I think that User : Causa sui has earned chastisement for peremptorily impugning those who would defend Epeefleche with his comment " " & I don't know who is the actual meatpuppeteer " ."
22.
Other than the thing from 2005 ( when protection was still in the " blocking policy " ! ); this appears to be a very isolated incident so hopefully no action is required except some clarification to Causa sui about appropriate recusal.
23.
I was absolutelly right by asking for the protection to be kept while discussion is not finished, however User : Causa sui beleaving in good-faith towards the users, talk ) 08 : 06, 24 December 2011 ( UTC)
24.
In Sartre's account, man is a creature haunted by a vision of " completion ", what Sartre calls the " ens causa sui ", literally " a being that causes itself ", which many religions and philosophers identify as God.
25.
This is mitigated by his use of WP : BLPN to seek involvement from others-though, as noted, that's more for editorial involvement and he should have come to ANI . On the factual point, it seems people generally disagree with Causa sui's interpretation of whether there was actually a BLP issue arising from the facts.
26.
:: : Then consider my below motion an invitation to a suitably uninvolved admin to prepare a closing summary in wrapping this up . ( There is of course, Causa sui's offer to self-certify an RFCU if you desire to take this to further dispute resolution, but I would advise against it . . . ) talk 02 : 22, 21 April 2010 ( UTC)
27.
The comment Causa sui removed, " According to an unnamed U . S . official al-Awlaki is " working actively to kill Americans " ", ( washington post ), I have seen this type of unnamed claimed rubbish thing a lot from the Post, I see the comment has not been replaced but there still are two such " unnamed claims " in the lede, one cited to the washington post and the other to the LA times, very poor claims in a BLP, the article has been edited to a terrible attack piece with multiple BLP issues . . talk ) 21 : 04, 22 April 2010 ( UTC)
28.
In lifting the block and the topic ban, Sysop Jac16888 wrote : " Causa sui is clearly not an uninvolved party here, and this block is highly inappropriate regardless of the circumstances . " Sysop Xeno had similar and additional criticisms, as did the broad consensus of editors commenting below the block . Causa was somewhat short of contrite, and somewhat less than sensitive to the consensus criticism of his actions, replying : " [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = User _ talk : Epeefleche & diff = 356547496 & oldid = 356541955 what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances ."
29.
As his announcement in talk page says, the still-ongoing FA review had several editors saying that the current version was so bad that it should be rollbacked ( like WMC later did ) : Taxman FrancisTyers [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Wikipedia : Featured _ article _ removal _ candidates / Cold _ fusion & diff = next & oldid = 32913758 Henry Flower Causa Sui [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Wikipedia : Featured _ article _ removal _ candidates / Cold _ fusion & diff = next & oldid = 32923250 Just a Tag Anville [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Wikipedia : Featured _ article _ removal _ candidates / Cold _ fusion & diff = next & oldid = 33385389, Pjacobi Geogre said that the " revert or not " question belong to somewhere else [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Wikipedia : Featured _ article _ removal _ candidates / Cold _ fusion & diff = next & oldid = 33649214.
30.
Instead he has moved a comment I made in reply to User : causa sui against my express wishes, and in violation of Wikipedia : Indentation guidelines, attempted to start a debate about a statement of mine that was irrelevant to the text being discussed [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Talk : Adam _ Levine & diff = 447507777 & oldid = 447484674, repeatedly ignored my request that he explain what he sees wrong with the proposed text, again proposed versions which use direct quotations without inline attribution ( as required under WP : INTEXT ), and complained that the version proposed by me doesn't state that Levine is Jewish, when it self-evidently does Finally, after I suggested that I would edit the article anyway, unless it was explained what the problem was, Bus stop finally replied by suggesting that my wording " " Levine is Jewish "'like "'his father, and "'like "'his grandfather on his mother's side " " was somehow unacceptable on the grounds that I am " insisting on taking two sourced assertions and writing them as one assertion " . [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Talk : Adam _ Levine & diff = 447932283 & oldid = 447932116 Frankly, I cannot see any logic in this at all, given that it can all be sourced from the Jewish Chronicle article, as Bus stop is well aware.
