Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 17 April 2010

Archives

(6/07-8/09)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Albums.

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Misplaced Pages editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go fuck yourself", use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron”.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a general thanks, you've edited about 30 of my articles in the past few days, doing general tidy-up and such; thought it deserved some recognition. Thanks! Sherurcij 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rudy York

I added a footnote pointing to York's HR Log at bb-reference. York hit his 50th on 1938-06-15 which was the 51st game of the Tiger season. York had 107 career games before 1938. So the latest he could have hit his 50th was career game #158.DavidRF (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me here ... how do we know it was the 51st game of the season? And we have an RS saying something else--does this fall into the cat of a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately

There are people who think a bot welcome is rude. I would agree it's not ideal. In a recent discussion we (I ?) did talk about using a bot to create a list for the Welcoming Committee. Not sure exactly how that would work. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Punchball

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Punchball. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• An example of why some noms, who don't follow wp:before, should not have the right to nominate articles for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Their approach seemed to be, "I've never heard of it, so let's delete it." I'm ashamed to admit I had never heard of it either, but the first rule is to see if it's for real, and it is. I gather it's mostly a city sport, like stickball. Now we'll see if they consider guys like Koufax and Robinson and Gould to be notable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, i've checked the new version of the punchball article per your request, have changed my vote due to the noticeable improvement.--Brunk500 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, the nominator withdrew the AFD.
  

All it took to save it was to punch it up a bit. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My compliments

My compliments for your work on the Abdullah el-Faisal article, it really grew up into a nice article. I almost made some edits to the three indented quotes per MOS:QUOTE but held off as it seemed they were almost in mini-list format at that point in the article. Is there an exception to that guideline? Supertouch (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Epeefleche! Not sure if you'll remember me but you did some good copyediting work for me on Sweetheart of the Rodeo and "Mr. Tambourine Man" when both articles were undergoing WP:GA review. I'm thinking of nominating The Notorious Byrd Brothers for GA review as well and would be grateful if you could perhaps cast your copyediting eye over it? No major rush though - just whenever you've got the time. It still needs a little work - pictures, audio files etc, etc but it's not too far off I don't think. Of course, if you have any suggestions about how I could improve the article, please feel free to tell me.

I also have a copyediting question for you. In the first sentence of the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article there's the phrase - (see 1968 in music). The italicizing of the word "see" was done by you and I've followed suit whenever I've added a similar phrase to an article. But recently, another user has questioned this use of italics and I have to be honest and say that I don't know why it's necessary to italicize the word "see". Could you please explain to me why it should be formatted like this? Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the italicized "see" Epeefleche. That does make sense and it's good that I now understand the reason for it. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brixton Mosque

On January 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brixton Mosque, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Colleen LaRose

On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen LaRose, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx. An important bio -- which was a bit of a mess. Will no doubt be of interest come May 6 (her sentencing date).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

This link is now dead: http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?id=818 -- it's not in archive.org.

I could have said this in the talk section of Begg's article, but I wanted to add here that I'm wondering if Cageprisoners may be cleaning up some of their tracks.

I came across this link two years ago. It's a discussion board. On that page they talk about 21st Century Crusaders. The only thing really notable is that it had a link where you could download the entire film. As you can see, the page is now password protected, as is the one taking you to the film.

In light of the disappearing pages, I just used webcitation.org to archive the ones that we have linked in the article that weren't yet deleted. I haven't cited that in the article yet, although that doesn't necessarily matter at the moment. Webcitation has a function to tell you whether or not it's been archived.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar for the Moazzam Begg article

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	for your additions, editing, and Herculean clean-up on the Moazzam Begg article! It is truly impressive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Najibullah Zazi

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit on Ibn al-Salah, I was beginning to think I was the only who ever reads never mind edits some of the pages I work on.--Supertouch (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ressam group

http://books.google.ca/books?id=E1_SxOuUHmIC&dq=%22abu+jaffar%22+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s From page 320 onward] has some great information on the various players in the Ressam group. You could add the reference to almost each of the articles, as it discusses each of them. Sherurcij 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Shall take a look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you think the Montreal mosque (Assuna ... spelled various ways in English ... attracts 1500 to Friday prayers) is worth an article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally fairly inclusive when it comes to churches/schools having articles; unless they written largely to "smear" the group. So if you're going to include a "list of notable persons who attended", be sure to balance it out with some positive stories from the media/books as well...basically, the group should be pleased to see they have a WP article...not angry. Sherurcij 06:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely the way it works, is it. We don't write articles to please the subject. Otherwise, for example, all criminals would rightfully have their articles deleted. What we do, which I'm happy to do with your help if you like, is reflect what is in the RSs. In other words, if x percent of the material in RSs is material that they would be happy to see, we should make certain that x percent of the article is of that ilk. Agreed?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Another overlooked case of Islam-related violence

Imam Who Led Radical Islam Group Killed in FBI Raid http://www.islamreview.com/news/2009_news.htmDETROIT — Federal authorities on Wednesday arrested several members of a radical Sunni Islam group in the U.S., killing one of its leaders at a shootout in a Michigan warehouse, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Agents were trying to arrest Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, at a Dearborn warehouse on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal possession and sale of firearms. Authorities also conducted raids elsewhere to try to round up 10 followers named in a federal complaint.

Abdullah refused to surrender, fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.

In the 43-paged complaint unsealed Wednesday, the FBI said Abdullah, also known as Christopher Thomas, was an imam, or prayer leader, of a radical group named Ummah whose primary mission is to establish an Islamic state within the United States.

No one was charged with terrorism. But Abdullah was "advocating and encouraging his followers to commit violent acts against the United States," FBI agent Gary Leone said in an affidavit.

He told them it was their "duty to oppose the FBI and the government and it does not matter if they die," Leone said.

Interesting huh? There should be a separate case of "violent Islamist incidents" since they are never to be considered as terrorism unless labeled as such by the FBI. Bachcell (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering, seeing as you seem well versed in wiki rules on citing, editing etc., it would be great if you could have a look at this article and the editing taking place with regards to lack of notability. Perhaps I am not good at explaining. My understanding is that secondary references are needed for the purpose of notability which is why primary sources can not stand alone. In this case there appear no notability for the insertions made. These issues were already dealt with a few days ago but today reversions have taken place. Fragma08 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I'll take a closer look. But its fairly clear that a POV editor is making inappropriate edits. As to the rule on primary sources, without going back to double-check the wording, the general rule is that: a) they are not indicia of notability; but b) that said, appropriate non-puffery, non-controversial language can be taken from primary sources re the subject of the article (POV editors often try to violate this restriction), and it can also be cited as statements of the subject of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also for the clarification, because I recall how difficult it is to add primary sources as a source of direct statement from article subject himself/herself. So I would argue same applies here as there appears to be no difference w.r.t. use of primary sources. Further some content belong in separate articles of their own. But have a look when you can. Fragma08 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Students' Association

No problem. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advise at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Daniel I was trying to assume good faith on the other part of the other user and then got taken for a fool. This is apparently a new account for the same person User:Rob lockett who entangled me an edit war several months ago. I am considering a sockpuppet investigation of the three usernames I suspect of being one and the same person: User:Rob lockett, User:AFANOF and User:91.140.181.159 the first being the username from several months ago (who was guilty of a number of copy-paste violations. What do think? Also, check the talk page for the AfD, I went through each reference on the now-deleted page and summarized the contents of each and exposed that users deceptive use of references—unfortunately, just as I was posting that comment the page was archived.--Supertouch (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer's infobox

I am unable to remove the blank line without screwing up the first bulletpoint. You may want to talk with those who code the template. If it is changed let me know because I am the main editor on at least a half dozen college basketball player pages.

Done (hope I found the right place) here.

What about the unsightly blank space to the right of the new rookie box -- can that be addressed?

Also, can the needless extra blank line above "Note" within that box be deleted? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Template_talk:Infobox_NCAA_Athlete or the help desk are the places to go. Aske them all your questions and let me know about any resulting questions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to follow my lead with Scheyer. The following are the guys I am the main editor of: Turner, Collins, Manny Harris, Demetri McCamey, DeShawn Sims, E'Twaun Moore, John Shurna, and Kevin Coble. Watch those Chicago-area or Michigan guys and you will see what I think is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clever fix.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the standard should be to bulletpoint each line or not. As I work on Collins' article, it is getting difficult to see the multiline honors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- I agree with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have two more formatting questions. 1. In Collins' championships, should I merge the multiple years on one line as they are now or should I go back to separate line for each year? 2. Do you think the tournaments are laid out correctly or should we give each a line including result (such as #2 seed Elite eight, #1 seed championship, or what have you)?

The Scheyer infobox is looking quite WP:CRUFTy. My suggestion would be the following: think of the section as a pre-NBA highlight section. The reason college players are allowed to have pages is that we have evidence that would lead us to believe that they will be a professional player. Would an NBA player include all this stuff about 5th in duke history this and 3rd in duke history that. Yes Scheyer is a good player with potential to be an NBA player. His infobox should not be crammed with almost local records. Records should include national, ACC and school records. It could also include "Firsts". I only see about three things that really belong in the infobox records section. I would remove most X of the week awards. At the minimum, you should have to have done something at a high level for a season for it to appear in the infobox. You should move most of the rest of this out into a section of the article, if it is included at all. I would also think the awards should be regrouped. The objective is not to make him look as important as possible by filling the box. The objective is to add the appropriate elements for a reader to understand his importance in the context of a international encyclopedia. I will watch this article and hope for changes or come with my own axe in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have not even put Manny Harris's free throw total in his records section yet. He will surely break the Michigan record in his first game next season. Demetri McCamey is likely to set the Illinois single-season assist average record and there is no mention in his records section yet. E'Twaun Moore is likely to be the first player to lead Purdue in scoring four years (no mention yet, although a year away), I think also the first to lead in assists and scoring in the same season, but no mention yet. The records section should not be clouded with almosts. Evan Turner will be the first player to be top-5 (probably top-2) in points rebounds and assists in the Big Ten ever. No mention yet in his records section. None of these are records yet. If Scheyer sets a record add it. If he is a notable runner-up for a record (Bob Chappuis) you might add it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Will give all your comments a think. As you know from my comments before on reflecting more than one list (e.g., preseason, midseason, final), where appropriate I'm happy to trim. I've left out a number of Scheyer awards (e.g., less notable papers) and records ... without checking, I think on the records front limiting to top-10 for example for ACC/Duke. And I haven't listed every single tournament he has been in, as that strikes me as not sufficiently notable, even though the infobox calls for it. With Duke as the winningest team ever, I think that's ok. I don't interpret record as meaning he has to be number one, but rather as top-10. One general comment I see from time to time is "hey, person x is more important, and doesn't have an article, or as long an article, or we don't reflect his records or awards." The answer I generally come to, is let's improve that person's article. College basketball player articles I've seen are generally in suprisingly poor shape, especially given the number of views they get. Of course, if it is true cruft, like the infobox saying "Scheyer led the team for 2009-10 in the following eight categories, and here are his numbers", then I would agree it is proper to scale back the infobox. But, as I said, I will take a look and give a think, with your helpful comments in mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- without even looking at it, I think that the NBA infobox will have different criteria, leading to culling. Agree we should revisit the culling issue upon infobox change. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a moment (at first glance, what hit me was your deletion of top-10 points scored in Duke history, that being over 2,000 -- which is (though not mentioned in the infobox) highly notable ... I think only five other active or just-finished players in all of college basketball have that many ...). --Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 2000 points, top-10 in points scored is notable. It is the kind of thing you could easily mention in the WP:LEAD. My thinking on articles is that the vast majority of people only read the WP:LEAD and Infobox. Let's get key information into those areas. For Scheyer, at this point in his career, he could have a full WP:LEAD (4 paragraphs is the max) if so desired. I would lay it out as A general accomplishment paragraph, 1 paragraph on high school, 1 on college team accomplishments and 1 on college individual accomplishments. When he goes pro the two college paragraphs will need to be merged and so you might want to keep him at 3 right now. In the LEAD (and Infobox now that I think of it), you don't need to mention USBWA All-District after he is USBW All-American, following your greatedst accomplishment principle. In the LEAD, you could mention as many as five of his most important statistical accomplishments. 2000 points and its rankings could go there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'd be willing to work with you on filling out the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I agree w/you completely on the lead. Feel free of course to make whatever changes you want. I'm not sure I agree with you (yet at least) on the infobox changes at this point in time -- though I fully agree with them at the time of the change to an NBA infobox, (as it by its terms calls for different information). Will continue to consider, however, to see if I can agree in whole or in part on that and reach consensus with your view. In any event, the infobox will change to an NBA one within a relatively short (in wp terms ... there being nodeadline) period of time, at which point we will have clear consensus on that as well. But I'll continue to give it a think. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice If you don't edit the infobox within 24 hours of Duke's elimination, I am going to swap in the version to the right. This should give you time to think about how you want to incorporate the eliminated content in the rest of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. you should also note, that you can request image consent from photographers on www.flickr.com and get this guy a decent image. Look at the images of all the guys that I do. I hound the flickr guys to re-license their images. About half of non-AP and non-school newspaper photographers will consent. Even about 20% of school newpaper photogs will consent. If you want, I can give you a copy of my consent requests.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure -- that would be great. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I put out some requests for a Scheyer image and no responses are back yet. Having fun going through Duke history to continue to clean up the Amaker article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Grt. Many tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw at some point during the game that Scheyer is 22/24 in Free throws during the tournament. It seems that he may take over the Duke all time NCAA tournament free throw percentage lead (min 35 att). Do you know how he is doing on the Duke (and possibly ACC) NCAA tournament lists?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that as well. No idea, I'm afraid. Do you have a prediction for Monday?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I predict Scheyer will tie the consecutive games record. P.S. If you are a really big fan of Scheyer you might compile his NCAA tourney game logs on ESPN and see how he is doing against the Duke records, because he may have the Duke NCAA Tourney free throw percentage record.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good one! You are good at this prediction thing. I predict Singler will cover Hayward--and neutralize him, that Butler will be over-anxious on defense, that Duke will capitalize by first getting some easy layups off good passes, and then start sinking the threes to put them away. Scheyer will lead both teams in assists, Zou will lead both in offensive rebounds, and one of the Duke guards will lead both teams in scoring. There, I said it ... eight or nine predictions.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Duke career NCAA Tournament FT% record is only 86% by Mark Alerie. Even JJ Redick only shot 85.7% in the tournament.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work! (I was actually surprised when he missed one last night). Another prediction -- he hit his 300th three of his career on Monday. And catches or passes Williams and Banks on Duke's all-time scoring list.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pls don't delete any top-10 records from the infobox at least until after the NCAA season is over (later today). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have (still) a different view as to the appropriateness of deleting records where he was other than #1 in the record books. Record books for NCAA, ACC, and Duke all reflect (at least) the top 10 record-holders. I see no reason to therefore not treat him as having a record where he is in the record book as a #2-10 record-holder.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am open to third party opinions either at WP:WPCBB or WP:RFC, but I believe the changes that I have made best reflect the encyclopedic needs of his article. As long as the prose includes all the other things, the infobox is more than as extensive as it needs to be. If you open debate at either location, ping me. reread WP:CRUFT before you do though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jawa Report

Good job on the new page. In the intro it says in 1994, I'm guessing that should be 2004 as Nick Berg was not killed after the war in Iraq. Also, is JW a reliable source per Misplaced Pages standards?--Supertouch (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tx. Good catch. You're absolutely right. As far as RS, that hasn't yet been addressed. Seems to me it is more of an RS than the Electronic Intifada, which some editors appear to be happy to embrace. But still not as high level a source as the NYT or the NEFA Foundation. I personally would tend to steer away from it at the moment, but I may be wrong.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: street

I initially made the edit on a "gut" basis; I've been around the Internet a long time (pre-web), and have seen "facts" like that have very bad outcomes, e.g. an acquaintance who had an armed activist drive cross-country and show up at his workplace, which another person had mentioned in an abortion-related forum the two were active in.

Following your serious query, I went looking for policy.

• First, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The remainder of the policy is also relevant, particularly "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." and "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability."
• Second, WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I judge that the street name is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; the edit comment is based on one of the 5 pillars.
• Third, WP:NPOV: the nutshell "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." On a proportionate basis, how important is the street he lived on?

Studerby (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the response. I was guessing it was a gut basis. Nice work in doing such a professional job looking for support for the gut feeling. My gut reaction is that different people have different gut reactions, and (moreso elsewhere, admittedly) I sometimes see editors cloak their gut reactions in similar verbiage. As I said, I'm not passionate about the issue in that particular case. My view in general is that if RSs report it, it generally meets the above, just as the name of the former spouse of a suspected killer or their current relatives would meet them if reported in RSs, or the place they are employed, or the city or state or country in which they live (all of which are routinely mentioned in all such bios, without any discussion, and could be attacked as inappropriate in the strictest reading of what you cite -- this is, after all, clearly only a question of degree, as the general place they live is routinely deemed relevant), etc.. The same issues arise in all such instances. Just my opinion. But we don't have a tussle on this particular edit, just an intellectual inquiry. I think based on your research, your response, and my response, it still ultimately comes down to editorial judgment, and in the event there were a tussle on another article there would be a consensus discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Editorial judgment" inherently can't be codified, and we're all going to use our gut from time to time - no one has time to research and cite policy for every single edit. However, I also just went back to the version I edited; neither RS referenced in that paragraph has the street (at this moment), so the information was also unsourced, apparently. I'm suspecting that somebody interpolated that from the criminal complaint, which is NOT an RS for all purposes - it's a primary source, inherently one sided, etc.; certainly not subject to the "editorial judgment" that a proper secondary source uses. I generally shy away from controversy, but I think policy on this is absolutely crystal clear and this is one edit I'd go to the mat for, if it was needed.

In the cases you mention, where RSs have included reference to relations or acquaintances of the article subject, I suspect you'll find that those individuals have usually involved themselves in the reporting by becoming information sources on the topic. You won't see very many statements in current event reportage in RSs like " married Jane Doe (born 1955 in Boston) in 1967, had children John (1970), Janette (1971), Chang and Eng (1973) and divorced in 1974. He subsequently married and divorced Floozy Mcsleazy, a pole dancer, in 1980, and cohabitated with a Ima Nicegirl from 1985 to 1992." Instead you get, "His wife, Jane Doe, said: 'Billy-Wayne was such a nice quiet person. I can't believe he kept a collection of human ears in our garage.'". The wife's name is then relevant to the notability, as a source of reported information relevant to the notability of the subject. Or there's some sort of at-least-arguable relevant-to-the-story event involving the relative; in the article under discussion, a protective order and the inability to serve divorce papers arguably are facts that tell us something about the subject's life relevant to his notability; folks with "issues" are thought to be more motivated to do things outside the norm. However, in the reference cited, the wife also injected herself into the story and made several statements in support of subject; that only the negative material relating to the wife is included is an obvious WP:NPOV problem, and which rather seems to undermine any "include all the facts" argument. Studerby (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Jawa Report

On March 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Jawa Report, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Query

Hey there. Looking at this case it appeared that some people affiliated with Mohammed Daniel's were commenting on the deletion review, rather than it all being one person. The chances are that the check came back as likely because Mohammed Daniels knows all these people, so they were all in the same area, or editing form the same company IP, however, they would not appear to be sock puppets. This conclusion is largely based upon this edit: 1. There would also not appear to be any violation of meat puppetry, as Daniels does not appear to have asked these users to support him, and whether or not their has been any correspondence between them is undefined.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards, Spitfire 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. First, maybe I'm naive, but why do we think that the person who left that comment was actually MD? Second, I never said that it was MD himself who was socking -- just that a sockpuppetry appeared to be taking place. Even if we assumed that MD himself had left the message (which is not clear to me), it appears that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is taking place, as evidenced both in my suspicion and the checkuser results here -- note, I had no way of knowing w/the named accounts that they were in the same location.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We think that because they said so. I can't think why they would have said that if they weren't him, as they were encouraging the deletion of the page, contrary to what the other users there where doing (I could have believed that they were lying had they been saying that the page should be kept, but saying that it should be deleted just doesn't fit in). If you wish to press the meatpuppetry issue the AN/I is a better venue than SPI, but I personally wouldn't bring the matter up, as their does not appear to be much active disruption. But in the end it's up to you. Also, I know that you had no way of knowing where the named accounts were editing from, I didn't expect you to. :) Kindest regards, Spitfire 08:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"We think that because they said so". Really? I'm somewhat surprised.

As with this edit I just saw, it happens all the time, for sundry reasons. The reasons one may impersonate another are many, but the easy answer is the most typical reason is to get others to take the steps they would take if the real person were saying those things. As in the example I just cited to. You say "I can't think why they would have said that if they weren't him, as they were encouraging the deletion of the page". Imagine that the person saying it wants the page deleted, and thinks that the best way to do it is to impersonate him, and say that.

The reliability of the person being who they say they are is nil -- which is why the project affords off-wiki means to verify if the person is who he says he is.

I would ask that you reconsider the result in light of what I've said, and take action on what the checkuser indicates are likely socks, or ask another sysop to review. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

I am not sure whether being an offensive or defensive rebound champion is a big deal. Look at Evan Turner and tell me if it looks out of place in the championships section. Also, is it important enough to create a championship section for DeShawn Sims or should I leave it in the honors section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it is worth reflecting. Many basketball stats pages reflect the two separately (as well as combined). Plus, IMHO, they reflect different player approaches (those who get the offensive rebounds aren't hanging around on the outside calling for the ball so they can score). Just my opinion, of course, and reasonable people can differ. I would reflect it under "Records", as more appropriate than honors or championship. If you can help get flickr pix for Scheyer before the Final Four, btw, that would be great -- there seem to be just two photogs who have good ones up. Perhaps you have dealt w/one of them already. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Students' Association 2

I looked at the comments and consensus was to delete. I also looked at the articles which is why I added the comment about creating a template to provide navigation to groups related to the Muslim Students' Association. I looked at the various articles and they also did not appear to me to justify the category. It looks like the category is for any article that included 'Muslim Students' Association'. Being president of this association and mentioning this in the article does not make it defining for the individual, that needs more details on how this was defining. It was problems like this that were advocated by the deletion arguments. If you believe that it is possible to create this category is some form that has clearly defined inclusion criteria, and is defining for the individuals included, then I don't see any harm. But based on what is out there now, I don't see how to do that. The problem may well be that the articles are badly written and that is the reason that we don't need the category. If you decide to recreate this in a way that address my concerns as closer and those raised in the discussion I would not consider this to be a recreation and eligible for speedy deletion. On the other hand if you recreate this without addressing the concerns, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as recreation of a deleted category. Personally I'd create the navbox and include it in the articles. If you need help in doing that, let me know. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the only rationale advanced by the only (two) delete voters was completely not the case at the time of the close. Given that, I don't see how it could be closed as a delete. If some of the articles, as you suggested in your close ("I looked at a few articles and it is not clear how defining this membership is for the individuals."), do not in your view belong in the category, those can be removed -- that is not justification to delete the cat. Respectfully.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

However, if removing those means that the category would be small it meets the reason for deleting as proposed. In addition the opinion by RP459 came after the main discussion so I don't consider that to be endorsing the nomination based on the contents at that time but rather based on the nomination being for deletion and takings into account the preceding discussion. In addition Good Ol’factory, while not taking a formal position, does not appear to be in favor of retention. I see his argument being that articles were added simply to be there to thwart deletion based on having a single article. This was basically what I found in looking at the contents when I closed the discussion. As I said above, I'm not opposed to a recreation as long the concerns expressed above are addressed. This probably means rewriting several articles to show that the relationship with this association is notable for the individual, association or event. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The nom only gave a reason that was 100 per cent untrue at time of close. The only other delete voter's rationale was limited to "per nom" -- I can't imagine how you read into that any rationale other than the one offered by the nom (which, as I said, was completely false at the time of close). I think the close was wrong, and that at minimum it should be reopened (if not kept). Basically, you had zero delete votes based on a rationale that was true at time of close, and yet you deleted. That's contrary to wikipedia policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing a discussion is not a vote. If you did that, in this case, is was 2 in favor of deletion for whatever reason and one to keep. Like I said, the decision here was based on the discussion along with the the opinions firmly expressed by three editors. I don't believe that the opinions were opposed to the categroy, but they were opposed to the current one as it was. Like I have said, if you want to recreate the category, that is OK as long as the concerns raised in the discussion are addressed. That probably means rewriting a bunch of articles to establish a need for the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that a close is not a vote. If you will not revisit your close and relist it or close it as no consensus or a keep, how would you suggest I have it reviewed? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to take your word that there are more articles and allow recreation to give you time to show that there are a sufficient number of articles that belong there. You would need to rewrite the articles to show that belonging or being associated with this association is defining. If after a week, the category only contains a handful of articles, it can be speedy deleted as G6. If it is well populated, then a second CfD would be required if anyone still has issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. What number of articles would that be?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no minimum number for a category. I'm thinking 5-10 anything less and it is likely to be considered over categorization. The lower the number the more likely it is to be brought back to CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mason Plumlee

On April 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mason Plumlee, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

Scheyer will be the only All-American or first team All Big Ten Chicago area player that is not a WP:GA pretty soon. You might want to nominate him at WP:GAC so he can join his peers (Evan Turner, Sherron Collins, Demetri McCamey and E'Twaun Moore).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You can have as many articles at WP:GAC at one time as you want. You do not have to put an article through GAC before sending it to WP:FAC. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm .. Materialscientist just said I did have to go through GA first ....--Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You surely do not. If you are shooting for May 6, you should go straight to FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the helpful advice.

Feel free to let me know what changes you feel I should make to bring it up to FA status, if you like, as I see you've been down that road quite often.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

succession boxes

If you want you can add succession boxes at the bottom of Scheyer's article like I have done for Evan Turner, Demetri McCamey and Brandon Graham (American football).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've used a similar box for baseball players. But it gets collapsed (and narrowed when collapsed) ... and I have to find the one that does not just say "Awards".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am curious why you added succesion box for his freshman statistical championship and none of his more significant regular ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was doing it piecemeal. All done now, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: question

I could take a look, though it is unlikely it will get through both the GAN and FAC processes in time to be nominated for the May 6 slot. GA is optional if you'd rather just go to FA to cut down on time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L's analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Illinois Mr. Basketball template

I am against an Illinois Mr. Basketball template and anything less than a national player of the year template for high school athletes. Even national high school players of the year in major sports like say a Kevin Grady, might be on the fringes of permanent notability. WP only promotes college athletes in so far that they have permanent notability and in almost all cases actual or expected professional experience. Unlike something like a power conference player of the year award, it is not so likely that a state Mr. basketball is necessarily going to be a pro player. From a state like Illinois, there is a pretty high likelihood, but I don't think setting up templates is a good idea. Most of the ones that are successful, will end up with much more notable templates on their page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I defer. No biggie. Glancing through the IMBs, it would appear that the liklihood of them becoming wiki-notable is quite high. And would be a cool way to see who is on the horizon. But I've not strong feelings on the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

One solution might be to find a list of the all-time great high schoolers. Surely, Associated Press chose a list like on the template at Eric Gordon for every state. Such a list would likely only include the most notable high schoolers and would omit many of the IMBs who did not make it. I don't think I would be in support of a decade by decade list, but an all-time great list might work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Epeefleche, please see User_talk:Greg_L#BLP. Greg L (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

latest edit

Please confine discussion of article content to the appropriate talk pages. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- are editor talk pages not appropriate, where one has a comment specific to an editor's editing? I had not realized. Where can I find the guidance that states that my posting on your talk page is "not appropriate"?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I like to keep article content discussions on the article talk pages to avoid confusion and allow other editors to participate in the public discussion about the article. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was honestly flabbergasted by your request, which: a) wasn't to my knowledge rule-based, and b) didn't indicate that it was simply a personal prediliction of yours that you want me to follow. By your using the phrase "the appropriate talk pages", I had understood you to be saying that my leaving a message on your talk page was not appropriate. I had precious few clues that you meant anything other than that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have cleared up the confusion. --causa sui (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

I just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your comment here, in case you hadn't noticed. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Are you sure you've used the correct template here? It links to WP:Vandalism. –xeno 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|This is a bit odd. I've never been blocked for "editing abuse" or vandalism. In nearly 40,000 edits. I've no idea why I was blocked. Nor has Causa provided any detail that might give us a clue. Causa is a sysop about whose editing I've raised questions at a page he and I have both edited heavily; that of Anwar al-Awlaki. My most recent edits included questioning why he, without seeking consensus, deleted the text in the article mentioning that AA was noted for actively working to kill Americans. As Causa used the unhelpful edit summary of "trim". Is this a response for that? We can't tell. Is this the use by a sysop of his sysop powers with regard to a matter in which he is heavily involved? That would appear to be the case. This is a baseless block, that on top of it involves an abuse of sysop powers by a sysop who is in the middle of an editing dispute. Where the sysop himself was making controversial questionable edits without using the talk page, as I used the talk page to discuss that very same edit.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Causa sui is clearly not an uninvolved party here and this block is highly inappropriate regardless of the circumstances Request handled by: Jac16888 Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

See this diff for Causa's deletion of the reference to AA being noted for actively working to kill Americans, coupled with his unhelpful edits summary of "trim".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) FYI causi sui peculiarly left a rationale for this block at Talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki#Epeefleche_blocked with the unhelpful comment that they are "not interested in discussing this matter with (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 to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, you should recuse and report to ANI. " –xeno 17:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed Causa sui is a highly involved admin and really should be counseled by someone about how any administrative-type powers on these articles should be exercised only by an outside and objective admin. I really rather hope that Causa sui would have the wisdom to seek out an unbiased admin like you, xeno—anyone so long as they are clearly eager to listen objectively to both sides of all arguments. If Causa sui can’t abide by WP:INVOLVED, perhaps it will be time to to take it to the next level. Greg L (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• What's more, there does not seem to have been any prominent warning. Only some exchanges and disagreements on the article talk page with Causa. Highly problematic action from a highly involved Admin - it's no wonder they (admins) are generally opposed to any community-based de-sysopping. Ohconfucius 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have left a note for Causi sui, suggesting he recuse from further administrative action with respect to this article. –xeno 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Read it. I am truly impressed.

  I think the cognitive dissonance Causa sui might be experiencing here is a perceived conflict between Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Exceptional_circumstances, (which allows that material deleted because it contravenes BLP may be re-deleted if it continues to be non-BLP-compliant) and WP:INVOLVED, (which holds that In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved.) The former prescribes what administrators can do. That latter prescribes that Cuasa sui can’t be the administrator performing such actions. Short of a true emergency (Epeefleche re-inserting someone’s Social Security number in the article) Causa sui can hold his wild horses and should have no problems convincing an uninvolved admin to step in if he has a meritorious (read: genuine) concern.

  His blocking rationale (I am not interested in discussing this matter with you (or anyone else) on this page anymore) is a showcase example for why WP:INVOLVED exists in the first place: getting wrapped up in an edit war until one looses objectivity and is highly biased (and confrontational). Moreover, his declaration of I am declaring him topic banned from this article for two weeks shows that Causa sui is exhibiting a profound lack of appreciation that he is now just a regular editor over there. And finally, his declaration that he’s not interested in “discussing this matter with” “anyone else” shows that he fancies himself as having some sort of carte blanch entitlement to edit as he pleases and block those who oppose him. Such a statement is also an excellent showcase for how the community should exercise greater care when granting Sysop powers to Admins.

  My personal contribution to this particular article has been minimal at best; my involvement has largely been to weigh in on the talk page, offer my 2¢, and challenge some of Causa sui’s reasoning. His statement that he thinks he no longer needs to discuss anything with anyone strongly indicates that if anyone should step back from the article for two weeks, it is Causa sui.

  I encourage Epeefleche to not be intimidated by such an unwarranted and provocative action, to edit as he normally would with an eye for encyclopedic prose that is germane, topical, and authoritatively cited, and I encourage both editors (yes Causa sui, you are just a regular editor on this article) to explain the basis for your edits so your reasoning can be sanitized by sunshine of scrutiny by the rest of the Wikipedian community. Greg L (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - that just about sums it up. I might just have a look at the Causa sui RFA to see what level of scrutiny took place then. In defence of Causa sui, it's worth mentioning the tightening up on BLPs, but obviously this tightening is intended to be within the rules. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lots of short comments in support - little criticism. Good vandal fighter. Perhaps to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Having said that, he was looking at Race and intelligence a while back, so perhaps he could knock a few heads together there! Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I edited there a couple of times. Escaped without my ass on fire too. Greg L (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Causa sui have a record of incompetent blockings, and/or of breaching WP:INVOLVED? Tony (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Damned good question. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My reply

Hi all. I appreciate you all weighing in on my controversial decision to block this user. Before we start a witch hunt, I'd like a chance to throw in my $0.02. My understanding of the Misplaced Pages: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.

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that non-compliant material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with theprotection policy. Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption; see the blocking policy.

Further, the burden of proof is on those restoring the content to win consensus that it does not contravene the BLP policy:

In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding, restoring, or undeleting material about living persons must ensure it meets all Misplaced Pages's content policies and guidelines. If material that was previously removed or deleted is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Most importantly, administrators may enforce the provisions of the BLP policy even if they are involved in editing the article:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. 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 with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

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, and it's still the case: the article is still riddled with poorly sourced information that the user in question seems determined to restore without discussion no matter how many times we take 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. I may well have been wrong to block him, but I cannot understand the point of view of people who think I acted abusively. According to the letter and spirit of the BLP policy, what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances. --causa sui (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)