Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:41, 23 December 2011

This is Causa sui's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 1 day

my plea

please see here User_talk:Swarm#help_me_understand

Thanks, --POVbrigand (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The cartoon vandal

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

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

Edit war at James O'Keefe

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

Also, shouldn't contentious statements in the lead in BLPs be sourced in-line, instead of having the reader sift through the body of the article to find which reliable source, if any, actually made the assertion? --Kenatipo 17:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On both counts, I can only give you my own opinion. I can protect pages but I cannot "adjudicate" any disputes. You might understand that already but I've found out it's important to have it made clear in the outset after I protect a page.

The point of WP:REVTALK is that when complex discussion about why your side is right and the other is wrong is taking place through edit summaries, it becomes impossible to carry on discussion except by edit warring at the same time. The mistaken impression that gives people - that the way to communicate your thoughts to people is by reverting them - does not excuse the underlying edit warring. On the other hand, "rv" means "revert". There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you should revert another editor's contributions, and sometimes they should revert yours. You should be using edit summaries in this way so that people can know what kind of edits you are making, which makes it easier for them to conduct peer-review. So generally, we want edit summaries to say things like "tightening the lede" or "added cite" or "removed some unsourced claims, see talk".

On the question of whether we need talk page consensus before removing a BLP violation; this is a tricky question because the straightfoward answer (is) "no" -- but what counts as a "BLP violation" is sometimes a grey area in my experience. Since the standard is so strict, that any user finds it contentious is typically enough to get a review, but that is not by itself a sufficient condition to remove it. My advice would be to bring it up on WP:BLP/N for commentary there. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Causa sui. I appreciate learning about REVTALK, and I appreciate your thoughts on BLP. PS: I added a word I think you left out. --Kenatipo 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A better response

Would have been, "rv, you misspelled rouge" here. --GraemeL 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. The thought did cross my mind. causa sui (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Misaplication of A7 in speedy deletion

I had already declined the speedy deletion request at Woolcott Chauncey some two days before you deleted it. That was because the article was clearly invalid for A7 deletion, as it claimed facts about the subjects life (naval hero, responsible for significant events during battles, etc.) which are clear claims to significance. I am quite confused.

• 1) How did you find this to delete it, as it was removed from WP:CSD
• 2) Why you deleted an article as A7 when it does not qualify
• 3) Why you didn't check to see that I had already deleted it, or if you had checked, why you overruled me?

I have no significant problem with the article being deleted via WP:AFD, if, for example, the subject doesn't turn out to be Notable. But there was definately enough to avoid an A7 speedy. Could you please restore the article, and take it to AFD if you wish it deleted. As another admin, you really shouldn't undo my admin actions (WP:WHEELWAR) without discussing it with me first, and in this case, its also clear that you have not properly applied WP:CSD#A7. --Jayron32 04:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you view this as a bigger deal than me. I undeleted it. causa sui (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

All good! Thanks! --Jayron32 04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: TheOneWhoWalks

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

Ma®©usBritish  23:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy marine

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

Have you closed it "procedurally" due to the minimal time between the first and second AFD? Youreallycan (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, no matter how I close it, someone will get angry. Procedural considerations did weigh a bit, though they weren't the only reason. I think it's important that people should not be able to endlessly renominate an article until they get the result they want, especially if the result they want is a delete, since an AFD that closes as keep can be renominated but a delete cannot. The fact that the prior AFD closed as Keep and there was no DRV suggests that there should be some clear reversal in consensus, which there obviously isn't. Finally, the discussion was more contentious this time around, but I don't think a plausible argument could be made that there is a clear consensus to delete. I might be persuaded that it should be closed as no consensus at best, but a delete close seems out of bounds.

I usually take your opinion on things seriously since I admire your work on BLP/N and elsewhere, so I won't make an exception to that here. Still, I think you will find that it won't harm your cause if you find a way to cool off a little bit about this. I promise you, it's not that big a deal. causa sui (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have taken it off my watchlist. I wasn't looking to persuade you I was just looking for a quality close policy driven close, which I don't feel we have got. Toms first close was the right result imo. Personally I would have closed it as no consensus at best - your keep close although primarily procedurally based only strengthens its future existence. No worries. - It just seems such a waste of time bothering to comment, like - don't bother wasting your time commenting here because the admin is going to give strong weight to the fact that it is not long since the previous AFD. Youreallycan (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for or hoping to get out of this, but for what it's worth, I don't view it as a waste of time. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this has nomination had nothing to do with repeatedly nominating the article for deletion. I'm really disappointed that you took that line, as it was clear fom the discussion this was not the case. It was nominated because it was a puff piece from a non-notable group using wikipedia to promote itself. What do we know about this group, well they have a facebook page, they got mentioned in a few articles and they don't answer the phone. And thats it, most of the sources are covering it tangentially. I think you made a bad call here and I'm planning to take it to DRV. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the advance notice. Out of curiosity, I assume you wouldn't be satisfied if I vacated and closed as no consensus instead? causa sui (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly no but I would be satisfied with a merge to Occupy Wall Street, some material could live there but the group itself is clearly non-notable and have been using wikipedia for self-promotion see for example. They've been hanging onto wikipedia's coat-tails to promote themselves as being bigger than they are.

The reason I say no, was the AfD was clearly stacked by canvassing and external lobbying. Look at the number of SPA that appeared, voted keep, then disappeared. Arguments, like Super Duper Extra Strong Keep must have piqued your concern. I'm preparing a DRV now but I'll look in before filing. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry complicates the process, so I'll appreciate the second look from DRV. You would also do me a favor if you mentioned that you were disinterested in discussing a no consensus close, in case I'm not around to post a comment before the discussion begins. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure no worries, I'm nearly finished, do you want a peek before I file? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the offer but it's not necessary. See you there. causa sui (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I had issues about this close as I had commented ... a no consensus re-close would be something I could definitely support and would make a reassessment easier in a few months - .... Youreallycan (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a diplomatic step I think I might !vote that way at the DRV. You're welcome to join me. causa sui (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm holding off filing for 24 hrs to reconsider. Do you want to have a read while I think about that no consensus reclose offer? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at it. I think you're both making a fair point. I looked at the discussion again, also. I have to reaffirm my view that I can't possibly endorse a delete result for that AFD, but: the concerns about meatpuppetry seem valid, and I'm reconsidering whether it makes sense to 'punish' a too-fast renomination with a "keep" result, which would bias future AFDs or create the appearance of momentum to keep. So at this point, I'm happy to close as no consensus, and might do that regardless of a DRV. causa sui (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. SnottyWoog's suggestion to semi-protect the next AFD has the ring of wisdom to it. causa sui (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While semi-protect might sound good, only 3 out of around 50 editors on the AFD was by IP's. I do not have access to count the number of accounts that was not autoconfirmed, but if that number is not high then any semi-protection looks like unnecessary.Belorn (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was only four ip addresses that edited the AFD but there was multiple votes that semi protection would have eliminated. This person User:Challenging_Duelism wouldn't have been able to create an account and make a single edit that was to make his single vote (at least under that username) - created only to make a single wikipedia edit to vote - Strong Keep - Its clear there was off wiki promotion to keep the article. Youreallycan (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Its clear there was off wiki promotion to keep the article," alleges user Youreallycan. Clear to whom? Please document your unsubstantiated accusation. JohnValeron (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out to actually check the data before acting on it. It might be right that semi-protect should be used, and there was clearly spa used in it. The question is to check if there was more than normally expected. Off wiki promotion is not a good enough reason itself. It should be also be noted that all IP's and SPA did not vote the same (ie keep). just a quick checking (based on a quick look on the users talk) , and the total votes from ip/SPA were: 3 IP keep, 2 SPA keep, 1 IP delete, 1 SPA delete. Based on that, at worst the off wiki promotion gave 3 votes in favor of keep which is about 6% of the total votes. IP/SPA was about 12% of all votes. Like I said in the beginning, this was just a quick check so my numbers might be off by a bit.Belorn (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I would welcome your opinion on whether a DRV would be appropriate given the meat puppetry apparent and the general problem of these articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of a DRV is to review how an AFD is closed. If you don't object to the closing, I'm not sure whether it would be the right venue. (If you do, then it would be, of course.) That said I don't know that I can recommend anything else. Maybe seeking advice on WP:AN or the talk pages for DRV, or deletion process would be helpful? causa sui (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

what's with the tags?

Why do you tag a laboriously-cited point (with overlapping references) is cited as when the appropriate reference is found before or after? You could at least check nearby references, especially since it was obvious that the 14k reference was from the Forbes reference. I mean what other reference would discuss property prices and financial matters in such great deal? (I mean I plan to add more references for Range's financial condition....but Forbes remains the primary financial reference, which you could have simply checked.)

Furthermore, it's ugly to cite the reference many times in a row if there are no interrupting references. This is because a block of text (several paragraphs) summarises the information from Forbes. It would be citekill to cite that reference every paragraph if there are no interrupting references. I have tried to interweave overlapping references where necessary, but please do not tag obviously-cited points with . (Each time you tag a statement I wrote with , when it's obvious which reference the statement is drawing upon, you're accusing me of editorial dishonesty.) I appreciate it if you would be considerate. Thanks. :) elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 10:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't interpret a {{fact}} as accusing you of editorial dishonesty. In general I think it's critical to cite all direct quotes, and to have at least one citation per paragraph. That is, I don't think it's as obvious as you think that a citation in the following paragraph is meant to cover content in preceding paragraphs. But these are general statements. If there are specific tags you have in mind, we can talk about how to make it more clear what is cited to what. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Further protection needed

Hello, sorry to come to you, but as it was you who protected the article Yugoslav Partisans I thought it would perhaps be appropriate to ask you to keep the protection in place for longer, as none consensus was archived, and the protection will resume today. What happend is that I made a big effort in order to archive consensus at talk page, however other participants had not show adequate will in order to discuss the disputes. We didn´t archived consensus in either one point, much less in the several which are in question in the dispute that led to the edit-war. As I am alone I suspect the other participants felt more easy to wait for the protection to resume, and then insert the same disputed edits in the article and edit-war knwing they are in advantage in numbers. The problem is that I exposed lack of sources for the claims, and no new sources were presented. I also provided the adequate policies to be applied, but I was pretty much ignored. To make things even worste, my entire attempt to focus on article content was also ignored, and I was confronted with a series of large posts of personal attacks completely unrelated to article content. At the end even direct trolling against me was added. I absolutely have no doubts that this was an intentional behavior in order to avoid the discussion for the time the article is protected. This is where the discussions took place Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute new subsection. You can see by yourself the evasive attitude towards dispute solution. I tryied to explain the situation here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_and_disruptive_behavior_in_discussion, but for time being I receved only one comment from someone non-involved, which provided support for my view. PRODUCER is an active participant in the discussion who also made no effort in order to archive consensus, and Animate is a usual defensor of DIREKTOR at any ANI report, allways doing his best to discredit anyone reporting him (I will perfectly provide you diffs from past reports where Animate tried the same despute clear evidence of DIREKTOR´s disruption.

Causa sui, I just want someone to help me to enforce a discussion in order to archive consensus and avoid the same old situation that lead us here. They purpously waited 3 days gaming the system and providing no sources, and hoping that by avoiding a serios discussion will archive to insert the same old challenged material in the article. That is why I beleave that it is crutial to keep the article protected in order not to incentivate such behavior in future. If you have time, please see what happend in the discussion and everything will be clear. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)