courtesy_blanking states that courtesy blanks are generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation. I don’t recall any incidences involving me having ended with courtesy blanking—though I may be mistaken on that point of fact. Is that something we do if an ANI involves an admin? Greg L (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why HJ Mitchell suggested that. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps HJ Mitchell considered the abject failure of the efforts of so many other editors here to encourage Causa to admit that he breached wp:admin. Something Causa still maintains, even today, he did not do. And perhaps HJ Mitchell tried to think of a "carrot" to coax Causa along. But yes, I agree with xeno. I think that a blanking of this would be discourteous to those editors who may have need to look at Causa's record in the future. Just as Causa changing his name twice impeded my effort to see what similar disputes he was engaged in in the past.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, what is the point of this discussion? Cs feels he was right, you disagree.  The rule's been changed and Cs has agreed to act accordingly.  If all that is left is to seek a mea culpa from Cs, why don't you take it to his talk page.  This seems utterly pointless.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The problem is that he feels he was right, even when shown by the community that he was wrong, which implies that an event such as this could happen again. This is why everyone is concerned, as Causa shows little remorse for what he did. Silver  seren C 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the statement I made above should pretty clearly repudiate any persistent rumors that he "feels he was right". --causa sui (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Silverseren; his explanation serves as a good nutshell of where we are. To that point, it seems, events have developed—via the above Motion in the matter of Causa sui (an unofficial straw poll)—to see if Causa sui’s retention of sysop privileges enjoys the continued support of the community. I didn’t start that motion but I did register my opinion in it. I agree wholeheartedly with Wehwalt that a clear “mea culpa” might turn the tide here.  Greg L (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (I don't disagree with Wehwalt, though) It seems to be quite common at AfD and even the odd RfA once it has outlived its immediate use and I thought it might save Causa sui some embarrassment since the content wouldn't show up in search engines while still being viewable in the history. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not after a pound of flesh and I'm not trying to force Causa sui to eat humble pie. We should just be seeking the most amicable resolution possible so we can all move on. My apologies for the jargon. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blanking the page is most definitely not the way to go. Starting a precedent such as blanking pages that concern admins in a negative way would have very bad aftereffects. We aren't here to cover-up information. Nothing said in this discussion was about real life or any threat therein, so blanking is not necessary. This discussion has been entirely about Causa's actions on Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Silver seren. This discussion needs to be available going forward, unless Causa sui wants to relinquish the tools "under a cloud" which would require an RfA reconfirmation.  Allow me to point out that local sentiment is still strongly in favor of such a relinquishment, despite his statement, and that those who are neutral or oppose such an outcome are far from endorsing Causa sui's actions. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * JClemens raises an important point here. Reading through the rationales (where they are presented) of the neutral and oppose voters indicates that some took their positions for technical reasons (e.g., this page should be posted elsewhere), or actually stated that Causa improperly used his sysop tools in an editing dispute, or even -- in the case of our IP friend -- turned out to be an SPA that curiously dropped out of the sky to edit heavily this page and the related BLP noticeboard page re: Causa's actions ... and edit little else on all of wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time you've made thinly-veiled allegations of sock puppetry against me. I suggest you make a sock check request. --causa sui (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, who the sockmaster is if it is a sock. I don't know.  But it is curious to me that the IP drops in out of nowhere, and heavily edits this AN/I and the BLP discussion (a discussion I didn't even notice till he was all over it).  And is so on top of this one matter that he is the first opposer to notice this !vote, among the oppose !voters.  And edits little if anything else.  Of all the pages on wp, he lands at these two pages.  I don't know.  Maybe its just a coincidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nthing this. I see no reason to blank this page. --causa sui (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum, after my initial remarks where I stated my opinion that the article had severe BLP issues, user Epeefleeche felt it necessary to visit my talk page with retaliatory threats for speaking up, which may help to shed some light on the types of behavior Causa Sui was struggling against in this situation. There was a regrettable lapse of basic understanding of BLP policy, and one or two regular editors of that article refused to see sense on the matter. I myself have no real "dog in the hunt", here, as I only visited the article after it was posted to the BLP noticeboard. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Epeefleche sent me an email, stating that my above statement suggesting that another admin might have done the same thing was "improper" and asking me to redact it, which I did not do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. In an effort to spare wikidrama and allow Wehwalt the opportunity to reconsider and  correct his baseless statement, I emailed Wehwalt the following:  "Responding to 'keep in mind that had an uninvolved admin come in, he still might of blocked Epeefleche, not saying he would have, saying it is possible.'  Yeah.  And you can also say I'm a cross-dressing kangaroo.  Where the facts point to the precise opposite -- either you know that or you haven't checked the facts -- I would suggest that is an improper statement for you to make.  Please redact it."  Wehwalt failed to redact it, so I felt to compelled to make the point on this page, which I have done.  But I thought it would have spared others wikidrama, and perhaps him some scrutiny for the baseless aspect of his comment, if he had redacted it--given that the facts point to the precise opposite.  So I did the courteous thing, and offered him my view, off-wiki, so he would not at that point needlessly feel embarrassed for by my indicating that his statement was baseless.  I'm frankly not sure what his point is in his above comment, and wonder whether he and Fell are creating this diversionary discussion for any reason relevant to Causa's misbehavior, which of course is the subject of the AN/I.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I reading the same thing as you guys here? I am not seeing retaliatory threats at all, I am seeing calm, well-reasoned, and informative explanations written to you. There's nothing threatening about it, it is just informing about aggressive posturing, but in a calm, sensible manner. Silver  seren C 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at it the more I support Causa sui's actions. The comment Causa sui removed, According to an unnamed U.S. official al-Awlaki is "working actively to kill Americans", (washington post), I have seen this type of unnamed claimed rubbish thing a lot from the Post, I see the comment has not been replaced but there still are two such unnamed claims in the lede, one cited to the washington post and the other to the LA times, very poor claims in a BLP, the article has been edited to a terrible attack piece with multiple BLP issues.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the continued presence of claims referencing unnamed government sources (a common thing when government officials want to make a point nowadays) you are off-topic, Off2riorob. This is not the place for that discussion. Place an edit request tag on the talk page. As for the rest of this: Wikidrama. (*sigh*) Moreover, I note that Wehwalt’s above disclosure should pretty much guarantee that from hereon, he remains free of wike-mails from editors who are in an adversarial relationship with him. Let’s finish up the voting and get out of here. Greg L (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That has nothing to do with this discussion. The claims are supported by notable publications (any problems with these should be addressed on the talk page), so it is easy to understand how multiple users would disagree with their removal for what appears to be no reason other than personal opinion. And, furthermore, since it is understood that believing in these references is not all that far out of BLP range, it still makes it completely unreasonable for Causa to issue that block (which has still not been apologized for or any remorse even hinted at), especially when it was in response to a message left on his talk page.
 * This discussion is about Causa's actions, not about the debatable validity of the sources. Please don't try to complicate and move this discussion away from Causa by starting a debate over them (again). Silver  seren C 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Silver. Well said.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So as there is no consensus to take any action, I support closing this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think an apology is a courtesy, but removing the block from User:Epeefleche would be more than appropriate considering that most if not all agree that the block was inappropriate.--Supertouch (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate refactoring by Causa sui
this edit shows how Causa sui believes he has a right to suppress his past usernames. Per WP:RTV, the right to vanish applies only to those individuals who stay gone. I believe that two outcomes are in order: Regretfully, Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Causa sui shall review WP:RTV and either admit this edit was unsupported by policy or provide alternative justification to support his actions.
 * 2) The rest of the participants here are encouraged to review the past history of either or both previous accounts for materials which may be relevant to this discussion.
 * Streisand effect! I don't think this is really relevant to the issue on the table. Some relevant past history was already mentioned in the original ANI report by Epefleeche. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the fact that WP:RTV says "The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave. The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account. Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." Silver  seren C 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for the rename was to prevent association between a person who was harassing me in real life, which had spilled over to Wikipedia (on-wiki, and using my edit history against me in real life). I do not want my real name associated with my Wikipedia account to prevent future harassment by that person, or anyone else. I think I have a right to privacy here, and since actually naming names is not relevant to the point Epeefleche was making, I appreciate everyone's effort to respect it. --causa sui (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you" Thus saith Right to vanish. Your request for privacy well within your power, per WP:RTV: You may leave the project and vanish. Failing that, I really don't see any reason to hide previous usernames while you are still subject to a desysop'ing motion, however non-binding it may be.  While regrettable, I the scrutiny comes part and parcel with your administrative actions: had you admitted fault and/or relinquished the tools already, I doubt anyone here would really care. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Examining my use of admin tools does not require outing my real name, as that use is preserved in the renaming process. It is quite literally the same account but with a different name. You may have arguments that policy permits you to out me, but the damage you may be doing to my real life is now well out of what you may be willing to accept. Further note that the policy you are quoting might have read differently when I renamed my account to my real name back in 2005. --causa sui (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Guys, this has nothing to do with right to vanish. Causa sui asked for rename, twice, as he is perfectly entitled to do. It's one account, and the complete past history (edits, block log, talkpage archives) of this one account is associated with that of Causa sui. If you want to see his past edits, just looks in his logs/archives.  --Slp1 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they are talking about right to vanish because I cited it in my edit summary refactoring 's comment. If right to vanish no longer applies here, then lets drop it, and talk about basic human fucking decency. --causa sui (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore Causa's incivility, other than to note that the English language is a vast one, and a sysop should be able to model best behavior by searching it to express himself with language other than the F word. That said, there is no legitimate privacy issue here.  There are so many people with his prior user name the use of which he objects to (and which he used for many years, putting it out there himself), that it does not result in "outing" him.  There is a strong interest in it being accessible to others who may have reason to look at his past statements and conflicts, however.  For example, his prior statement that he willfully ignored the wiki blocking policy.  One thing we look for when misbehavior arises is a pattern, and stripping us of ability to search wp for mentions of his name, that reflect such attitudes or conduct, interfere markedly with our ability to detect it.  Similarly, his talk page deletions under his prior names are not publicly viewable.  That also impedes our ability to discern such past problems, and I would suggest be made public (sans, of course, and legitimately personal information (his common name would not fall into that category), and any harassing information.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On 's talk page I've offered to undelete my old talk pages for a limited amount of time so he can do the work he needs to do looking for evidence of a pattern, if he agrees not to use my real name in the future. As far as I can tell, this comment indicates that he is not concerned that carrying out a vendetta against me may include inflicting severe personal consequences in my real life. I ask that others show respect for my privacy if he won't. --causa sui (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting reading of my suggestion that: "I'm happy for some other sysop to determine whatever MUST be deleted, for appropriate reasons of legitimate privacy concerns (your highly common name not being one of them), from those prior talk pages (you could indicate them to the sysop, he/she could make the decision, nobody else including me would have to see the information)."--Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not so sure exposing yourself to this sort of scrutiny is indicated here; certainly not to an editor who is in an adversarial relationship with you. That doesn’t strike me as the proper thing to do. I have only these questions of you: What was your block record under your previous names and how many ANIs and similar bitch & moans were you the subject of while editing under those previous names? Greg L (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My block log is preserved through renames, so you are perfectly capable of investigating that yourself. I have never been the subject of any administrative action, and certainly nothing of this magnitude or on this topic. I'll save you some time though, and go straight to the one thing I do remember that you might find interesting or incriminating. As I described on another page, I was briefly involved in a dispute with back in 2005 over my block of . Dmcdevit felt that I was involved in a dispute over Race and intelligence because I had reverted some of Zen-master's disruptive edits before blocking him. But it turned out that Zen-master was banned for one year by Arbcom for the same behavior and nothing came of it. --causa sui (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. I consider past names to be water under the bridge. Greg L (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. If you or others want more information about why I am taking this so seriously, please see User_talk:Epeefleche for a more detailed explanation. --causa sui (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as it happens, Race and Intelligence is bubbling along just fine without you ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We should try not to personalise the discussion, and unsubstatiated claims only dilute it. We don't need to give people only the minimum, particularly as we don't know the reasons behind past actions. Many outsiders think accountability is hindered by anonymity, but it is allowed at junior levels here. As it happens, many admins here have been "outed" on the internet (which extends far beyond Wikipedia). I think anonymity is a mirage in the internet age, as you can see: Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've since learned from what was a severe mistake. At this point, I ask that concerned parties here consider the ethical implications of taking action that, on their part through their direct involvement, would compound the problem and lead to further suffering in my personal life, and respect my desire to have my real name kept private. --causa sui (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I must profess, in all honesty, that I rapidly picked up on the point that the only “severe mistake” you’ve mentioned on this page is an old one that had an adverse impact on you personally. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)