Revision as of 18:12, 29 April 2010 editGreg L (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,897 edits →"no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda": worldview← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:21, 29 April 2010 edit undoEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →"no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda": cNext edit → | ||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
:Edit summaries are small, and it's difficult to fit a full rationale into them. That's why talk pages -- and polite, ] use of them is so important. If someone's rationale for an edit is not clear to you, it may be better to discuss it with them directly before jumping to conclusions about their motivations. --] (]) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | :Edit summaries are small, and it's difficult to fit a full rationale into them. That's why talk pages -- and polite, ] use of them is so important. If someone's rationale for an edit is not clear to you, it may be better to discuss it with them directly before jumping to conclusions about their motivations. --] (]) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:* Yes, edit summaries are small. The concern underlying these criticisms doesn’t originate over an assumption that you lack ], my concern is over a ever-more-apparent ''pattern'' of edits, like wherein you described ]—arguably the most dangerous U.S. citizen alive—as a “conservative Muslim scholar”. One can still have good faith, but for one reason or another, produce a pattern of ill-suited edits on a particular subject. ] (]) 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | :* Yes, edit summaries are small. The concern underlying these criticisms doesn’t originate over an assumption that you lack ], my concern is over a ever-more-apparent ''pattern'' of edits, like wherein you described ]—arguably the most dangerous U.S. citizen alive—as a “conservative Muslim scholar”. One can still have good faith, but for one reason or another, produce a pattern of ill-suited edits on a particular subject. ] (]) 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
::*Wow. That's outrageous. Especially in light of the comments at ], which closed so recently. As to ], the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. I'm more than a little troubled by this post-AN/I continuation of pre-AN/I behavior.--] (]) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Is there a better category for someone “convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots”? Perhaps just {al-Qaeda}. Or perhaps there is a {supporters of al-Qaeda} or {connected to al-Qaeda}. If so, this might solve the issue once and for all. Without question though, <u>there is an indisputable and profound connection to al-Qaeda</u> since this individual was not merely suspected of helping al-Qaeda, but was convicted of doing so. ] (]) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | Is there a better category for someone “convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots”? Perhaps just {al-Qaeda}. Or perhaps there is a {supporters of al-Qaeda} or {connected to al-Qaeda}. If so, this might solve the issue once and for all. Without question though, <u>there is an indisputable and profound connection to al-Qaeda</u> since this individual was not merely suspected of helping al-Qaeda, but was convicted of doing so. ] (]) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:21, 29 April 2010
edit count | edit summary usage Click here to leave me a new message. Also, remember to always sign your messages with --~~~~
Archives |
/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6, /Archive 7, /Archive 8, /Archive 9 |
Why
are you in the category Wikipdia clerks? Just curious. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously discussed Rjanag's conduct with him at the underlying Simon Dodd AN/I.
The RfC can be found here.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
- (a) posting their own view; and/or
- (b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
Information on the RfC process can be found at:
Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mark Ellmore
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Ellmore. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
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, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nanotech Age
You removed the speedy without looking at the AfD. In the AfD, the author states that he has transwiki-ed the article to the Future Wikia and no longer opposes deletion. If you're an admin, please close the AfD and delete the page; otherwise, please restore the speedy template. —ShadowRanger 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at ShadowRangerRIT's talk page.Message added 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—ShadowRanger 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Forum discussion notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Undo=Revert?. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
latest edit
Yes ... our LA paper source said unnamed. Also, you still seem not to appreciate the difference being "unnamed" and "anonymous". Also, there is only need to say "unnamed" if the RS does. If the RS says "sources say", its fine to say that. Adding unnamed in that instance is a synth and POV issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 above posting on your talk page is "not appropriate"?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Kudos
After reading (some of) the Anwar Awlaki talk page, I commend you for keeping such a cool head. I definitely agree there's a substantial amount of POV problems, and I'm going to see how I can possibly contribute. Fell Gleaming 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Exceptional circumstances
Notwithstanding that Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons is listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Exceptional circumstances, I think you should really consider carefully taking further action at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki. 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 anymore" is uncollegial and seems to run counter toMisplaced Pages:Administrators#Accountability ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed"). I think to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, you should recuse from further administrative action on this article. –xeno 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I don't intend to wheel war or re-block Epeefleche (talk · contribs) unilaterally. However, I will continue to edit the article, more or less with the same goals in mind. My refusal to discuss my user conduct on Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki is in the interest of not fragmenting the discussion; my efforts to encourage others to begin a user conduct RFC on me have not borne much fruit, which is puzzling, as that would create a perfect venue to discuss this matter. As I stated in my email to you, I am happy to discuss all of my editorial conduct, especially my use of sysop tools, provided it is in a meaningful venue. If you think further action is required, I invite you once again to begin a user conduct RFC on me. Let me know how you think we should proceed. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Since nobody seems to be willing to start an RFC, I left a longer comment on the user's article talk page. I suppose that will be the place to discuss this? --causa sui (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to me to be an isolated incident; not ripe for RFCU. I think it would be much easier for you to recuse from administrative action and seek any blocks you feel are necessary at WP:ANI. If your judgment about the block is sound, another administrator will step in. If this doesn't happen, perhaps you were too involved after all. –xeno 14:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- You should definitely continue editing - striving for balance and compliance with BLP on the article; but do so as an editor. –xeno 17:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Please see my comments on his talk page. It seems the BLP policy needs some revision. --causa sui (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It definitely appears there are mixed messages being delivered. –xeno 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Please see my comments on his talk page. It seems the BLP policy needs some revision. --causa sui (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
A re-think is required
I suggest you revisit the undertakings you made when you became an admin, and carefully read WP:ADMIN and the associated policy pages.
It may be better if you have time off from admin duties. I refer to your involved admin action here. It is unacceptable. If you came before ArbCom, there would be serious repercussions. Tony (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate Block and Topic Ban; Abuse of Admin Tools; Failure to Respect Consensus
I believe your block of me and topic ban of me were inappropriate. And an abuse by you of your admin tools. I concur with the unblocking sysop, who wrote: "Causa sui is clearly not an uninvolved party here and this block is highly inappropriate regardless of the circumstances". It is especially troubling that you blocked me two days after twice threatening to use your admin tools in the dispute in violation of WP:INVOLVED, and after having been warned that it would be a violation of the rule. Though I recognize that you are not a newbie, and therefore were well aware of the rule in any event. Similar sentiments have been expressed by others, I note, both above and here. I'm also concerned by your failure throughout to respect consensus in your editing, and your statement -- even after there had been consensus criticism of your actions, that "what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances."--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Willie Soon
Hi, you protected this article yesterday after I filed a BLP request. It's still protected with the scurrilous material left in it, and no other admin has taken the time to address it. If you had a chance, would you take a look at the issue? Thanks Fell Gleaming 06:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Anwar al-Awlaki
I'm becoming increasingly disturbed with regards to your behaviour on this article, especially after your latest revert, with no explanation in your summary or on the talk page as to why you are reverting. I strongly suggest you either stop editing the article and attempt to resolve the dispute through the proper channels, or leave the article altogether. Continuing as you are will result in more drama and more trouble--Jac16888 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- From the talk page it appears there is question over whether or not the information is dubious, and it is your behaviour which I find more troubling, and I'm not the only one who has commented on your questionable actions, other than just Greg and Epee. As you should well know, there is a reason we have so many places could take this, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, WP:RFC, to name a few. you could use any one of these and you should do so--Jac16888 18:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see this
That is, this thread on Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki, and respond at your convenience. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
AN/I: Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui
Hello. This is to let you know that there is now a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you are directly involved in.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- In case you hadn't noticed and wondered why your watchlist had gotten quiet all of a sudden; this eventually meandered on over to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui. –xeno 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- FYI a general policy discussion is ongoing at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#GRAPEVINE and UNINVOLVED. –xeno 13:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back?
To whomever you are! Bearian (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you changed your user name in any case. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Good luck!
I think you acted in good faith, and any error that you may have made has been fully paid for. I frankly agree that there are problems with using the WPost and its anonymous sources here. I suggest you disregard the unforgiving and move ahead with helping to build the project. Don't let yourself be driven away.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You received a lot of flak for it, some of it from me; I also say that the unattributed quote from the WP should not have gone in, but two wrongs don't make it right. For an Admin to abuse his/her powers in the way you did was wrong, and you deserved that flak, IMHO. Having said all that, I take my hat off to you for the way you remained unflappable during the whole affair. You never made angry outbursts or descended into counter-accusations and personal attacks as a result of heavy bombardment. That is admirable. Ohconfucius 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI
You may find this discussion instructive. It is an involved admin who took administrative action; but with the protection button and immediately reported to ANI. –xeno 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- On an entirely unrelated note, have you considered starting to respond here rather than on the other user's talk page? Unfragmented discussions are less confusing. –xeno 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I usually try to copy the text I'm replying to for exactly that reason. --causa sui (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed - but it forces your talk page stalkers to visit another location to see your reply (or even if you replied at all - which I had to do in an above thread and even had to search the lad's archives to find out that you didn't). Not to mention it looks like the user whose message you've copied over is talking to themself ;> –xeno 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda"
Re: - Surely the NY Times article that indicates "she and her new husband were convicted in Switzerland for operating pro-Qaeda Web sites." is some evidence? –xeno 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have problems with the way this category is worded. "Al-Qaeda propagandists" implies (to me, anyway) that the person is actually an al-Qaeda member. This is always going to be problematic since my understanding is that al-Qaeda may be loosely organized and willing to accept any anti-American terror operations being carried out under their banner. If the subject herself would say "I am an al-Qaeda member" that would settle it, but my brief review of the article didn't find anything. Further, the word "propagandists" is highly loaded. Are we going to add Bill O'Reilly to Category:United States Government propagandists? When we do it, it's public relations: when they do it, it's propaganda. That's just about as unambiguously non-neutral as it gets. --causa sui (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, I would suggest nominating the category for renaming at WP:CFD. –xeno 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. Any suggestions? --causa sui (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Propagandists supporting al-Qaeda" ? –xeno 16:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's definitely much better, and if the category were so-named, I would not feel a need to remove it immediately as I did. I still worry about "propagandists".. there has to be something less loaded. I'm hitting up a thesaurus, but if you have any suggestions, I'm ears. --causa sui (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't think of anything without having a category name that is quite convoluted. –xeno 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ideas. Advocates, promoters, proponents, defenders, supporters...of al Qaeda. --causa sui (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Probably best to have this discussion at CFD where we can gather other opinions. If it had to change, I would say "promoters" ... but based on the description at propaganda, I think "propagandists" is still the best fit. Best to take it to CFD and let the community decide. –xeno 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll bring it up there. --causa sui (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Based on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)#The O'Reilly Factor, that might not be such a bad idea, but it's not as self-evident - so WP:BLPCAT would be a concern. –xeno 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- How is it not self-evident, if the other is? This is the double standard I'm talking about. What about Bill Kristol? --causa sui (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, one person was actually convicted of being a propagandist. So that's pretty self-evident, imho. –xeno 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Huh. I thought the source said that they were convicted of supporting, but not of being propagandists.. yeah, the word propaganda doesn't occur in the source. --causa sui (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, one person was actually convicted of being a propagandist. So that's pretty self-evident, imho. –xeno 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Two sides of the same coin. See also –xeno 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I take it this is the relevant part: "A Belgian magistrate has ordered six of 14 people who were detained Thursday on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda to remain in custody, including a woman who has spread militant propaganda on the Internet. All six hold Belgian citizenship." Was it the determination of the court or the Washington Post that she was engaged in "militant propaganda"? The loaded nature of the word is what is making this problematic. Her evil deeds should speak for themselves when we relate the simple facts about them without using such prejudicial language. --causa sui (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also LA Times but behind paywall: . Looks like a longer article. –xeno 17:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I take it this is the relevant part: "A Belgian magistrate has ordered six of 14 people who were detained Thursday on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda to remain in custody, including a woman who has spread militant propaganda on the Internet. All six hold Belgian citizenship." Was it the determination of the court or the Washington Post that she was engaged in "militant propaganda"? The loaded nature of the word is what is making this problematic. Her evil deeds should speak for themselves when we relate the simple facts about them without using such prejudicial language. --causa sui (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Two sides of the same coin. See also –xeno 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Causa sui, your edit summary said “no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda”. It is indisputable that there is a connection so your reasoning was without foundation. It is so terribly hard to pin down anything with logic because you skate sideways and that creates unnecessary confusion in these threads, which comes across as ‘trying to change the subject.’ Greg L (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are small, and it's difficult to fit a full rationale into them. That's why talk pages -- and polite, good faith use of them is so important. If someone's rationale for an edit is not clear to you, it may be better to discuss it with them directly before jumping to conclusions about their motivations. --causa sui (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, edit summaries are small. The concern underlying these criticisms doesn’t originate over an assumption that you lack good faith, my concern is over a ever-more-apparent pattern of edits, like it’s this one wherein you described Anwar al-Awlaki—arguably the most dangerous U.S. citizen alive—as a “conservative Muslim scholar”. One can still have good faith, but for one reason or another, produce a pattern of ill-suited edits on a particular subject. Greg L (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. That's outrageous. Especially in light of the comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui, which closed so recently. As to WP:AGF, the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. I'm more than a little troubled by this post-AN/I continuation of pre-AN/I behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a better category for someone “convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots”? Perhaps just {al-Qaeda}. Or perhaps there is a {supporters of al-Qaeda} or {connected to al-Qaeda}. If so, this might solve the issue once and for all. Without question though, there is an indisputable and profound connection to al-Qaeda since this individual was not merely suspected of helping al-Qaeda, but was convicted of doing so. Greg L (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Supporters of Al-Qaeda would be excellent. I have no problem with that whatsoever. --causa sui (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, Causa sui. With regard to the category ], I note your above 16:11, 29 April 2010 post, where you illustrate a point by advancing an analogy via a rhetorical question: Are we going to add Bill O'Reilly to Category:United States Government propagandists? Am I reading you correctly that it is just a matter of ‘moral relativism’ in discerning a distinction between “Al-Qaeda propagandists” and “United States Government propagandists”. Your post clearly suggests that providing a category for one (in relation to someone convicted of the crime) begs the creation of a category that amounts to a counter-point view against terrorism. No? I further note your When we do it, it's public relations: when they do it, it's propaganda. It’s hard to escape the obvious thrust of your argument. Is this really your worldview? Greg L (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)